Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bachmann barely won out over Ron Paul in Ames, yet the media are acting like he doesn’t exist. :confused:
Stewart finally turned to the news media’s overlooking of Ron Paul. Outlets like MSNBC and Fox have been giving more attention to people who not only finished behind him in Ames, but also are behind in various polls, while virtually ignoring the Texas congressman. “This pretending Ron Paul thing has been going on for weeks, ” he said.
Click to expand...
“How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in an hotel?”
Click to expand...
rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/stewart-how-did-ron-paul-become-the-13th-floor-in-an-hotel/
 
estesbob said:
I post Church statments , you post only your opinions and then accuse me of cherry picking. You position is untenable. it is obvious you nver researched what the Church actually teaches.
Click to expand...
You post one statement and misinterpret it. You post one statement and ignore the body of work from the last two popes concerning our foreign misadventures. The Church is very clear on this issue. Please re-read the Catechism on this issue as well as Gaudium et Spes.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
NOOOOOO HHEEEEEE DOOOESNNN"T

GOod Lord.

He wants to decriminalize them AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL because he believes they can more adequately be controlled at the state level. You know, 10th amendment and all that.

Not the same thing as “legalizing” them. There is a difference. Learn it.
Click to expand...
Decriminalizing something can VERY reasonably be interpreted as legalizing it. If doing a certain action that would previously get you in jail, then that changes, it will DIRECTLY increase its use.

If abortion was a federal crime and Ron Paul wanted to decriminalize it because too many women were seeking back alley abortions, then wouldn’t decriminalize it cause women to seek it out?

Does the 10th Amendment give the states like say Texas the right to declare war on the Mexican drug lords?
 
antonivs said:
Bachmann barely won out over Ron Paul in Ames, yet the media are acting like he doesn’t exist. :confused:

rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/stewart-how-did-ron-paul-become-the-13th-floor-in-an-hotel/
Click to expand...
I saw what Jon Stewart said about that and perhaps the answer is that despite his good showing at the straw poll in Iowa (not a Caucus), is that his overall approval rate is still in the single digits. I would also like to ask Stewart if he agrees with Paul that the Bin Laden raid was wrong.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Decriminalizing something can VERY reasonably be interpreted as legalizing it. If doing a certain action that would previously get you in jail, then that changes, it will DIRECTLY increase its use.

If abortion was a federal crime and Ron Paul wanted to decriminalize it because too many women were seeking back alley abortions, then wouldn’t decriminalize it cause women to seek it out?

Does the 10th Amendment give the states like say Texas the right to declare war on the Mexican drug lords?
Click to expand...
No. The authority to declare was is specifically reserved to the federal government, via the Congress, in Article 1, Section 8.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
No. The authority to declare was is specifically reserved to the federal government, via the Congress, in Article 1, Section 8.
Click to expand...
So basically under a Ron Paul presidency, he would basically give up on the war on drugs and let innocent people get hurt as mark my words if hard drugs get legalized, there will still be innocent people murdered.

Then people wonder why he gets so little attention.
 
JMJSHJ said:
So basically under a Ron Paul presidency, he would basically give up on the war on drugs and let innocent people get hurt as mark my words if hard drugs get legalized, there will still be innocent people murdered.

Then people wonder why he gets so little attention.
Click to expand...
Ya, because the “War on Drugs” has done sooo much to curb people’s appetite for them. All it has done is send potheads to jail and created small armies of highly armed, aggressive, vicious, murderous drug cartels and dealers in the US. So, the War on Drugs has done nothing to actually stop drugs, created a bloated government bureaucracy, filled prisons with generally 'victimless" criminals, and created large swathes of vilent criminals. In fact, the war on drugs has resulted in the “War on Stuffy Noses”, since you now have to furnish proof of ID and sign a federal register to by Sudafed. And if you buy one box too many, you may get a visit from the DEA. God forbid more than one person in your house catches a cold. They might haul you off to jail.

