Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[miguel]

…Without changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the Sanctity of Life Act is laughably inadequate. The bill purports to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, saying in effect that the Court can no longer rule on issues relating to abortion. Here is the relevant part of the Act:

The Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that such attempts to limit its jurisdiction are unconstitutional. What was the definition of insanity?

It is clearly Constitutional under Article III, Section 2:

“…In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make.”

And if you google “jurisdiction stripping”, you’ll see that the supreme court has upheld this congressional power whenever it has been challenged. Congress hasn’t excercised this power often. So it hasn’t been challenged often.

One definition of insanity is reading words in the Constitution to mean the opposite of what they say…or letting so-called justices and law professors do our reading and thinking for us. It’s our Constitution…for the most part written in clear english. That was intentional too. Otherwise it would have been too easy for “usurpers” as Hamilton called them to bamboozle the ignorant with legal mumbo jumbo.

 

[Franze]

I am not american, I cant vote, please vote for Ron Paul, we need a traditional US where liberties, opportunities, prosperity, less government and not the monstruous empire that its now with a lot of militar bases, useless wars.
Please vote for Ron Paul and US could come back to the be the light of Western, if it isnt China or other countries will rule the world in less 10 years, its a fact.

 

[gilliam]

I am not american, I cant vote, please vote for Ron Paul, we need a traditional US where liberties, opportunities, prosperity, less government and not the monstruous empire that its now with a lot of militar bases, useless wars.
Please vote for Ron Paul and US could come back to the be the light of Western, if it isnt China or other countries will rule the world in less 10 years, its a fact.

Ron Paul does not follow the traditions of the US. Unless you think the traditions of the US is to be isolationist and a confederation of States. We weren’t that way since the late 1700s.

 

[pnewton]

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

Yes, you have. I have read them. You just deny the validity of them. You are not an easy person to discuss things with.

 

[pnewton]

Ron Paul does not follow the traditions of the US. Unless you think the traditions of the US is to be isolationist and a confederation of States. We weren’t that way since the late 1700s.

The 10th amendment of the Constitution. It is there and ignored, violated and tread upon. The isolationist movement was strong and in control of the country prior to WWI. It is why we stayed out as long as we did. We also had a strong isolationist movement prior to the Gulf of Tonkin. Besides, there is a lot of area between isolationism and nationalism. Isolationism is the idea that we should have nothing to do with anyone else. That is not, strictly speaking, anyone here or running for office. Nationalism is the idea that we should be running things. That thought makes me shudder. The United States is a country, one of hundreds in the world. We have no moral superiority. Quite the opposite. We are a major exporter of evil throughout the world. It is not without cause that we are called The Great Satan. It is a title we have earned.

No, Dr. Paul is not unique. His core base surely isn’t because of a dynamic personality or good looks. It is because he represents not something new, but something America has lost, that he has attracted so many voters.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ron Paul does not follow the traditions of the US. Unless you think the traditions of the US is to be isolationist and a confederation of States. We weren’t that way since the late 1700s.

Ya, because “Team America - World Police Force” has worked out so well for us.

 

[estesbob]

Ya, because “Team America - World Police Force” has worked out so well for us.

It has. Ask eastern europeans for starters

But regardless of ones view on foreign policy a casual dismissal of the threat of Iran possessing Nuclear weapons should give pause to anyone looking at the Ron Paul canidacy His “they don’t have the capabilty to use it on the US” rationale shows a stunning ignorance of the problems a nuclear attack on Israel would bring about, not just for the US but for the world

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It has. Ask eastern europeans for starters

But regardless of ones view on foreign policy a casual dismissal of the threat of Iran possessing Nuclear weapons should give pause to anyone looking at the Ron Paul canidacy His “they don’t have the capabilty to use it on the US” rationale shows a stunning ignorance of the problems a nuclear attack on Israel would bring about, not just for the US but for the world

It hasn’t, because our endless interventionalism and lack of cabability to mind our own business has earned us as many enemies as it has friends. You seem to forget that middle easterners have VERY long memories, and have not forgotten Reagan’s policy of propping up one Saddam Hussein and arming him in his war with Iran. You think that earned us any brownie points with Iranians? Where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress or the President to be the international aggitator of conflict?

 

[estesbob]

It hasn’t, because our endless interventionalism and lack of cabability to mind our own business has earned us as many enemies as it has friends. You seem to forget that middle easterners have VERY long memories, and have not forgotten Reagan’s policy of propping up one Saddam Hussein and arming him in his war with Iran. You think that earned us any brownie points with Iranians? Where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress or the President to be the international aggitator of conflict?

I agree Iran does not like us. All the more reason we should not want them to have nuclear weapons. As to whether it is our fault they don’t like us? Obamas grovel and apologize foreign policy has been an abject failure Let’s not go down that path again.

 

[ishii]

Yes, you have. I have read them. You just deny the validity of them. You are not an easy person to discuss things with.

Hey, atleast I don’t twist people’s words. I went back and read your posts and responses, and nowhere do you address the possibility of a Ron Paul 3rd party general election candidacy and the possibility that it would help Obama get re-elected and nominate pro-abortion justices. Go ahead, vote for the 77 year old libertarian guy with no chance to win the nomination, but in the general election, (if Ron Paul runs) I truly hope you take into account political reality and the balance of power in the supreme court, when you pull the lever.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I agree Iran does not like us. All the more reason we should not want them to have nuclear weapons. As to whether it is our fault they don’t like us? Obamas grovel and apologize foreign policy has been an abject failure Let’s not go down that path again.

