Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would be surprised if he didnt win if straw polls and Internet polls determined who was President he would be President for life

I wouldn’t go that far bob. Your statement does seem to recognize the devotion of his supporters. Interpret that as seriously considering a candidate for many reasons, and not just a single issue. What I mean is, the last presidential election the republican nominee was being pushed as ‘the lesser of two evils’. Vote for ‘A’ to defeat ‘B’. There wasn’t much discussion beyond that.

From polls I’ve seen, the majority, or very near a majority, of Americans are claiming to be pro-life. Add that to the people who are anti-war, or at least tired of years of wars, and it’s seems it would easily draw down Obama’s numbers. I feel a lot of people voted against ‘war’, or the possibility of an expanded war, last election.

If you want to take down the president, offer real differences from the same thought processes all the others share.

 

[Personanongrata]

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!!

I did too. Especially after it became clear that most Catholics voted for him as well, despite what you read here at CAF.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I did too. Especially after it became clear that most Catholics voted for him as well, despite what you read here at CAF.

You were glad to see the most pro-abortion President in history ascend the throne to enshrine his pro-war, anti-property, anti-life, anti-personal rights agenda?

 

[gilliam]

Exactly, Ron would wait for the Senate to grow a pair and actually declare war on Iran, then he would act on that. What about this is so difficult to grasp?

Paul on Thursday night said he would allow Iran to get nuclear bombs. Well if he did that what Senate would declare war on a nuclear power? I think Paul is capable of thinking that through. Paul has no intention of changing his position and supporting the declaration of war on Iran or any other mid-East power.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Paul on Thursday night said he would allow Iran to get nuclear bombs. Well if he did that what Senate would declare war on a nuclear power? I think Paul is capable of thinking that through. Paul has no intention of changing his position and supporting the declaration of war on Iran or any other mid-East power.

So, when did we become the world authority by telling other sovereign nations what they can and cannot have? Do we really think that much of ourselves that we have a right to tell another nation that they are not allowed to do something? Who gets to tell us that we aren’t allowed to do something? And you wonder why other countries consider us arrogant and smug. Look at history, there is only one nation in the history of the world that developed nuclear weapons and actually used them against another country. And yet we have the audacity to tell other nations they are a danger if they are nuclear capable? Sometimes I really don’t get the “conservative” mindset. It should be other countries that take away our nuclear weapons and tell US “NO! You have a history of using these against innocent civilians.”

 

[SalesianSDB]

I would be surprised if he didnt win if straw polls and Internet polls determined who was President he would be President for life

As a true Constitutional conservative, Dr. Paul would leave office after two terms.

 

[gilliam]

So, when did we become the world authority by telling other sovereign nations what they can and cannot have? Do we really think that much of ourselves that we have a right to tell another nation that they are not allowed to do something? Who gets to tell us that we aren’t allowed to do something? And you wonder why other countries consider us arrogant and smug. Look at history, there is only one nation in the history of the world that developed nuclear weapons and actually used them against another country. And yet we have the audacity to tell other nations they are a danger if they are nuclear capable?

Uhh… yes, we can And the world expects us to.

Sometimes I really don’t get the “conservative” mindset. It should be other countries that take away our nuclear weapons and tell US “NO! You have a history of using these against innocent civilians.”

Not sure it is a conservative mind set. JFK wasn’t a conservative. LBJ wasn’t a conservative. TR wasn’t a conservative. FDR wasn’t a conservative.

On the other hand, isolationism isn’t necessarily a conservative or liberal principle.

 

[gilliam]

Huckabee tells reporters there’s no way Ron Paul will get nomination. Says debate comments on Iran were disqualifying

 

[Dan_Daly]

The only thing the President really can do to limit abortions is to appoint Justices and issue executive orders (see Mexico City Policy).

This is false and dangerously so. That the pro-life movement (or some of it at least) has such low expectations of a President speaks very poorly.

What else can the President do? As leader of the country how about he…leads.

Use the bully pulpit to speak on the issue, forcefully, clearly, and often. Go the March for life. Don’t appear by video. Go. And March. And then go down to the planned parenthood in whatever city you are in that week and march there at least one day a week for your entire presidency. Address the issue in your state of the Union.

If there’s a school shooting and 20 kids are killed, do you think any President would address the nation? You bet he does. The silence as millions die is deafening.

 

[gilliam]

Ron Paul delivers strongly anti-abortion speech t.co/N3N6GSG

Paul began his remarks by acknowledging that his campaign is “identified with the cause of liberty.” But, he continued: “There is something that precedes liberty and that is life.”

“The prime reason that government exists in a free society is to protect liberty, but also to protect life. And I mean all life,” Paul said.

