Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[ishii]

Does that mean our Pope is too old?
If he’s not electable, it will probably mean another unelectable…
Aren’t we all?
He is pro-life.

Didn’t know we were electing a Pope, thought it was president. Look, regarding your back and forth with Estesbob, you didn’t answer his question: how many pro-life justices have been nominated by Democrats?

Also, Ron Paul is a 75 year old joke. He won’t get the nomination. He won’t get elected president as a 3rd party nominee. The next president will be either Obama or a Republican who is electable. The Republican who is electable will be much, much, more likely to nominate a pro-life justice to join Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito - who are ALL NOMINATED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. That is reality.

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Didn’t know we were electing a Pope, thought it was president. Look, regarding your back and forth with Estesbob, you didn’t answer his question: how many pro-life justices have been nominated by Democrats?

Also, Ron Paul is a 75 year old joke. He won’t get the nomination. He won’t get elected president as a 3rd party nominee. The next president will be either Obama or a Republican who is electable. The Republican who is electable will be much, much, more likely to nominate a pro-life justice to join Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito - who are ALL NOMINATED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. That is reality.

Ishii

You left out some nominees by republican presidents. Prior to the two most recent, 7 were nominated by republicans and 2 were nominated by democrats. That is reality.

As I said, overlook Ron and see who gets the nomination and whether or not people will find them electable.

 

[jam070406]

Didn’t know we were electing a Pope, thought it was president. Look, regarding your back and forth with Estesbob, you didn’t answer his question: how many pro-life justices have been nominated by Democrats?

Also, Ron Paul is a 75 year old joke. He won’t get the nomination. He won’t get elected president as a 3rd party nominee. The next president will be either Obama or a Republican who is electable. The Republican who is electable will be much, much, more likely to nominate a pro-life justice to join Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito - who are ALL NOMINATED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. That is reality.

Ishii

Too bad the other Republicans are bigger jokes.
It’ll be more of the same.

 

[Mimi]

Vote for Ron Paul, take away votes from the Republican nominee, help Obama win re-election, then Obama can give us two more pro-abortion supreme court justices guarenteeing abortion on demand for another 40 years. Good job guys!

Ishii

Ben Franklin said, “We must hang together, or assuredly, we shall all hang separately”.

Also: Lincoln: A house divided will not stand.

 

[estesbob]

Okay, what about Ron Paul? Would he appoint a justice according to your examples?

Trust them one more time. They appointed 7 of the 9, previous to the 2 most recent appointees, but only need ‘1’ more. :hey_bud:

I would vote for him if he got the republcian nomination

How many pro-life judges were apointed to the USc by a democrat?

 

[ishii]

You left out some nominees by republican presidents. Prior to the two most recent, 7 were nominated by republicans and 2 were nominated by democrats. That is reality.

As I said, overlook Ron and see who gets the nomination and whether or not people will find them electable.

After Roe v Wade: O"conner (ouch!), Scalia (good), Kennedy (bad, but after the attempt to nominate Bork and then Ginsburg, and with a solid Democrat catholic majority in the senate - what could the GOP do?), Souter - (ouch. But he was an unknown quantity - no guarentees with any nominee, except those who come from a Democrat i.e. 100% pro-abortion.), Clarence Thomas (good), Alito (good), Thomas, (good).

You’re right, seven were from the GOP. All you’ve proven is that there is such a thing as politics. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but vote for him in the general as a 3rd party candidate and you’ll help guarentee 100% pro-abortion justices.

Question: If coming up in the next presidency, Ruth Bader Ginsburg retired, who would you want to pick her successor, Obama or the eventual GOP nominee?

Ishii

 

[Seamus_L]

The way our society keeps moving, in another decade, someone who’s considered a moderate Republican now will be viewed as too extreme and unelectable then.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

After Roe v Wade: O"conner (ouch!), Scalia (good), Kennedy (bad, but after the attempt to nominate Bork and then Ginsburg, and with a solid Democrat catholic majority in the senate - what could the GOP do?), Souter - (ouch. But he was an unknown quantity - no guarentees with any nominee, except those who come from a Democrat i.e. 100% pro-abortion.), Clarence Thomas (good), Alito (good), Thomas, (good).