You wonder why I laugh at Republicans as hard as I do Democrats. You aren’t “small government”. YOu want big government and power just as much as liberals and Democrats do. You just want to control the American people in different ways. You think people are too stupid to make their own responsible choices, so you are going to use the power of government to MAKE them be responsible, come hell or high water. All of the GOP nominees, except Paul, are exemplary of this “big government conservativism” type of thinking. They talk a good game about limited government. They just mean they want to limit the type of government that they liberals put into place, so they can replace it with the type of big government that conservatives want.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
No, that is not the crucial part of the decision, not even close. No serious constitutional scholar or judge thinks that the 14th Amendment was meant to protect the unborn. The argument raised by the state of Texas in Roe v. Wade was part of a strategy that is often used in court, namely to raise every possible defense to a legal action. The argument that an unborn child is a “person” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment was a weak argument that was nonetheless raised in the hopes of appealing to one or two of the Justices.

The most crucial part of the opinion, and the part that has serious constitutional difficulties, is where the Court finds a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment, so that no State can pass laws that completely prohibit abortions. This “Substantive Due Process” is the most crucial part because many of the more laughably incoherent decisions by the Court in the past half century have been based on this theory, and it is the theory upon which the Court bases its holding in Roe. Blackmun was very wrong when he used this theory to justify his holding, but he was absolutely correct when he said that the unborn were not persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The best argument against Blackmun’s reasoning is that Substantive Due Process, that is, the “finding” of rights such as the right to an abortion in the Constitution, when it is not actually written there, betrays the original meaning of the Constitution and is thus creative projection of one’s own personal views onto the text of the Constitution.

I understand that argument, but it is flawed. At the time that the 14th Amendment was adopted, it was not believed that the fetus was necessarily a person. There was actually a substantial tradition in the common law that made a distinction between a fetus that was not yet “alive” and one that was and thus was able to gain more rights:

“It is undisputed that, at common law, abortion performed before “quickening” – the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy – was not an indictable offense. The absence of a common law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became “formed” or recognizably human, or in terms of when a “person” came into being, that is, infused with a “soul” or “animated.” A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth.”

Actually it was not until 1821 that Connecticut passed the first law that made abortion of a “live” child a crime. It was not until 1860 that Connecticut made abortion of a child that was “not alive” (that is, before the 16th week) a crime. Before 1821, States relied on the common law under which abortion before the 16th-18th week was not even a crime. It really was not until after the Civil War that legislation began to replace the common law in most states, so that by the 1950s you have laws in most states that banned abortions.

It does not matter whether or not it was clear scientifically at the time of Roe v. Wade when personhood actually begings. What does matter is what was believed when the 14th Amendment was adopted. When the people invested with the political authority to change the Constitution wrote the 14th Amendment, they did not mean “persons” to include the unborn. I wish it were different. However, such is not the case, and a correct reading of the Constitution will recognize that fact.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your defense of Roe v Wade. The unborn are persons. The big lie is that they are not persons. If they are not persons, they can be denied equal protection of the laws. More than “not even close”, this is exactly what Roe v Wade gave us. The Nazi legal code opened the door to the slaughter of Jews by defining them as subhumans (same big lie) and therefore not entitled to legal protections.

Mark 13:22
“False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.”
 
miguel said:
Thank you for your defense of Roe v Wade. The unborn are persons. The big lie is that they are not persons. If they are not persons, they can be denied equal protection of the laws. More than “not even close”, this is exactly what Roe v Wade gave us. The Nazi legal code opened the door to the slaughter of Jews by defining them as subhumans (same big lie) and therefore not entitled to legal protections.

Mark 13:22
“False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.”
Click to expand...
The point made is that the court said it wasn’t it’s place to decide if the unborn were persons or not. They even said that the Congress could declare the unborn to be persons by legislation, and then the 14th amendment would apply. Its right there in the ruling. That Congress hasn’t taken action on this in over 30 years is indicative of the scam the Republicans have been playing on the “conservatives” for years, and keep selling them on the notion that "If you just give us a majority in Congress and the Senate, and the White House, we will fix the Supreme Court so that Roe will be overturned. These are the very same “conservatives” who bemoan judicial activism. Right now, Roe is the law of the land. They will not overturn its precedent unless given good cause. Meanwhile, Congress, which actually has the power to do something, sits on its…(hands)… and does nothing.

