Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[Ridgerunner]

Getting the Federal Government out of Prostitution is not legalizing Prostitution. The States when they vested certain powers to the Federal Government did not give them power to prohibit or punish most crimes… this was left to the States and the Local Municipalities. Please study both Federalism and the Principle of Subsidiarity for a better understanding of where power should rest to deal with these matters.

It’s entirely possible that I have not studied Federalism as much as you have. But I might have studied the Principle of Subsidiary almost on a par with you.

Now, you appear to be suggesting (without really saying it) that Ron Paul would countenance prohibiting prostitution, but on a state level only. He does not want the federal government involved, or so you suggest. But you did not address whether he would allow legal prostitution at any level of government as part of his libertarian principles. I will readily grant that my Wiki source isn’t the best, but you brushed it off with no evidence at all.

Perhaps you will oblige with proof that Ron Paul is not “libertarian” when it comes to prostitution.

And does he really oppose the Mann Act? That would be interesting to know as well.

Defend your candidate with real stuff if you expect others to support him .

 

[gilliam]

Gold comes from gold mines. US Dollars come from Ben Bernanke’s imagination. You are allowed to invest in one and not the other.

You would be up in arms if GWB had large investments in the defense industry. It does show a possible reason why Paul says what he does that has everything to do with personal gain.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It’s entirely possible that I have not studied Federalism as much as you have. But I might have studied the Principle of Subsidiary almost on a par with you.

Now, you appear to be suggesting (without really saying it) that Ron Paul would countenance prohibiting prostitution, but on a state level only. He does not want the federal government involved, or so you suggest. But you did not address whether he would allow legal prostitution at any level of government as part of his libertarian principles. I will readily grant that my Wiki source isn’t the best, but you brushed it off with no evidence at all.

Perhaps you will oblige with proof that Ron Paul is not “libertarian” when it comes to prostitution.

And does he really oppose the Mann Act? That would be interesting to know as well.

Defend your candidate with real stuff if you expect others to support him .

Simply, if it is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government in the Constitution (including amendments) he opposes it and his record clearly reflects it. he doesn’t vote on party line, he votes in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution and refuses to use his vote to expand the size and scope of the federal government. That this position seems to aggravate the Republican die-hards tells me everything I need to know about the Republican Party. They are not the party of limited government, they are the party of big government, just like the Democrats. They just want to control peoples’ lives in different ways. Democrats want the federal government to take away your guns and give you drugs. Republicans want to take away your drugs and give you guns. Ron Paul says that the right to bear arms is a right explicitly granted in the Second Amendment, and prohibiting “drugs” at the federal level is an expansion of federal authority that isn’t granted as an enumerated power and therefore is exclusively reserved to the states.

So on the gun issue, he sides with the Republicans. On the drugs issue, he sides with neither, but rather stands by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, defending the state’s rights to treat this issue as it deems appropriate. This position infuriates Prohibitionist Republicans who want to control people’s behavior. It also tends to ruffle the feathers of Democrats because he isn’t in favor of legalization at the federal level. Decriminalization does not mean legalization. It means that the federal government doesn’t take a position on it one way or the other.

 

[gilliam]

From the American Spectator: Ron Paul is no conservative

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

From the American Spectator: Ron Paul is no conservative

Right. He is a small government libertarian, not a big government conservative. No secret there.

 

[Michael_C]

From the American Spectator: Ron Paul is no conservative

I refuse to fall into the conservative / liberal, republican / democrat argument. It only guarantees that the State always has half the subjects arguing for their policies.

I’ll stick to liberty which sadly has become a wildly fringe concept.

 

[tomarin]

I refuse to fall into the conservative / liberal, republican / democrat argument. It only guarantees that the State always has half the subjects arguing for their policies.

I’ll stick to liberty which sadly has become a wildly fringe concept.

Liberty as you define it which has little or nothing to do with the orthodox Christian understanding of same.

 

[Michael_C]

Liberty as you define it which has little or nothing to do with the orthodox Christian understanding of same.

Liberty as Ron Paul defines it is according to the constitution. Everyone complains about congress, but here a person who bases every vote on the constitution.

He is actually upholding his oath. Who else is doing that? Yet he is smeared and minimized.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Liberty as you define it which has little or nothing to do with the orthodox Christian understanding of same.

Teach us all where Jesus ordered the Apostles to infiltrate government and compel people under force of law to act in a Christian manner. Liberty, even in the Christian sense of the word, is the right to do the wrong thing…and pay the consequences.
Sirach 15:15-20:

15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16 **He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. **
17 **Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given. **
18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
20 He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.

