Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[estesbob]

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

I oppose affirmative action. Now back to he question you wont answer.
So you agree with Ron Paul that forced segregation and racial discrimination should be allowed ?

 

[Wampa]

After reading most of the pages in this 53 page thread, I’m leaving with a more negative opinion of Paul than I came in with, thanks to several (not all) of his supporters. From one supporter who apparently joined CAF only to argue in this thread to another who has specifically dodged my honest questions (as pointed out by others), I’m not too impressed so far. How you argue matters as much as what you argue, as least for some of us. Now I will have to work to remember that the supporters are not the candidate.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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

Of course. And we all know that the second the Equal Right Act is dropped, all of the businesses will install segregated water fountains and make the colored folk enter through the back door.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

Ummm, utopia is not a state embraced by libertarianism, that is a liberal/conservative ideology. Ordered society comes from personal responsibility, not government imposed order. Why else would John Adams have said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We are no longer a moral and religious people, precisely because we have relied too heavily on the intervention of the state. When you ask the state to do what you should do for yourself, it makes a nation morally lazy. We are a morally lazy people. Government cannot fix that, precisely because they are the cause of it.

 

[Michael_C]

I oppose affirmative action. Now back to he question you wont answer.
So you agree with Ron Paul that forced segregation and racial discrimination should be allowed ?

Excellent, I’m glad we agree on something. Of all the causes for liberty that Ron Paul speak out about this is not what captures my attention and I believe it’s a reach to make him look like a racist or whatever the label of the day is.

I heard an interview with Dr. Paul and he stated he believed in economic means and the power of boycott. He also stated that the government endorsed slavery and endorsed segregation in the military.

Also, I believe the actual dispute was about private property rights. Private property is the basis of liberty. Stating anyone who defends private property rights is a racist is typical.

How many people on these boards need a government law for them to recognize that a white’s only or black’s only establishment is offensive?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Excellent, I’m glad we agree on something. Of all the causes for liberty that Ron Paul speak out about this is not what captures my attention and I believe it’s a reach to make him look like a racist or whatever the label of the day is.

I heard an interview with Dr. Paul and he stated he believed in economic means and the power of boycott. He also stated that the government endorsed slavery and endorsed segregation in the military.

Also, I believe the actual dispute was about private property rights. Private property is the basis of liberty. Stating anyone who defends private property rights is a racist is typical.

How many people on these boards need a government law for them to recognize that a white’s only or black’s only establishment is offensive?

No, sorry, you are too dumb. You NEED the government to tell you how to play nice with others and there will be dire consequences if you don’t, even with your own property.

Which means that if the state can dictate what you must do with your own property, it isn’t really yours to begin with.

 

[tomarin]

Ummm, utopia is not a state embraced by libertarianism, that is a liberal/conservative ideology. Ordered society comes from personal responsibility, not government imposed order. Why else would John Adams have said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We are no longer a moral and religious people, precisely because we have relied too heavily on the intervention of the state. When you ask the state to do what you should do for yourself, it makes a nation morally lazy. We are a morally lazy people. Government cannot fix that, precisely because they are the cause of it.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth but if you take away the rule of law you don’t get a perfected humanity but anarchy and rampant vice. That seems pretty plain to me. And your property rights are certainly not in a good shape either, in that scenario.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Since western law, particularly Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is based, ultimately, on the pre-existing Canon law and interpretation of biblical principles, I say the government always has enforced morals in one way or another.

Unfortunately, many people in this country take their “morals” from the law. If it’s legal, do it. The laws of a polity reflect the thoughts of the polity, and as either disintegrates from traditional standards, so does the other. Unfortunate, but true.

I have problems with a lot of things government does, including those of the state and the municipality. I’m far more likely to be sanctioned by my state’s Dept of Natural Resources than by the EPA for doing something like stirring gravel in a creek in the “wrong” season, for example.