Well, a bill was introduced, 3 times, that would have given personhood status to the unborn. But it went largely unnoticed by Congressional republicans, who opted to let it die in committee.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
“If you just give us a majority in Congress and the Senate, and the White House, we will fix the Supreme Court so that Roe will be overturned.”

Well, a bill was introduced, 3 times, that would have given personhood status to the unborn. But it went largely unnoticed by Congressional republicans, who opted to let it die in committee.
Click to expand...
We hear the same business today from some folks on this Forum who assure us that there’ll be at least two new pro-life justices on the SC if only we get a Republican president, and tell us not to “throw away” our votes by refusing to jump on the GOP bandwagon. And, to them at least, it follows directly that a GOP president is tantamount to overthrowing Roe v Wade.

Wrong in both instances. 😦
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Ya, because the “War on Drugs” has done sooo much to curb people’s appetite for them. All it has done is send potheads to jail and created small armies of highly armed, aggressive, vicious, murderous drug cartels and dealers in the US. So, the War on Drugs has done nothing to actually stop drugs, created a bloated government bureaucracy, filled prisons with generally 'victimless" criminals, and created large swathes of vilent criminals. In fact, the war on drugs has resulted in the “War on Stuffy Noses”, since you now have to furnish proof of ID and sign a federal register to by Sudafed. And if you buy one box too many, you may get a visit from the DEA. God forbid more than one person in your house catches a cold. They might haul you off to jail.

You wonder why I laugh at Republicans as hard as I do Democrats. You aren’t “small government”. YOu want big government and power just as much as liberals and Democrats do. You just want to control the American people in different ways. You think people are too stupid to make their own responsible choices, so you are going to use the power of government to MAKE them be responsible, come hell or high water. All of the GOP nominees, except Paul, are exemplary of this “big government conservativism” type of thinking. They talk a good game about limited government. They just mean they want to limit the type of government that they liberals put into place, so they can replace it with the type of big government that conservatives want.
Click to expand...
So human life is so cheap to a libertarian that we put a financial value on it. If it costs too much (arbitrarily given) then just give up. What about the costs that would incur if we legalized all drugs? You think Obamacare is expensive now? It’ll skyrocket.
 
JMJSHJ said:
So human life is so cheap to a libertarian that we put a financial value on it. If it costs too much (arbitrarily given) then just give up. What about the costs that would incur if we legalized all drugs? You think Obamacare is expensive now? It’ll skyrocket.
Click to expand...
Well of course it would! As soon as they “legalize” drugs, well then every man, woman, and child in the country will stop working, go to Walmart to buy a couple ounces of weed and a box of fried chicken, and go home and watch Pink Floyd’s The Wall. The country and life as we know it will stop.

:rolleyes:

You would think we would learn a lesson here. We went through Prohibition already. All it did was drove drinking underground and created a vast criminal empire and the rise of guys like Al Capone. Did you know that Al Capone was one of the primary supporters of Prohibition? He loved it! It made him fantastically wealthy! His attitude was “Thank you federal government for making aldohol illegal, so that I can provide it for people at inflated prices and make a fortune”. He donated campaign money to politicians who promise to keep Prohibition in place. There is your “War on Drugs” in a nutshell. It does nothing to reduce drug use, makes criminals out of casual users, and criminals out of businessmen. If you are so inclined to control people’s lives and save them from themselves, why not go back to prohibition? Lets just outlaw everything that is not good for people. Salt, transfats, smoking, drinking, casual sex, profanity? We can amke the perfect society, like San Angeles from Demolition Man. It will be beautiful.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Well of course it would! As soon as they “legalize” drugs, well then every man, woman, and child in the country will stop working, go to Walmart to buy a couple ounces of weed and a box of fried chicken, and go home and watch Pink Floyd’s The Wall. The country and life as we know it will stop.