The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate, who is an obstetrician by training, has long opposed abortion rights, but has not emphasized it in his presidential campaigns.

In his speech this afternoon, Paul described himself as “very strong right to life” and claimed that when he was in training in the 1950s, “It was assumed everybody was pro-life and abortions weren’t to be done.”

By the 1960s, Paul said, that was changing. He recalled that physicians were “defying the law in doing abortions,” and told a bracing story of seeing doctors deliver a baby via Caesarean section and then “put it in a bucket in the corner of the room and let it die and pretended nobody heard it.”

“We cannot play God and make those decisions. All life is precious,” Paul said. “You have to understand where that liberty and that life comes from. It does not come from the government. It comes from our creators.”

Read more: politico.com/news/stories/0811/61296.html#ixzz1Uw8lPckf

 

[gubernova]

If a candidate is pro-life but has no vision for social justice, catholics should vote for him? Ron Paul

 

[pnewton]

Not Confused. You shift blame. You should be more worried about those that actually vote for Obama…

That’s America’s past time. Blame others who are easier to blame. Blame Ron Paul and his supporters because it is easier than blaming those who support Obama, or better yet, looking at one’s own party and how they have betrayed their base by becoming partnered with the Democrats in destroying this country. Ron Paul is right. The Democrats and Republicans have worked together to degrade the America as a world power, yet they still want us to act like we were the super power we once were. Guess what, folks? We aren’t. We are bankrupt and overdrawn Bush and Obama have spent us into oblivion just like the former Soviet Union. That is the historical lesson we failed to learn. Now, China owns us, or at least a chunk of us. That is a far bigger threat to our national security than Iran. Ron Paul seems to be the only one who appreciates the repercussions of economic collapse.

Bush’s great military objectives will be moot when our economy collapses. Obama’s great healthcare initiative will be as bankrupt as the rest of the country. You simply can’t keep spending what you do not have and expect things to just work out. The price we pay will be dear.

 

[miguel]

No, the most fair reading of the text does not include unborn children in the definition of “person.”

Then you agree with Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v Wade. As does Scalia…the supposed prolife hero. And this is the most crucial part of the decision…the part that opened the door to the slaughter…hardly fair to unborn persons.

You have stated that the 14th Amendment is not limited to black persons because black persons are not specifically mentioned. This is correct, however, you have offered no evidence that unborn children were actually intended to be protected by the 14th Amendment. In fact, I have offered historical, textual, and scientific evidence that unborn children were not included within the meaning of “person” in the 14th Amendment:

1. The text of the Constitution implies that “person” includes someone who has already been born. In every single other instance where person is mentioned in the Constitution, it can only refer to a person who has been born.

Other Constitutional uses of “person” have to do with qualifications for public office. That doesn’t prove the unborn aren’t persons. All it proves is they are too young to hold office.

1. There is absolutely no reference recorded among the authors of the 14th Amendment suggesting that they understood the word “person” to include the unborn.

If they intended unborn persons to be excluded, they would have been listed explicitly as exceptions to the term “any person”…similar to “excluding Indians not taxed” in Article I, Section 2. Even here though, it wasn’t denied that Indians were persons. They simply were not to be counted for apportionment of State representatives. From Amendment XIV, Section 1:
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The best defense of the 14th Amendment against what you are saying is the text itself…no exceptions are listed to “any person”. The intent for America going forward after all the death and misery of the recent Civil War was equal protection of the laws. What Roe gave us was a throwback to the days of unequal protection.

Nor did anyone seriously interpret the 14th Amendment as applying to unborn children until the 1960s.

Unprovable assertion. The unborn were long protected by most states until those laws were challenged by Roe. The lack of Constitutional challenge to state abortion laws (until Roe) is stronger evidence of the opposite. And as I’ve said, Texas, in Roe, claimed their statute was required by the 14th Amendment.

1. At the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment it was not even clear scientifically that unborn children WERE distinct human beings from the moment of conception, with a distinct genetic code. Obviously, the authors of the 14th Amendment could not have included unborn children as “persons” from the moment of conception when no one knew for certain that human life began at conception.

Did anyone raise chickens and eggs back then? Jefferson said in the Declaration that all men are created equal. He didn’t say born equal. But it was clear scientifically when Roe was decided. And they pretended it wasn’t.

 

[pnewton]

If a candidate is pro-life but has no vision for social justice, catholics should vote for him? Ron Paul

I am a fan of C.S. Lewis’ Principle of First Things. It states that we should put first things first and second things second. When you put second things first, then you risk have neither. If we put social economic justice ahead of fiscal responsibility we will fail to have fiscal responsibility and lose the ability to have any sort of economic social justice. We can not pay for what we do not have forever. Right now we are just putting all our social activities on on children’s credit card (how just is that), but we have now maxed that out. Soon, we will have neither social programs or a healthy economy.

