Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I beleive he shared Jeffersons view on “property”
Click to expand...
What did you mean by this? Or you saying that Dr. Paul is pro-slavery? As you put the word “property” in scare quotes, it shows that you do not mean this literally. I ask because I am curoius just how far some of you will go in your rhetoric.
 
MMolloy said:
He is not running for State Office… He has and is running for FEDERAL Office. I have informed you already what his position is for the office he is running for.
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: What do they call that particular pass in bullfighting? Is it the Veronica or the Navarra?
 
Big_Ro said:
So, you’re suggesting that the USA has been fomenting war throughout the world in order to slow down population growth? Was the policy promulgated at area 51?
Click to expand...
No, the US has been fomenting war across the globe as a result of our adoption of Keynes economic policies at the Bretton Woods Conference.
 
Big_Ro said:
Perry is the New Frontrunner
A new Gallup poll shows Texas Gov. Rick Perry has jumped to the front of the Republican presidential race with 29%, followed by Mitt Romney at 17%, Ron Paul at 13% and Michele Bachmann at 10%. All other contenders are below 5% in support.

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds Perry at 33%, Romney at 20%, Bachmann at 16%, Newt Gingrich at 8% and Herman Cain and Ron Paul at 6%.

Key finding: “There was some thought that Perry’s entry would actually help Romney because it would lead to a split in the conservative vote between Perry and Bachmann but Perry is now winning those voters by such a wide margin that it doesn’t even matter.”

politicalwire.com/

gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx

publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/perry-leads-nationally.html
Click to expand...
Ya, and around this time last cycle Guiliani was kicking everyone else’s rump…
 
TMC said:
He is sometimes accused of being a truther, mostly because he has made some statements that on the surface seem sympathetic to the truther community - but he has repeatedly denied that he himself is a truther.
Click to expand...
I think that his comments are generally along the lines that people have a right to be skeptical of the 911 report, since elements of it have been proven to be false. I don’t think he buys the “Bush organized to blow up the towers himself and arranged for thousands of government employees to lie and cover it up”.
 
Big_Ro said:
I am well aware of the history. I think you’re ignoring that FDR was very much in favor of entering the European conflict long before 1941. He simply didn’t have the support from Congress and it’s widely believed that the American people were also not supportive of our entry. The horror of WWI was still fresh for many. Are you forgetting the Lend/Lease Policy. There is a body of scholarship which suggests that FDR embarked on this policy as a means to force our entanglement in the War. There’s also a long running conspiracy theory that he knew ahead of time that the Japanese intended to bomb Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen in order to get in the War. It’s very, very similar to the oft repeated conspiracy that GWB did likewise regarding 9-11. As far as the policy of Containment being a bulwork against a conflict with the then Superpower USSR. I think your almost right. It was actually the Policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD, aptly named ) that is more widely credited with preventing a nuclear conflict. Our policy of non-proliferation is also widely credited with preventing a nuclear conflict. And, for what it’s worth, Ron Paul does not seem to think that we should be allowed to tell Iran that they are not allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Containment, on the other hand, was a policy which allowed for proxy wars between the two superpowers that would not or should not lead to an all out nuclear war. So, Containment didn’t prevent War between the two nuclear powers it allowed for a smaller grade War to take place. The success of the policy is controversial. FDR was able to get us in to the European conflict because the entire attitude of Americans had completely changed after Pearl Harbor. The isolationism and fear of foreign entanglements that had previously inhibited American Foreign policy prior was shattered with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And, these conflicts lead directly to a new American paradigm which eminated from Brettonwoods CT after WWII. America would henceforth be the world economic, political and military leader. The Soviets took exception. So, whatever isolationism that had existed before was left behind. If you or Ron Paul want to suggest a return, fine. But you can’t pretend that GWB somehow put it asunder. I’m no fan of Bush Doctrine, but GWB did not break with any policy. He maybe extended it beyond it’s limits.
Click to expand...
I’m not interested in conspiracy theories regarding FDR. To claim that the Bush Doctrine is somehow an extension of containment shows a lack of understanding of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush threat of war upon nations that had not attacked us was unprecedented. Truman never threatened war to stop Stalin from building nukes after Russia tested one in 1949. LBJ did not threaten war on China when it exploded a nuclear weapon in 1964. While it had been U.S. policy to prevent the spread of nukes, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan had all acquired nukes without serious retribution from the U.S. Yet Bush put Iran, Iraq, and North Korea on notice. Should any acquire nukes, they risked a preemptive strike and war to “disarm” them and effect “regime change” even though the President has no authority to issue those threats and the Constitution does not empower him to launch preventive wars. “We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name,” President Bush told us. In a manichean world, this kind of statement is naive. In Afghanistan, America was supported by Iran, Pakistan, and a Northern Alliance led by warlords guilty of mass murder. In WWII we were allied with Stalin, in the Gulf with Assad, in the Cold War with the shah and Pinochet. And why cannot Cuba, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea be deterred as were Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China? Here is the reason, according to the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSS: Deterrence…is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations…Our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States…to prevent us from deterring or repelling the agressive behavior of rogue states." Now, in theory this may or may not be correct, but in practice, deterrence has worked. With the exception of Korea, 1950, where Stalin and Kim Il Song, believing we would fight, miscalculated, deterrence has never failed us. In dealing with NATIONS, containment has never failed us. We contained Stalin and Mao, though both had large arsenals of nukes. Ron Paul’s position on a nuclear Iran is based on this reading of history as well as his respect for the Constitution. The Bush Doctrine does not even come close to being an extension of containment. It has often been described as “Reaganite” but that is an affront to Reagan. I think the Bush Doctrine can best be described as “Wilsonian.” It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, only we Americans now assert a right to intervene anywhere to impose democracy.
 
