Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[MMolloy]

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.

Only someone suffering from Islamophobia due to listening to too much MSM Propaganda could make this statement with a straight face. It is also interesting that you so casually dismiss the US’s own use of Nuclear Weapons.

 

[ishii]

Why do you persist in misrepresenting the facts? Dr. Paul is running in the Republican Primary and will not be running as an Independent.

There are a number of posters here who maintain that they will vote 3rd party - either writing in Ron Paul or voting for another candidate with no chance to win because they just can’t bring themselves to vote for the big bad GOP. Ron Paul may have announced that he will not run as a 3rd party, but that won’t necessarily stop die hard true-believin’ Ron Paul voters from writing him in or voting for some other kook. I also note that politicians have been known to change their minds. But I would be surprised to see Ron Paul run as a 3rd party as he’s getting a bit long in the tooth - he’ll turn 78 in 2012.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

When Dr. Paul runs in the General Election, as a Republican, it will be the clearest choice between any two candidates for President the American People have ever had.

While Ron Paul did well in the Iowa straw poll, and I admire the loyalty of his supporters, Ron Paul won’t be the nominee of the Republican party in 2012. I would bet a steak dinner on that.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Israel, with approximately 75-200 Nukes themselves and an Air Force that is rated just behind the US and Russia is quite capable of handling a country that can’t even manufacture it’s own gasoline. What are you proposing, more of the same Foreign Policy of Bribing or Bombing those who won’t do what we want?

I am a bit tired of the old “moral equivalency argument” that has raised its ugly face on this thread. The idea that all countries are equal and the U.S. has no right to discourage any other country from developing and deploying nuclear weapons is absurd. Do you not see the difference between a country like the U.S. and Iran in terms of their value of human rights? Doesn’t it make sense to discourage in any way possible countries like North Korea or Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Ultimately there is a limit as to what we can do, but it seems to me a no-brainer to try to discourage in every way we can certain countries from getting nuclear weapons. One criteria I would use would be whether or not a country starves its own people or actively supports terrorism around the world. I would hope we’d do what we could to limit evil regimes like those from aquiring nuclear weapons.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

By continually misrepresenting the political realities… I’m sure you’re not helping the greater evil prevail

The political reality is that come fall of 2012 there will be Obama and a GOP nominee. The nominee will not be Ron Paul but a Republican candidate who will likely try to curb spending, and nominate constructionist justices to the supreme court. Who will vote for?

Ishii

 

[MMolloy]

I wish people who talk all the time about electability would just stop and reflect on how un-American and defeatist that kind of talk is.
Was the American Revolution electable? I think not.
“Electability” is another word for media elite thought control: candidate X is an unelectable nobody, because the MSM choose to ignore him.
“Electability” means “I can’t be bothered to do what I can to persuade and encourage others to do the right thing, because that’s the job of the boob tube and the leadership of the two parties. So what if they’ve made a total mess of the country so far. We must bow to them.”
“Electability” is something party hacks and Europeans worry about, not free men and women.
:manvspc:

Amen Brother!

 

[ishii]

I wish people who talk all the time about electability would just stop and reflect on how un-American and defeatist that kind of talk is.
Was the American Revolution electable? I think not.
“Electability” is another word for media elite thought control: candidate X is an unelectable nobody, because the MSM choose to ignore him.
“Electability” means “I can’t be bothered to do what I can to persuade and encourage others to do the right thing, because that’s the job of the boob tube and the leadership of the two parties. So what if they’ve made a total mess of the country so far. We must bow to them.”
“Electability” is something party hacks and Europeans worry about, not free men and women.
:manvspc:

Bravo!

But there is still a thing such as political reality. And the political reality, whether you like it or not, is that a libertarian congressmen who will turn 78 in 2012 will not be getting a major party nomination, let alone the presidency.

Ishii

 

[MMolloy]

You may note that I put “lesser of two evils” in quotation marks. Frankly, I do not consider the Republican candidates of which I know to be the “purveyors of evil” at all. One may be so fervent about his policy ideas that he thinks all others are promoters of “evil”, but there is really nothing inherently evil about the policy positions of any candidates I see except:
-Obama on abortion.
-Obama on homosexual marriage.
-Obama on killing viable babies even after botched abortions.
-Obama on killing viable babies in “partial birth abortion.”
-Obama on what appears (granted, we have not seen the full flower of his intent yet) to be socialism, which has been condemned by the Popes.

-Romney on abortion if his change of heart is phony.
-Paul on homosexual marriage.

If you refuse to oppose the evils of abortion and homosexual “marriage” by wasting your vote out of a sense of vanity in being “100% right”, then you are a tacit promoter of them, and as complicit with the evildoers as a person who sees an assault in progress and doesn’t even bother to call the police, particularly if your objections to those who do not clearly promote evil are “policy” positions upon which prudential judgment may legitimately be exercised.

Please show how Ron Paul’s support of DOMA equals support of homosexual marriage!!! And how that support of marriage gets turned into something “inherently evil”

 

[MMolloy]

It has already been shown to you that this is not correct. The church explicitly said that a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a politician who either opposed or supported the Iraqi and Afghani wars. . The church has neither endorsed nor opposed either parties nor Ron Paul’s domestic agenda. If you vote for Ron Paul in the general election as a third-party candidate you are not refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils- you are choosing to support evil ie:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

Ron Paul is running in the Republican Primary NOT as an independent! Please desist from continuing to imply otherwise!