But think of this. A few years ago there was a big truck “chop shop” operation not terribly far from where I live. Rings of theives brought them in from all over the country. The chop shop bought wrecks all over the country, changed the appearance of the stolen ones and put the VINs of the wrecked ones onto the stolen ones. Local law enforcement just knew the guy had to be operating a chop shop, but didn’t even have a clue as to how to prove it. Lots of trucks got sold, largely in Texas but also in other states where, of course, the cops knew nothing about it. Ultimately, the FBI put it together. And guess what? The real targets were the truck theft rings operating in various states, many, many of whom went to prison for a long time. The chop shop guy got a slap on the wrist and, if the truth were known, was probably a “sting” agent anyway.

There is no way local law enforcement could deal with something like that. Nothing about that violates the Principle of Subsidiarity. Now, are you going to tell me how, exactly, it violates the Constitution?

 

[estesbob]

Of course. And we all know that the second the Equal Right Act is dropped, all of the businesses will install segregated water fountains and make the colored folk enter through the back door.

But you would & Ron Paul would have no problem if they did, correct?

 

[estesbob]

Excellent, I’m glad we agree on something. Of all the causes for liberty that Ron Paul speak out about this is not what captures my attention and I believe it’s a reach to make him look like a racist or whatever the label of the day is.

I heard an interview with Dr. Paul and he stated he believed in economic means and the power of boycott. He also stated that the government endorsed slavery and endorsed segregation in the military.

Also, I believe the actual dispute was about private property rights. Private property is the basis of liberty. Stating anyone who defends private property rights is a racist is typical.

How many people on these boards need a government law for them to recognize that a white’s only or black’s only establishment is offensive?

So you do believe that the government should not do anything to stop forced segregation and racial discrimination?

 

[gilliam]

After Coming in 2nd in the Iowa Straw Poll, Paul Ranks 4th in Latest Iowa Poll

The race is pretty close four ways in Iowa but Rick Perry is the new favorite among Republican voters in the state. Among announced candidates he’s at 22% to 19% for Mitt Romney, 18% for Michele Bachmann, and 16% for Ron Paul. Further back are Herman Cain at 7%, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum at 5%, and Jon Huntsman at 3%.

If you throw Sarah Palin into the mix the numbers are pretty similar with Perry at 21%, Romney at 18%, Bachmann at 15%, Paul at 12%, and Palin registering at only 10%.

publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/perry-takes-lead-in-iowa.html

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

But you would & Ron Paul would have no problem if they did, correct?

Nope. I would never patronize their business and would publicly protest their business. That is how the market works. But to have the government tell a person what they MUST do with their business is contrary to liberty and property rights.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

ITs either that or vote for a nominee that will pay lip service to the pro-life movement while doing nothing about the debt, deficit spending, the destructive policies of the Federal Reserve, or all these pointless wars against people who have no capacity to harm our sovereignty.

Amen! Lip-service to Pro-Life to get our Votes, Then CUT TAXES More; to Increase our Deficits. Nothing to create jobs in the USA; Cut more government jobs, like teachers, again. That Is what cutting Federal spendibng IS: Cut Jobs and Basic Govt services!. No Taxes by the Wealthiest, most Profitable in the world; Continue the $100 Million Annual Welfare to Them: GE and Exxon-Mobil. And vote Obama’s or Democrat Party 100% NO. That’s why Our National Credit Rating was Dropped for the First Time in USA History.

 

[gilliam]

Impeachment lawyer signs on with Paul

The cause of impeaching Obama hasn’t really gotten mainstream traction on the right, but it lives on, Weigel reports:
The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today that constitutional and international law expert Bruce Fein will join the campaign as senior advisor on legal matters.
Fein drafted articles of impeachment earlier this year.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Impeachment lawyer signs on with Paul

The cause of impeaching Obama hasn’t really gotten mainstream traction on the right, but it lives on, [Weigel (Lawyer Who Drafted Impeachment Articles Against Obama Signs Up With Ron Paul) reports:
The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today that constitutional and international law expert Bruce Fein will join the campaign as senior advisor on legal matters.
Fein drafted articles of impeachment earlier this year.