:rolleyes:

You would think we would learn a lesson here. We went through Prohibition already. All it did was drove drinking underground and created a vast criminal empire and the rise of guys like Al Capone. Did you know that Al Capone was one of the primary supporters of Prohibition? He loved it! It made him fantastically wealthy! His attitude was “Thank you federal government for making aldohol illegal, so that I can provide it for people at inflated prices and make a fortune”. He donated campaign money to politicians who promise to keep Prohibition in place. There is your “War on Drugs” in a nutshell. It does nothing to reduce drug use, makes criminals out of casual users, and criminals out of businessmen. If you are so inclined to control people’s lives and save them from themselves, why not go back to prohibition? Lets just outlaw everything that is not good for people. Salt, transfats, smoking, drinking, casual sex, profanity? We can amke the perfect society, like San Angeles from Demolition Man. It will be beautiful.
Click to expand...
Prohibition is not a valid comparison because there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation. The same can’t be said about drugs. Furthermore a more relevant example is this, if the US has nukes then shouldn’t everyone get a nuke. How comfortable would President Paul be if Al-Qaeda gets a nuke? Or does President Paul say that its okay for them to have it because of a 1000 years of rape, torture and theft of us bad Americans on them? What is wrong is that you think that what one person does, even in the privacy of one’s home will have no direct effect on other people. What one person does affects other people. Would you or President Paul be comfortable with allowing paedophiles to create their own child pornography with no actual children involved (drawings)
 
JMJSHJ said:
Prohibition is not a valid comparison because there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation. The same can’t be said about drugs. Furthermore a more relevant example is this, if the US has nukes then shouldn’t everyone get a nuke. How comfortable would President Paul be if Al-Qaeda gets a nuke? Or does President Paul say that its okay for them to have it because of a 1000 years of rape, torture and theft of us bad Americans on them? What is wrong is that you think that what one person does, even in the privacy of one’s home will have no direct effect on other people. What one person does affects other people. Would you or President Paul be comfortable with allowing paedophiles to create their own child pornography with no actual children involved (drawings)
Click to expand...
Ummm, child pornography is not a victimless crime, and the fact that you equivocate it to someone who wants to smoke marijuana in their own home is frankly startling. Tell me, do you consider the filmed rape of a 6 year old boy to be on the same moral scale as a man lighting up a blunt while watching a Rango?

Is there any other behavior you’d like to regulate, since you want to empower government to make decisions for people?

And regarding other nations having nuclear weapons. What nation out there has a documented history of actually using them on civilians, and then claiming the high moral ground that no-one else should have them, especially the “dangerous people”.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Ummm, child pornography is not a victimless crime, and the fact that you equivocate it to someone who wants to smoke marijuana in their own home is frankly startling. Tell me, do you consider the filmed rape of a 6 year old boy to be on the same moral scale as a man lighting up a blunt while watching a Rango?
Click to expand...
You have completely misunderstood his meaning. He’s not talking about child pornography. He’s referencing “virtual” child pornography (computer-generated images or the use of youthful-looking adults), which the Supreme Court protected as free speech in 2002 in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. He’s suggesting that libertarians would consider it a victimless crime (because no child was harmed in the making), whereas he does not (because later children will be hurt by the demand/market it creates/sustains).
 
Wampa said:
You have completely misunderstood his meaning. He’s not talking about child pornography. He’s referencing “virtual” child pornography (computer-generated images or the use of youthful-looking adults), which the Supreme Court protected as free speech in 2002 in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. He’s suggesting that libertarians would consider it a victimless crime (because no child was harmed in the making), whereas he does not (because later children will be hurt by the demand/market it creates/sustains).
Click to expand...
Ahhh, so the general equivocation is that libertarianism = anarchic hedonism. Now I get it. Those who equate the two don’t, but I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top