You’re right, seven were from the GOP. All you’ve proven is that there is such a thing as politics. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but vote for him in the general as a 3rd party candidate and you’ll help guarentee 100% pro-abortion justices.

Question: If coming up in the next presidency, Ruth Bader Ginsburg retired, who would you want to pick her successor, Obama or the eventual GOP nominee?

Ishii

Clarence Thomas interview

Thomas believes the real issue being fought over during his confirmation was all but unspoken. “The issue was abortion. That’s the issue today,” Thomas says. “That was the elephant in the room.”

“In what sense?” Kroft asks.

“That was it. That’s the issue. That is the issue that people apparently are so upset about. That you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now,” Thomas says.

“Your opponents were afraid that you might at some point rule against or help overturn Roe V. Wade?” Kroft asks.

“I have no idea what they thought. But they knew one thing. They weren’t in charge of me. So, I wasn’t gonna do their bidding,” Thomas says.

Thomas believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the Constitution and should be left to the states to decide. If that were to become the majority opinion on the court, abortion could be outlawed in 40 percent of the country.

“One of the most surprising things in the book, in it, you say, ‘Like most Americans, I had mixed emotions about abortion. I wasn’t comfortable telling others what to do in that difficult circumstance,’” Kroft remarks.

“There are tough decisions we have to make in life. And of course, we all feel about that. People think that because you might agree or disagree with them on certain things, that you don’t have that concern about people who are left with tough choices. You do have that concern. But none of that had anything to do with what’s in the Constitution. The point is simply this. The Constitution is what matters. Not my personal views, whatever they may be. And I don’t go around expressing them on that issue,” Thomas says.

The Constitution doesn’t prohibit abortion any more than it allows it, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says in a television news interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Scalia told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that he may be conservative, but he is not biased on issues that come before the court. “I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases,” Scalia said in excerpts released Thursday.

“On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were … trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion,” Scalia told correspondent Lesley Stahl.

Read more: foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352501,00.html#ixzz1TpGrCdKa

 

[Big_Ro]

Just out of curiosity, how is it that this thread has not been taken down? Please understand, I have no problem with the nature of the thread and certainly encourage political participation. It makes almost no difference to me whether you support this or that candidate. I’m just trying to understand the rules of the road a little better. It has always been my understanding that it was a no-no to advocate for a particular candidate. This thread,at least to some extent seems to be doing that. So, I figure I’m missing some subtlety in the rules and how they are applied. Could anyone please enlighten me?

 

[bellasbane]

Just out of curiosity, how is it that this thread has not been taken down? Please understand, I have no problem with the nature of the thread and certainly encourage political participation. It makes almost no difference to me whether you support this or that candidate. I’m just trying to understand the rules of the road a little better. It has always been my understanding that it was a no-no to advocate for a particular candidate. This thread,at least to some extent seems to be doing that. So, I figure I’m missing some subtlety in the rules and how they are applied. Could anyone please enlighten me?

Good question. Have you tried contacting the moderator about this?

 

[Indyann]

Just out of curiosity, how is it that this thread has not been taken down? Please understand, I have no problem with the nature of the thread and certainly encourage political participation. It makes almost no difference to me whether you support this or that candidate. I’m just trying to understand the rules of the road a little better. It has always been my understanding that it was a no-no to advocate for a particular candidate. This thread,at least to some extent seems to be doing that. So, I figure I’m missing some subtlety in the rules and how they are applied. Could anyone please enlighten me?

From the sticky about “world news” forum:

Catholic Answers does not endorse or oppose any candidate or party. Rather, CA seeks only to explain and defend Catholic moral teachings.

Discussions of political news among CAF members is acceptable. However, CAF is not a channel that political parties, candidates, or advocates can use to further their political agendas.

News stories discussed here should at least tangentially related to religion. When posting new threads, please keep this in mind.