 

[MMolloy]

I don’t know what they are talking about he has been all over Fox News for awhile, heck Glen Beck had him on back in June ( you can google the clip) Just this week they had him on Fox and Friends more than once, America Live and Neil Cavuto just off the top of my head. No I didn’t watch all those, some I saw ad clips from, some I watched and some came up when I googled it to see who else had him on.

Yes, this journalism.org/numbers_report/are_media_ignoring_ron_paul
must just be our imagination

 

[pnewton]

I do not think implying that Dr. Paul is a kook, as in this statement," … from writing him in or voting for some other kook," is either charitable or an effective arguement. Fortunately, I have found that the Catholics for Ron Paul to be more mature and reasonable in their speech.

 

[MMolloy]

Considering that my confessor is a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marines, theologically dogmatic, and politically conservative, I don’t think he shares this perspective. He has chastized the entire parish, during the Easter homily, about how many Obama bumper stickers he saw in the church parking lot, and reminded us of what the man stood for. And yes, this is the same confessor who, quite literally, told me that anyone who says that I am wasting my vote by voting on principle is a hack and should be ignored. His words, not mine.

A most excellent response to yet another fallacy on this thread

 

[MMolloy]

They convinced more than 9%

Point is Paul simply isn’t going to be the Republican candidate. It doesn’t matter how persistant his backers are. He is a fringe candidate and that isn’t going to change any time before 2012.

Keep regurgitating MSM talking points… maybe they will become reality!

 

[MMolloy]

It is not pretense to admit that we are bound by time and have no divine foreknowledge of the future. I may be wrong, but I do not see anyone saying he will definitely win. However, I have seen Catholics here who say he will definitely not. So I ask you, is this a matter of confusing the difference between fact and opinion or an attempt to engage in fortune-telling?

This could be repeated a thousand times on this thread and it wouldn’t be said too often in response to the non stop regurgitation of nonsense.

Just because the Media TELLS YOU that ANYONE is NOT electable, does not make it so… and to repeat their nonsense as fact, reflects poorly on one’s discernment capabilities.

 

[MMolloy]

There are two groups that are rabid in their support of voting for Ron Paul regardless of whether he gets the nomination or not. Ron Paul supporters and Obama supporters.

There are two groups that are rabid in the hatred of Ron Paul… Pro-Aborts and Those that Love War!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There are two groups that are rabid in the hatred of Ron Paul… Pro-Aborts and Those that Love War!

IN other words rabidly loyal Democrats and Republicans.

 

[MMolloy]

That is making the assumption that Ron Pauls views are closer in line with the teachings of the church than the other candidates. That simply is not true. In fact, once you get past his unwavering support of life issues, support that is shared by other Republican candidates, his positions on domestic issues & foreign-policy problematic. He champions a political philosophy that holds the federal government has no business stopping force segregation and racial discrimination. His isolationist foreign-policy would put all Americans at risk and his simplistic solution to all domestic problems, that is that all will be well if we merely eliminate the Federal Reserve & go back on the gold standard, would cause economic turmoil that makes the current situation look like boom times.

,The reason Ron Paul never garners more than single-digit support is not due to a vast conspiracy. It is due to the simple fact that his idea of governing is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Ron Paul is totally consistent with Catholic Social Teaching on both his domestic and foreign policies. Just because he believes in the Principle of Subsidiarity does not mean he is opposed to stopping forced segregation. He is totally opposed to any type of Jim Crow Laws, despite all the media’s attempts to mischaracterize his position with regards to the real problems with the Civil Rights Act (the #1 problem I have with the legislation, is that it presupposes that Groups NOT Individuals have rights).

Just because Dr. Paul wants to stop Bribing (with money we have to borrow from China/Japan etc) or Bombing other countries… hardly makes him anything other than a rationale person, who wants the PEOPLE of various countries to have as much interaction as possible and the GOVERNMENTS of those same countries to do ONLY their job (protect the Lives and Liberties of their citizens).

Dr. Paul is probably best known for his opposition to the Quasi Public/ Quasi Private Federal Reserve System and it’s continual manipulation of our FIAT Monetary System. The FED, the US version of a Central Bank, is a Banking Cartel that has had the Government put its stamp of approval on it’s Cartel Agreement. The FED and it’s Illusionary Monetary Policy help to facilitate both the Welfare and Warfare State and is loved by Central Planners of all stripes. Your lack of understanding of Dr. Paul’s proposed solutions to getting us out of our current (Global) economic situation is apparent from your ‘simplistic’ and incorrect denigration of the only candidate who accurately predicted our current economic situation.

 

[MMolloy]

I always hold out hope that the diehard Ron Paul supporters will respond to reason more than diehard liberal catholic supporters of Obama. After participating in this thread, I am not so sure that’s the case.

Ishii

I always hope that diehard Ron Paul haters will respond to reason more than diehard liberal catholic supporters of Obama. After participating in this thread, I am not so sure that’s the case.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I always hope that diehard Ron Paul haters will respond to reason more than diehard liberal catholic supporters of Obama. After participating in this thread, I am not so sure that’s the case.

The most rational explanations you will hear in opposition to Dr. Paul are:

• He’s too old.
• His foreign policy ideas are dangerous.
• His domestic policy solutions are too simplistic.

 

[MMolloy]

And what is Ron Paul’s solution to overturning Roe vs Wade?

The Sanctity of Life Act for one… and it’s past time that Pro-Lifers learned a little more about our form of government and started using better tactics, like this bill that only requires a simple majority of both houses and the President’s signature: opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/text

If this bill was not left in committee by the Republicans while they had control of all three (the House, Senate and Presidency) we would already have Roe overturned.