 

[Corki]

If a candidate is pro-life but has no vision for social justice, catholics should vote for him? Ron Paul

Abortion** is **a social injustice so a candidate who is pro-life will automatically have at least a partial social justice vision. It is incorrect to say that Ron Paul has “no vision for social justice” just because you don’t agree with his vision. His social justice philosophy is closely aligned to his libertarian roots which are not at all contrary to Catholic teaching on social justice and subsidiarity.

 

[ishii]

Not Confused. You shift blame. You should be more worried about those that actually vote for Obama. Because I heard the same tired old lame excuse that steared people away from voting their conscience, with regards to conservative candidates, last election and Obama still won.

How do you know that I’m not more concerned about the Catholic votes for Obama? We haven’t even discussed that topic. We have been talking about how a 3rd party candidate can have an effect on the outcome of an election - that is a proven political fact. In a close election (such as in 2000) a few votes either way could swing an important state such as Florida or Ohio. And those who vote for the 3rd party candidate could be said to have had an indirect effect on the election. Were Paul to run as such a candidate and enough people to vote for him, it could have an effect. That is the point I’ve been making and I think its a pretty simple one. Votes for Ron Paul could help Obama get re-elected and appoint pro-abortion justices. I still would like to know what the die-hard Ron Paul supporters think of that prospect. I have yet to get a straight answer.

Ishii

 

[GaryTaylor]

At Iowa? Who do think sounded most in line with the founding fathers of the US, Christianity and the Economy? Ron Paul only spoke ecomomy vs history, constitution. But he also specifically stated that was all he would talk about.

I think he clealy see’s US history from 1970 - today, and the problems we bought upon ourself.

 

[Dan_Daly]

How do you know that I’m not more concerned about the Catholic votes for Obama? We haven’t even discussed that topic. We have been talking about how a 3rd party candidate can have an effect on the outcome of an election - that is a proven political fact. In a close election (such as in 2000) a few votes either way could swing an important state such as Florida or Ohio. And those who vote for the 3rd party candidate could be said to have had an indirect effect on the election. Were Paul to run as such a candidate and enough people to vote for him, it could have an effect. That is the point I’ve been making and I think its a pretty simple one. Votes for Ron Paul could help Obama get re-elected and appoint pro-abortion justices. I still would like to know what the die-hard Ron Paul supporters think of that prospect. I have yet to get a straight answer.

Ishii

This is still a false argument. Say Paul doesn’t get the nomination and runs as a 3rd party candidate. Now say the general election results are:

Obama 48%
GOP Candidate 46%
Ron Paul 6%

Saying Paul cost the GOP candiate the election does not logically follow. For one thing, Paul has support among a wide range of people, even a lot of people with “liberal” positions on many things. It’s quite possible, and I’d say probable, that some of Paul’s supporters would pick Obama if the only options were Obama and the GOP Candidate. Many others would not have voted for anyone if Paul wasn’t running (or another candiate with similar views). Finally, it’s just as logical to say that the GOP candidate (or Obama for that matter) cost Paul the election- if they hadn’t run, then he would have won, as it is to say the reverse. The very idea of a 3rd party candidate and their supporters “costing” the establishment an election is based on the premise that the GOP establishment has some natural claim to the votes of those people. Why not try EARNING the votes of people instead of telling them that they must vote for you or they are letting the other guy win. The GOP has pitched itself as the lesser of two evils for a good awhile now. It’s worked in large part, but eventually pro-lifers and others get sick of it, because the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

Take the current fight over spending and the debt for example. What the GOP is saying right now would carry a lot more weight if when they were in charge- of both houses and the Presidency under Bush II, they had actually governed in a way that controlled spending and cut the debt, instead of raising spending and increasing the debt- as they did.

Pax.

 

[gilliam]

This is still a false argument. Say Paul doesn’t get the nomination and runs as a 3rd party candidate.

He won’t do that. This is Paul’s last hurrah, he won’t mess it up by running 3rd party and looking foolish.

 

[seekerz]

Republicans of 50 years ago are much different from Republicans of today, especially when it comes to social issues. Let’s look at the Court today:

I read your post in response to this statement by a previous poster:

The Supreme Court was 6-3 Republican Appointees when Roe was passed and has been a majority of Republican Appointed judges ever since.

Just wondered how you reconcile the “50 years ago” part of your response, to the “ever since” part of the poster’s remarks?