---

Robert Bay, Moderator

I see no violation of forum rules. Do you?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

From the sticky about “world news” forum:

Catholic Answers does not endorse or oppose any candidate or party. Rather, CA seeks only to explain and defend Catholic moral teachings.

Discussions of political news among CAF members is acceptable. However, CAF is not a channel that political parties, candidates, or advocates can use to further their political agendas.

News stories discussed here should at least tangentially related to religion. When posting new threads, please keep this in mind.

I see no violation of forum rules. Do you?

Right, as long as the thread is started by a forums member and is linked to a valid news article, all is good in the world.

 

[Big_Ro]

Good question. Have you tried contacting the moderator about this?

No, no. My purpose for asking the question is to inform my understanding of the rules. I have no interest in making trouble for anybody. Admittedly, I have not and do not intend to spend my valuable time reading the rules and figure, like most things, that the Mods will interpret them as they see fit and there is no court of appeal, so why bother. I was worried, and correctly from the responses, that people might take my query as an attack on the thread. It is most certainly not. I am just interested in hearing from my fellow forum members why they think this thread is not afoul of the rules. I don’t think I’ve gained much in this regard, sadly.

I am enjoying the thread and find it somewhat illuminating, in terms, of why people do or do not feel that supporting Ron Paul is a wise thing.

Thanks and God Bless.

 

[ishii]

Clarence Thomas interview

Your point being?

What I took from both of those interviews is that neither Thomas nor Scalia are in favor of judicial activism on either side - as Scalia said, if he were trying to impose his views, he would force the states to outlaw abortion. But of course, overturning Roe v Wade wouldn’t do that, it would merely allow the states to decide - as they did before 1972. And Thomas “believes abortion should be left for the states to decide.” That’s two GOP justices who survived the Democrat catholics in the senate (Clarence Thomas, barely). Had the GOP been in control of the senate in 1987, Bork would likely have been confirmed.

Here is my point: elect (or help elect) a Democrat and you get 100% pro-abortion justices. Elect a Republican and you get a pretty good chance of a contructionist justice.

Would you like to answer the question I posed? : If coming up in the next presidency, Ruth Bader Ginsburg retired, who would you want to pick her successor, Obama or the eventual GOP nominee?

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your point being?

What I took from both of those interviews is that neither Thomas nor Scalia are in favor of judicial activism on either side - as Scalia said, if he were trying to impose his views, he would force the states to outlaw abortion. But of course, overturning Roe v Wade wouldn’t do that, it would merely allow the states to decide - as they did before 1972. And Thomas “believes abortion should be left for the states to decide.” That’s two GOP justices who survived the Democrat catholics in the senate (Clarence Thomas, barely). Had the GOP been in control of the senate in 1987, Bork would likely have been confirmed.

Here is my point: elect (or help elect) a Democrat and you get 100% pro-abortion justices. Elect a Republican and you get a pretty good chance of a contructionist justice.

Would you like to answer the question I posed? : If coming up in the next presidency, Ruth Bader Ginsburg retired, who would you want to pick her successor, Obama or the eventual GOP nominee?

Ishii

I hope it’s Ron Paul.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I hope it’s Ron Paul.

 

[ringil]

If he got the nomination, I believe it would guarentee Obama re-election. If he runs as a 3rd party candidate (because he has no chance of getting the nomination), it would take away votes from the GOP candidate.

Ishii

I sure hope that Ron Paul runs and gets LOADS of “disenfranchised” Republicans.

If it’s good for Obama I’m OK with it!!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I sure hope that Ron Paul runs and gets LOADS of “disenfranchised” Republicans.

If it’s good for Obama I’m OK with it!!

Ya baby! Kill babys and steal from the ones who are allowed to live! That is a heck of President for ya!

 

[ringil]

I’m just looking forward to the morning after Obama is re-elected to log onto CAF and share the joy. I really enjoyed it the first time around!!

 

[Corki]

I’m just looking forward to the morning after Obama is re-elected to log onto CAF and share the joy. I really enjoyed it the first time around!!

Yeah. It was quite the spectacle to see so-called Catholics who claimed they were voting for Obama as the lesser of two evils fall over themselves in glee the morning after.