T
tomarin
Guest
I agree, it’s hard to find common ground. But I keep trying.
- Status
T
tomarin
Guest
I watched a long exchange between him and Piers Morgan on CNN last night. He had a chance to explain his views at length and defend them wherever the interviewer questioned some of them. It was interesting. But no amount of exposure is going to make those views more acceptable to most people. He’s neither fish nor fowl.He nearly beat Bachmann in the Straw poll, and no one iwll give him attention except Jon Stewart. This angers me
K
kubark
Guest
“The Church specifically said that a candidates support or non-support of war…” Let’s stop right here. The Church is talking about JUST WAR not “war” in general. Nice try, but you are not going to slip that by me. Abortion and Euthanasia are components of “pro-life” but a true “pro-life” position must take into consideration a candidate’s position on foreign policy as well as their understanding of economics. The Catholic meaning of “pro-life” includes much more than just beginning of life and end of life issues. Not to mention that Ron Paul has the kind of voting record that puts Constitution ahead of Party - the very kind of voting record that is needed in any candidate serious about ending legal abortion.
D
dwood
Guest
Greetings,
After the straw poll I’ve decided to give a closer look at the top 2 finishers. Obviously Bachmann is the bigger name candidate, but it looks like she’s also the lesser conservative.
Voting records, support of smaller government, a former doctor rather than a lawyer, that’s been Ron Paul’s thing for a long time, and he doesn’t seem to pander to make his name bigger.
I guess my question is, why do you choose Bachmann over Paul? I’d like to here some honest answers, and please refrain from giving a “just because” answer.
thanks!
After the straw poll I’ve decided to give a closer look at the top 2 finishers. Obviously Bachmann is the bigger name candidate, but it looks like she’s also the lesser conservative.
Voting records, support of smaller government, a former doctor rather than a lawyer, that’s been Ron Paul’s thing for a long time, and he doesn’t seem to pander to make his name bigger.
I guess my question is, why do you choose Bachmann over Paul? I’d like to here some honest answers, and please refrain from giving a “just because” answer.
thanks!
K
kubark
Guest
Wrong. If Catholics voted like Catholics we would have candidates (regardless of Party) that reflected Catholic principles. The lesser of two evils is ALWAYS an evil, regardless of how “lessened” it is. And if the Catholic bishops acted like Catholic bishops, there would be far more excommunicated “Catholic” politicians. I would never vote for the lesser of two evils. I would write-in the most Catholic candidate if it came to that.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church never declared that Iraq or Afghanistan wars as unjust and whether you want to believe it or not, Pope Benedict’s statement about war not rising to the level of abortion was made when the Iraqi and Afghani wars were in progress. . If he had wanted to say they were unjust and declare a Catholic could not support a politician who supported these wars he had ample opportunity to do so. In fact the official Vatican position today is that we should stay in both Iraq and Afghanistan until they have been stabilized. . This does not, however, mean that a Catholic cannot support for a candidate who supports immediate withdrawal as as with support of the war, support of withdrawal is left up to our prudential judgment.
. Ron Paul puts his personal interpretation of the Constitution ahead of party. This leads to such bizarre stands as believing the Civil Rights Act was an unconstitutional infringement upon the rights of people to own property-an idea that is repugnant to the vast majority of Americans.
T
Tigg
Guest
Are we held accountable for the way others vote, or only ourselves??
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Assuming that voting for a Republican or a Democrat are the only valid choices. It is a bill of goods that has been sold, no-so-ironically, by Republican and Democrat politicians and their media cheerleaders. They come up with clever and dreadfully unintellectual arguements like “If you vote for a third party, you are helping Obama (Bush) get re-elected!” “Voting third party is a waste of a vote”. Its nonsense. People need to start using their brains as God intended. Both Republicans and Democrats are whoafully short of the fullness of Catholic moral and social teaching.
K
kubark
Guest
The Pope never said they were just wars either. And the fact that he did not say that they were unjust does not mean they were unjust. There are conditions that must be met for a war to be deemed “just” and I highly doubt that the war in Iraq met those criteria. Now whether we stay in Iraq or Afghanistan is a political issue not an issue of faith or morals, and the Pope is entitled to his opinion like the rest of us and in this context I think the Pope is referring to our humanitarian and rebuilding efforts rather than any the use of force.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
When I stand before Jesus at the particular judgement, He will ask me to explain MY vote, not anyone else’s. He is going to ask why I supported politicians who spent future generations of people’s money to make bombs to blow up innocent civilians from unmanned drones piloted from thousands of miles away. I don’t plan on having to explain that if I cast my vote for the person who I believe best reflects the essence of Catholic moral and social teaching.
K
kubark
Guest
The Pope never said they were just wars either. And the fact that he did not say that they were unjust does not mean they were just. There are conditions that must be met for a war to be deemed “just” and I highly doubt that the war in Iraq met those criteria. Now whether we stay in Iraq or Afghanistan is a political issue not an issue of faith or morals, and the Pope is entitled to his opinion like the rest of us and in this context I think the Pope is referring to our humanitarian and rebuilding efforts rather than any the use of force. As to whether a particular amendment is constitutional, that determination should not be made by reference to how popular or “repugnant” it is with the populace, but by reference to the Consititution and the founding principles in the Declaration.
E
estesbob
Guest
He will ask you why when you had a chance to stop the slaughter of 1.2 million children year you preferred to sit on the sidelines and pout.
A
AugustV
Guest
Sadly, Ron Paul is one of the few candidates who does put America first. He clearly understands the conspiracy behind the candidates we are “given the choice” to elect. It should now be clear to all but the most analytically impaired that most Republicans and every Democrat are controlled by the real powers determining the destiny of our nation. Finally, we have Paul, a man who understands that our Presidents are picked for us by the Bilderbergers, Council on Foreign Relations, and mega-bankers who run the world.