Big_Ro said:
You’re right I shouldn’t have brought it up because it’s off topic which is a violation of forum rules. It’s sometimes hard to know where the line is. I am in possesion of no proof since I am not a member of governent nor an employee of any intelligence agency. I guess I could turn it around and ask you what proof you have that it wasn’t, but I’m afraid you would quote/link to all sorts of blogs, websites or alternative news agencies that purport to have “incontrovertible” evidence that it was a body double. But I’ve been down that road on a bygone thread regarding the Presidents supposedly questionable place of birth or citizenship status. I have no time for it. You are, of course, welcome to your beliefs and I respect your right to have them. God bless.
Click to expand...
The difference is that I’m not stating that I KNOW that it was his double, it is simply my opinion. But you, uncharitably, decided to attempt belittlement because I have an opinion outside that ordained as legitimate… something inside the Newt Gingrich to Hillary Clinton political continuum. I also have little to no interest where Barack Obama was born… i.e. I’m much more concerned with whether he’s a Keynesian than a Kenyan. youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Good Lord. bob, even the “lamestream media” admits that it was Paul’s 2008 campaign that planted the seeds that eventually gave root to the Tea Party. Sorry you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge it.

washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/13/tea-party-godfather-ron-paul-running-president/
businessinsider.com/ron-paul-tea-partiers-and-congress-did-they-want-sp-downgrade-is-that-treason-2011-8
usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2011/08/18/tea-party-champion-ron-paul-takes-bow-in-new-hampshire
msnbc.msn.com/id/43019901/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/tea-party-godfather-ron-paul-declares-bid/
huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html
Click to expand...
I’m glad you espanded your reading choices to include MSNBC and the Huffpo, since you were so against them in another thread:

"I don’t have cable and I am at work while Rush is on the radio.

I guess that means I come up with my positions independently.

I subscribe or listen to:

The Wall Street Journal
Heritage Foundation
CATO Institute
Mises Institute
Gerald Celente
Jim Rogers
Al Cresta and his guests
Mother Angelica
David Ramsey

Among various other things."
 
Big_Ro said:
Code: 
  .   And, these conflicts lead directly to a new American paradigm which eminated from Brettonwoods CT after WWII.  America would henceforth be the world economic, political and military leader.  The Soviets took exception.   So, whatever isolationism that had existed before was left behind.  If you or Ron Paul want to suggest a return, fine.  But you can't pretend that GWB somehow put it asunder.  I'm no fan of Bush Doctrine, but GWB did not break with any policy.  He maybe extended it beyond it's limits.
Click to expand...
I would say that things happened a bit differently than described above - which makes it seem like the Cold War was really a Soviet response to American actions. The Cold War could be said to have started during WW2 rather than after, which you seem to imply. Also, it wasn’t quite a case of America asserting its role as a superpower and the Soviets “taking exception.” The Soviets were angling for territorial gains as early as the Yalta conference, with their demand for allied approval of their occupation of Poland, e.g., and the installation of a communist regime there - ensuring the enslavement of the Polish people for decades.

I agree with you in that containment probably helped avoid a nuclear war between the superpowers, instead resulting in smaller “hot” wars around the globe. I do think that Reagan did go beyond containment in seeking to “role back” or undermine communism around the globe. He did this by outspending the Soviets on defense, pursuing SDI, and working with the Pope and solidarity movement to undermine the communists in Poland. (interesting in that Poland seems to have been the battleground for both the beginning stages of the Cold war as well as the end of it). It could be said that Reagan sought to destablize the communist regimes in eastern Europe and some elsewhere such as in central America. I would regard the foreign policy of GWB as a departure from Reagan in that it focussed more on installing democracies in Islamic countries as opposed to destabilizing communist regimes. I would be hard-pressed to say that Reagan’s foreign policy would have resulted in him invading Iraq for example, to install a democracy. The foreign policy of GWB was not containment, but containment wasn’t isolationism. Abandoning the foreign policy of GWB isn’t necessarily a return to isolationism

Ishii
 
sub_rosa said:
I’m glad you espanded your reading choices to include MSNBC and the Huffpo, since you were so against them in another thread:

"I don’t have cable and I am at work while Rush is on the radio.