God gives every man the liberty to choose, and gives them the rewards of their choice. Why are conservative Christians so compelled to use the power of government to force people to do what God Himself will not?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Simply, if it is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government in the Constitution (including amendments) he opposes it and his record clearly reflects it. he doesn’t vote on party line, he votes in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution and refuses to use his vote to expand the size and scope of the federal government. That this position seems to aggravate the Republican die-hards tells me everything I need to know about the Republican Party. They are not the party of limited government, they are the party of big government, just like the Democrats. They just want to control peoples’ lives in different ways. Democrats want the federal government to take away your guns and give you drugs. Republicans want to take away your drugs and give you guns. Ron Paul says that the right to bear arms is a right explicitly granted in the Second Amendment, and prohibiting “drugs” at the federal level is an expansion of federal authority that isn’t granted as an enumerated power and therefore is exclusively reserved to the states.

So on the gun issue, he sides with the Republicans. On the drugs issue, he sides with neither, but rather stands by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, defending the state’s rights to treat this issue as it deems appropriate. This position infuriates Prohibitionist Republicans who want to control people’s behavior. It also tends to ruffle the feathers of Democrats because he isn’t in favor of legalization at the federal level. Decriminalization does not mean legalization. It means that the federal government doesn’t take a position on it one way or the other.

I am not a Republican, so I don’t take the over-broad generalization personally. I do, however, live in an overwhelmingly Republican district and do not agree that the generalization is apt.

But I will say your following phrase is nicely turned, albeit a bit simplistic.

“Democrats want the federal government to take away your guns and give you drugs. Republicans want to take away your drugs and give you guns.”

But drifting off to the drug issue, it is impossible for me to accept the idea that state and local law enforcement are in any way equal to drug trafficking. It is also impossible for me to accept the idea that drugs should be legalized. I have seen too much of what they do.

 

[tomarin]

Liberty as Ron Paul defines it is according to the constitution. Everyone complains about congress, but here a person who bases every vote on the constitution.

He is actually upholding his oath. Who else is doing that? Yet he is smeared and minimized.

As I see it he has an ideologically loaded interpretation of liberty that he reads into the Constitution, not the other way around.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Teach us all where Jesus ordered the Apostles to infiltrate government and compel people under force of law to act in a Christian manner. Liberty, even in the Christian sense of the word, is the right to do the wrong thing…and pay the consequences.

Are you really saying that, in the political arena, we should leave our Christian beliefs and values at home, guiding our conduct only by the man-made document which is the Constitution?

In Jesus’ time, the Roman soldiery WAS the “government”, or at least a good part of it; the Jewish authorities which the Romans left in place and expected to be complicit, being the other. You really can’t read Jesus’ charge to Roman soldiers or his critique of Jewish leaders without believing He actually did expect them both to act in accordance with Divinely-established principles.

He did not charge the apostles with becoming political participants, as He expected them to be priests of God; a tradition which the Church follows to this day, despite a lapse of caeseropapism here and there.

 

[Michael_C]

As I see it he has an ideologically loaded interpretation of liberty that he reads into the Constitution, not the other way around.

It’s pretty simple. “Congress shall not…” is throughout the constitution. Ideological gymnastics are performed by those who think congress shall.

 

[Big_Ro]

Okay, Big Ro, so you don’t want to look at these numbers, and the potential Paul has in the general population that the other Republicans simply lack, but instead you want to drown them in “swaths” of numbers that show how great Perry is.

You do know that Texans don’t like Rick Perry very much, don’t you?

when asked about his popularity in Texas, Perry had this to say: “The prophet is generally not loved in their hometown.”

Do you ever allow yourself to wonder why?

Does it ever cross your mind that the US may tire of him much more quickly than TX has?

Your post is kind of angry or at least that’s my take on it. I was careful to disagree with your conclusions from the polling you linked to. I didn’t try and denegrate your intelligence nor your motives or level on informedness. Yes, I just made up a word. I wish you would extended that same charity to me. I did look at the polling numbers. I reached a different conlcusion. It’s called an opinion. I have a right to my opinions and you have a right to yours. Let’s not make it personal.

Secondly, you could have taken a second or two to look at my profile. You would see that I currently reside in South Texas. I am a native. Except for a few years, I have lived here my entire life. I have more than a passing knowledge of Rick Perry and his politics and relative popularity amongst Texans.

Finally, my predictions and prognostications about the upcoming 2012 elections are not influenced by Party affiliation nor by candidate preference. I’ve been interested in and learning about Presidential politics since Nixon was elected in the 60’s. So, I feel that I’m pretty well informed and my predictions have been pretty darn reliable going back to the eighties. I think it’s fun to get out in front and make bold predictions. Sometimes I’m right and sometimes I’m wrong. Feel free to take me to task on it. You will also note that there have been many others including the esteemed Gilliam and estesbob that are reaching the same conclusion as I that Paul will not be the nominee. I must say that it’s a bit insulting for you to insinuate that my opinions or predictions, or concusions about this poll or that poll are the result of my being ill informed or brainwashed by some mysterious and powerful entity. I assure you, I think for myself.