I am pretty sure they don’t want us having nuclear weapons either, considering we have shown that we are willing to use them. Who gets to take ours away?

 

[kubark]

The lesser of two evils is always an evil. It was the “lesser of two evils” principle that Catholics used to justify their support for George W. Bush. Disgust with Bush gave us Obama who was elected not so much on his own merits but in a vote of protest against Juan McShame - who too closely reminded a war-weary populace of the reckless, wasteful and unconstitutional policies of George W. Bush. Catholics are about to repeat the same mistake in 2012. Catholics should have rallied around Pat Buchanan in 2000 and around Ron Paul in 2012. Instead Catholics are being hypnotized by Romney/Perry. Catholics have decided the last two Presidents. Catholics will determine the next President. It is time for Catholics to start acting and voting like Catholics.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The lesser of two evils is always an evil. It was the “lesser of two evils” principle that Catholics used to justify their support for George W. Bush. Disgust with Bush gave us Obama who was elected not so much on his own merits but in a vote of protest against Juan McShame - who too closely reminded a war-weary populace of the reckless, wasteful and unconstitutional policies of George W. Bush. Catholics are about to repeat the same mistake in 2012. Catholics should have rallied around Pat Buchanan in 2000 and around Ron Paul in 2012. Instead Catholics are being hypnotized by Romney/Perry. Catholics have decided the last two Presidents. Catholics will determine the next President. It is time for Catholics to start acting and voting like Catholics.

Its amazing the very same hardcore prolife Catholics here who rail against abortion have no problem with our country getting involved in undeclared, protracted, loosely defined “wars” against unspecific enemies for unspecific reasons, when the Pope has made it clear that this is a fundamental violation of Catholic teaching.

 

[kubark]

Its amazing the very same hardcore prolife Catholics here who rail against abortion have no problem with our country getting involved in undeclared, protracted, loosely defined “wars” against unspecific enemies for unspecific reasons, when the Pope has made it clear that this is a fundamental violation of Catholic teaching.

You are 100% correct.

 

[estesbob]

I am pretty sure they don’t want us having nuclear weapons either, considering we have shown that we are willing to use them. Who gets to take ours away?

And it is that kind of simplistic, playground banter that scares me about the Paul candidacy. To most rational people the thought of a radical , virulently anti-srmetic Arab state getting a Nuclear weapon is rightfully terrifying To a Libertarian it’s none of our business. In fact it’s our fault.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And it is that kind of simplistic, playground banter that scares me about the Paul candidacy. To most rational people the thought of a radical , virulently anti-srmetic Arab state getting a Nuclear weapon is rightfully terrifying To a Libertarian it’s none of our business. In fact it’s our fault.

1. Name for the the only country in the history of humanity that has used nuclear weapons on civilians.

2 .Name for me the country that has the audacity to lecture other countries about who is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons.

1. Name for me the only country that has kept itself perpetually embroiled in some sort of war or conflict since WW2.

Simplistic indeed.

That’s the thing that scares me about everyone else but Ron Paul. More of the same.

 

[estesbob]

1. Name for the the only country in the history of humanity that has used nuclear weapons on civilians.

2 .Name for me the country that has the audacity to lecture other countries about who is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons.

1. Name for me the only country that has kept itself perpetually embroiled in some sort of war or conflict since WW2.

Simplistic indeed.

That’s the thing that scares me about everyone else but Ron Paul. More of the same.

None of which has any relevance whatsoever ad to whether the Unted States should be opposed to Iran having Nuclear Weapons

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

None of which has any relevance whatsoever ad to whether the Unted States should be opposed to Iran having Nuclear Weapons

We can argue from here to Kingdom Come about whether or not they SHOULD have them…which I don’t think they should considering the apparent mental instability of their leadership. What gives us the right to say they CANNOT have them? They are a sovereign nation, are they not? Imagine if Russia told Obama that we CANNOT develop a missile defense system…or else.

 

[gilliam]

1. Name for the the only country in the history of humanity that has used nuclear weapons on civilians.

2 .Name for me the country that has the audacity to lecture other countries about who is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons.

1. Name for me the only country that has kept itself perpetually embroiled in some sort of war or conflict since WW2.

Simplistic indeed.

That’s the thing that scares me about everyone else but Ron Paul. More of the same.

This sort of anti-American talk is why the Libertarian Party hasn’t gotten anywhere in this country (except to have a late night radio show hosted by Alex Jones and interviewing conspiracy theorists all night long.) In any case, it shows why Ron Paul is running in the wrong party. His views are Libertarian, not Republican.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This sort of anti-American talk is why the Libertarian Party hasn’t gotten anywhere in this country (except to have a late night radio show hosted by Alex Jones and interviewing conspiracy theorists all night long.) In any case, it shows why Ron Paul is running in the wrong party. His views are Libertarian, not Republican.

How is it anti-American? Please, explain to me how admitting facts about our foreign policy is anti-American? Am I supposed to be flush with jingoistic rah-rah patriotism and goose-step around dressed in red, white, and blue regardless of how unconstitutional some of our policy decisions have been? I was under the impression that dissent was the greatest form of patriotism, and holding our elected leaders to a higher standard of accountability was the American way. Or am I supposed to just sit down, shut up, and be a good little sheep?

And who is Alex Jones?

And you are right, Paul is libertarian and not part of the Good Old Boy network of Republicrats. Which is primarily why I like him.

Or is it my patriotic duty to chug a bottle of Pepto-Bismal before going to the polling station and pull the lever on everyone with an R next to his/her name?