I guess that means I come up with my positions independently.

I subscribe or listen to:

The Wall Street Journal
Heritage Foundation
CATO Institute
Mises Institute
Gerald Celente
Jim Rogers
Al Cresta and his guests
Mother Angelica
David Ramsey

Among various other things."
Click to expand...
I generally don’t pay attention to MSNBC or Huffpo. I simply cited them becuase even they had the integrity to admit that Ron Paul planted the seeds for the movement that became the Tea Party. Everyone seems to concur except for a few diehard Republican apologists.
 
kubark said:
I’m not interested in conspiracy theories regarding FDR. To claim that the Bush Doctrine is somehow an extension of containment shows a lack of understanding of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush threat of war upon nations that had not attacked us was unprecedented. Truman never threatened war to stop Stalin from building nukes after Russia tested one in 1949. LBJ did not threaten war on China when it exploded a nuclear weapon in 1964. While it had been U.S. policy to prevent the spread of nukes, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan had all acquired nukes without serious retribution from the U.S. Yet Bush put Iran, Iraq, and North Korea on notice. Should any acquire nukes, they risked a preemptive strike and war to “disarm” them and effect “regime change” even though the President has no authority to issue those threats and the Constitution does not empower him to launch preventive wars. “We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name,” President Bush told us. In a manichean world, this kind of statement is naive. In Afghanistan, America was supported by Iran, Pakistan, and a Northern Alliance led by warlords guilty of mass murder. In WWII we were allied with Stalin, in the Gulf with Assad, in the Cold War with the shah and Pinochet. And why cannot Cuba, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea be deterred as were Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China? Here is the reason, according to the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSS: Deterrence…is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations…Our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States…to prevent us from deterring or repelling the agressive behavior of rogue states." Now, in theory this may or may not be correct, but in practice, deterrence has worked. With the exception of Korea, 1950, where Stalin and Kim Il Song, believing we would fight, miscalculated, deterrence has never failed us. In dealing with NATIONS, containment has never failed us. We contained Stalin and Mao, though both had large arsenals of nukes. Ron Paul’s position on a nuclear Iran is based on this reading of history as well as his respect for the Constitution. The Bush Doctrine does not even come close to being an extension of containment. It has often been described as “Reaganite” but that is an affront to Reagan. I think the Bush Doctrine can best be described as “Wilsonian.” It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, only we Americans now assert a right to intervene anywhere to impose democracy.
Click to expand...
Interesting post, but I think you’re arguing with yourself. First of all, I don’t understand why you keep pushing the Bush Doctrine on me. I vehemnetly disagree with the Bush Doctrine. I, sorry to say, do not find your argument against it all that compelling, but I apprciate your obvious knowledge and insight on the situation. My opposition to the Doctrine is far more fundemental.

Secondly, I never said that the Bush Doctrine was an extension of the Containment Policy. This is why I say you’re arguing with yourself. Honestly, I really can’t tell whether your winning or losing, but good luck nonetheless. What I at least implied and now will state clearly is that I believe that the Bush Doctrine was an extension of the Policy of Internationalism that is rooted in the Brettonwoods Conference of 1948. The policy perspective that emerged from this conference was a paradigm shift in American Foreign Policy. The Policy of Containment is an outgrowth of the new Internationalism. It is this new Internationalism that put asunder the isolationalism that underpinned to one degree or another American Foreign Policy prior to WWII. Brettonwoods esconced firmly and deep within the foundation of American Foreign Policy a belief that entanglement with other countries was not only necessary but a key requirement of our goal of spreading and defending democracy and western capitalism throughout the world. You can disagree with it and criticize it. I have. The political, economic, and military interdependence that was forged from the new paradigm resulted in the establishment of many international organizations such as the IMF, World Bank and NATO. However, it was a standing policy that we would not be an aggressor. In fact, we entered in to a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. It can be successfully argued, I think, that this pact belied the very real and mutual animosity and aggression between the two superpowers. It manifested itself in the various proxy wars. Bush extended beyond the limits of this new internationalism by putting asunder the concept on the USA being a non-aggressor, non-conquering nation. A benovelent Hegemon if you will. The implications of that policy are now becoming evident. History and God will judge.

So, let’s review, I do not support the Bush Doctrine. I did not and do not espouse a perception of the Bush Doctrine as being an extension of the Policy of Containment. I hope this is now clear.

Finally, I think its a bit two dimensional to suggest that the USA stood idly by while those many countries that you mentioned developed nuclear weaponry. Our efforts to prevent the spread and development of these weapons may not have been overt or obvious, but it was very real, costly and vigorous. Any reading of the history of the CIA reveals a good part of our efforts. To suggest that America got in to bed with dictators and despots as a result of our Policy of Containment is hardly new or revelatory. It is a well known and well worn critique. It doesn’t make it less legitimate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top