So, let’s have a lively conversation and try and stay away from the personal attacks.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am not a Republican, so I don’t take the over-broad generalization personally. I do, however, live in an overwhelmingly Republican district and do not agree that the generalization is apt.

But I will say your following phrase is nicely turned, albeit a bit simplistic.

“Democrats want the federal government to take away your guns and give you drugs. Republicans want to take away your drugs and give you guns.”

But drifting off to the drug issue, it is impossible for me to accept the idea that state and local law enforcement are in any way equal to drug trafficking. It is also impossible for me to accept the idea that drugs should be legalized. I have seen too much of what they do.

So, what you believe is that the federal government should have the authority to force people to behave in a moral, responsible manner. So you don’t have a problem with the federal government raiding farms and arresting people for selling raw milk, or pet rabbits, or using SWAT teams to raid people’s homes suspected of student loan fraud. Tell me, where does the power of the central government end for you? Should we just dissolve the notion of states and just become one big nation. I mean, the concept of state sovereignty seems a bit antiquated, doesn’t it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Are you really saying that, in the political arena, we should leave our Christian beliefs and values at home, guiding our conduct only by the man-made document which is the Constitution?

In Jesus’ time, the Roman soldiery WAS the “government”, or at least a good part of it; the Jewish authorities which the Romans left in place and expected to be complicit, being the other. You really can’t read Jesus’ charge to Roman soldiers or his critique of Jewish leaders without believing He actually did expect them both to act in accordance with Divinely-established principles.

He did not charge the apostles with becoming political participants, as He expected them to be priests of God; a tradition which the Church follows to this day, despite a lapse of caeseropapism here and there.

No, you should take your Christian values and live them in a very public way, evangelizing through the example of your life, and preach with words if necessary. What moral evil has legislation fixed? None. It has taken it and morphed or transferred it its location. You can only conquor evil through setting the right example, not forcing your neighbor to live by your example. Mandating morality is, from my perspective, an example of character weakness. It means that to compensate for strength of character and force of example, one seeks to use the force of the state to do the job that one will not do on their own. It is the common arguement that conservatives make against liberals, in chastizing them for using the power of the state to confiscate and redistribute wealth to care for the poor as a substitute for Christian charity. The same claim can be made against conservatives for using the power of state to force people to behave in a moral manner as a substitute for living righteously and execting more from other people. People live up to their expectations, and we continually set the bar lower and lower for people the more we involve the state.

It starts in Church. How many of us go to Church in shorts, tshirts, and flip-flops? Or allow our kids to dress this way? Present on the altar is Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice for the reparation of our sinfulness. And we honor His passion, torture, suffering, and death by wearing beach clothes. If we dishonor God this way, why would we honor anything else he does for us? That is the problem with the country. We have come to expect the government to make us all behave “properly”, because we have collectively lowered our expectations of ourselves and those around us.

 

[estesbob]

It’s pretty simple. “Congress shall not…” is throughout the constitution. Ideological gymnastics are performed by those who think congress shall.

So you agree with Ron Paul that forced segregation and racial discrimination should be allowed ?

 

[tomarin]

Teach us all where Jesus ordered the Apostles to infiltrate government and compel people under force of law to act in a Christian manner. Liberty, even in the Christian sense of the word, is the right to do the wrong thing…and pay the consequences.

God gives every man the liberty to choose, and gives them the rewards of their choice. Why are conservative Christians so compelled to use the power of government to force people to do what God Himself will not?

What I’m getting at is that Christianity teaches we live in a fallen world and that therefore we need God to help us escape from sin and its consequences. Libertarianism teaches that human pefection (a utopia) can be achieved through a particular set of political arrangements. The two creeds don’t mix; they’re like oil and water.

I think libertarians confuse anarchy with liberty because they don’t distinguish between ordered liberty and disordered liberty. The responsibility of good government as Christian thinkers like St. Augustine taught is to uphold this rightful moral order. Jesus didn’t have much if anything to say about good government as he came to proclaim the kingdom of heaven and consequently his early followers were convinced of his imminent return. It was only later in European history when Christianity became the dominant religion that rulers and philosophers grappled with what it meant to wield power in a Christian state.

 

[Michael_C]

So you agree with Ron Paul that forced segregation and racial discrimination should be allowed ?

This is a loaded question. I could easily ask you if you agree with afirmative action which discriminates.

 

[tomarin]

It’s pretty simple. “Congress shall not…” is throughout the constitution. Ideological gymnastics are performed by those who think congress shall.

This isn’t simple, it’s simplistic. Much of the language of the Constitution is vague, probably intentionally so, because it’s a foundational document. Many of the controversial positions that Ron Paul takes are also simply not addressed in the Constitution or in a way that could lead to honest disagreements between people with different interpretations.