Why No Impeachment against GW Bush/Chaney; Innumererable National and International Criminal Crimes: Like ZERO (NO Defense) of the USA against Forewarned 9/11: ** Zero Alerts** to FAA, Airport Security, Miltary Security, Air Traffic Control, Air Marshalls, NO THING. The Clearest **Violation of the Constitution to Defend, Protect **the USA Against Physical Attack. Pls give One Reason for Not Impeaching GW Bush.

• Anyone give ONE reason to ‘impeach’ Obama? One? It is crazy Political Idea. The Constitution is Not a Political Game to use; It is Ours To Abide by. The Tea Party House Violated the Constitution in Not Paying FAA, In Not assuring Paying National debts, for Political false reasons.

 

[sub_rosa]

Weve had three different defintions of neocon in the last 10 posts alone!

Heres some info on its origins:

amazon.com/Neoconservative-Revolution-Jewish-Intellectuals-Shaping/dp/0521836565

townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/2003/05/27/neocon_slang_for_jew

I read through your sources and I still don’t believe that most people (at least the ones I know) use the term neocon as synonymous with Jew. I just don’t see it or hear it. Are you offended because someone may equate you with a Jew? i still stick by my definition that “neo” means new and calling someone a neoconservative means the new and improved version as opposed to what one used to consider conservative. i don’t mean to offend anyone, but if one is in agreement with someone like bachman or Perry, one would be a new and different version of the conservatives of old ( like the one from the 70’s)

 

[sub_rosa]

Why No Impeachment against GW Bush/Chaney; Innumererable National and International Criminal Crimes: Like ZERO (NO Defense) of the USA against Forewarned 9/11: ** Zero Alerts** to FAA, Airport Security, Miltary Security, Air Traffic Control, Air Marshalls, NO THING. The Clearest **Violation of the Constitution to Defend, Protect **the USA Against Physical Attack. Pls give One Reason for Not Impeaching GW Bush.

• Anyone give ONE reason to ‘impeach’ Obama? One? It is crazy Political Idea. The Constitution is Not a Political Game to use; It is Ours To Abide by. The Tea Party House Violated the Constitution in Not Paying FAA, In Not assuring Paying National debts, for Political false reasons.

It seems like the some people interpret the constitution on the fly. It’s bizarro world, I know, Take heart, the truth eventually wins out. It may not be in our lifetime though, unfortunately.

 

[MMolloy]

I’m afraid you have a tendency to exaggerate my stands on the issues and its getting a bit tiresome - you say I “hate” Ron Paul, then you accuse me of wanting to start a war with Iran… please. I think those who are in touch with reality and understand realpolitik know that there are ways to discourage a country from acquiring nuclear weapons without resorting to outright war. My post was in response to those who are saying that we have no right to try to stop a country from getting nuclear weapons. Such a view is a denial of the existence of evil in the world and false moral equivalency. Haven’t really seen the moral equivalency argument since the left used to say that we had no right to oppose the communists - that we were just as bad if not worse. Its sad to see such a falacious argument rear its ugly head.

Ishii

Yes, the US should keep bombing or bribing the entire world so they do what it wants… how silly of me to forget that America can do no wrong. Guess we can just borrow more money from China or have the FED do some more ‘Quantitative Easing’/Counterfeiting to pay for all the wonderful things our Government has been doing… Like having as part of it’s official foreign policy, targeting other countries for population control since 1974: See Kissinger Report hli.org/index.php/kissinger-report/193?task=view

 

[MMolloy]

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 .

He is not running for State Office… He has and is running for FEDERAL Office. I have informed you already what his position is for the office he is running for.

 

[MMolloy]

I oppose affirmative action. Now back to he question you wont answer.
So you agree with Ron Paul that forced segregation and racial discrimination should be allowed ?

Dr. Paul opposes every Jim Crow law (the States mandating forced segregation) and has stated many times that he views Rosa Parks as a personal Hero.