By making Paul a “fringe” candidate, the media (The major media are part of the CFRs and other cabals that seek to diminish the power of America) protects the interest of the puppeteers. Even conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh do not permit discussions of the CFR and Bilderberger conspiracies on his show. Why? Because you can’t make this stuff up. No thoughtful person can believe that Obama is actually running the country. Like most recent presidents, Obama is managed by the real powers (George Soros, for example) to whom he owes an enormous debt. Interestingly, Rick Perry has already been spotted as the choice of the Bilderberger Group. Beware the globalists my brothers and sisters.
By making Paul a “fringe” candidate, the media (The major media are part of the CFRs and other cabals that seek to diminish the power of America) protects the interest of the puppeteers. Even conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh do not permit discussions of the CFR and Bilderberger conspiracies on his show. Why? Because you can’t make this stuff up. No thoughtful person can believe that Obama is actually running the country. Like most recent presidents, Obama is managed by the real powers (George Soros, for example) to whom he owes an enormous debt. Interestingly, Rick Perry has already been spotted as the choice of the Bilderberger Group. Beware the globalists my brothers and sisters.
K
kubark
Guest
And I will respond I voted for Ron Paul, the most pro-life, pro-constitution candidate in 2012 and the only one with the voting record to prove it.
G
gilliam
Guest
A
AntalKalnoky
Guest
Why smaller Government? Why “Free Market”? Those are the key things that caused All our National Crises now: Incredibly Rich Corporations and People paying Zero Taxes year after year, and getting Massive Welfare: Exxon Mobil and GE. Exxon-Mobil has had the Largest Profits in World History, paid Zero USA Taxes, and receiving oveer $100 Million Tax Dollars Welfare? That has been USA Policy since 2002 Dick Chaney. Ditto GE. Why cut Education, Police, Teachers? Know SSA and Medicare are Both Self Supporting Programs, Net Positive still; the opposite of the False Charges? Unregulated, Never ever Prosecuted Wall Street few Insiders caused the Entire World Economic Collapse, as in 1987. Multi-Billlions Violations of Many SEC and Fraud laws, Never Prosecuted. Only convict small robberies, not The Biggest? And why not Enforce Tax Laws on the Richest Billionaires?
Know Social Security Adminstration Continues to have Less than 1% Overhead, Total? I worked for it for 17 Years. Know Ron Paul's SSA reform would Greatly Increase Federal Tax Payments To Big Profit Insurance Companies? Why Tax Money to the Very Richest, most Profitable?
D
dwood
Guest
I appreciate the response, and while it does bring up some valid points, those points are for a different discussion. I just want to peer in to peoples minds and figure out why from a conservative view point they find Bachmann a better candidate. By all I’ve seen it doesn’t seem to add up.
thank you and god bless
thank you and god bless
L
losh14
Guest
I’d have a difficult time with either but would more likely go with Paul. For the present situation of the country, I’m less concerned about social policy and far more concerned about fiscal and economic policy.
I think Bachmann doesn’t have the experience, and I’m not anxious to see yet another bloody lawyer in the White House. I don’t care that she belonged to a denomination that still holds the Pope to be the antichrist (half of them do but don’t really push that forward), I’m more concerned that her worldview is colored by an us vs them mentality. Paul’s appears to be as well, though I think his is at least politically aligned. From some fo the things Bachmann has said, she strikes me as one who would approach the Oval Office as her personal crusade against Satan, and focus disproportionately on moral issues. She has neither the skill, nor expertise, nor desire to focus on the fiscal necessities. That’s why she doesn’t appear to be a conservative, the definition of which is one who wants a smaller government that has less of a role in personal affairs.
Paul bothers me with his laissez-faire approach, and his desire to return to the gold standard. The latter is impractical at best but likely considerably destructive and unnecessary, and may be entirely useless without some form of absolute budgetary constraint imposed upon the Congress. I’m for a smaller government but I don’t see the wisdom of abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS.
I think neither of these candidates will be able to fare in a Democrat-dominated Congress, and I think they may prove divisive within their own party. I’d much rather see Romney, who has actually worked in business and has carried an executive role, get the nod. I think he’d have the best chance against Obama.
I think Bachmann doesn’t have the experience, and I’m not anxious to see yet another bloody lawyer in the White House. I don’t care that she belonged to a denomination that still holds the Pope to be the antichrist (half of them do but don’t really push that forward), I’m more concerned that her worldview is colored by an us vs them mentality. Paul’s appears to be as well, though I think his is at least politically aligned. From some fo the things Bachmann has said, she strikes me as one who would approach the Oval Office as her personal crusade against Satan, and focus disproportionately on moral issues. She has neither the skill, nor expertise, nor desire to focus on the fiscal necessities. That’s why she doesn’t appear to be a conservative, the definition of which is one who wants a smaller government that has less of a role in personal affairs.
Paul bothers me with his laissez-faire approach, and his desire to return to the gold standard. The latter is impractical at best but likely considerably destructive and unnecessary, and may be entirely useless without some form of absolute budgetary constraint imposed upon the Congress. I’m for a smaller government but I don’t see the wisdom of abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS.
I think neither of these candidates will be able to fare in a Democrat-dominated Congress, and I think they may prove divisive within their own party. I’d much rather see Romney, who has actually worked in business and has carried an executive role, get the nod. I think he’d have the best chance against Obama.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I’ll be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries, and may write him in for the general election if he doesn’t get the republican nomination. I am considering Perry as an alternative, but want to know his views on foreign policies first, and of course ‘tidbits’ of news have already started coming out that could cause second thoughts.
T
Tigg
Guest
It was a rhetorical question, but thanks for answering. My thoughts exactly!!
- Status