Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[MMolloy]

If I didn’t know better, I would say you’re insinuating I’m a communist or communist sympathyzer. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not very charitable my brother.

I would argue that Ron Paul’s positions on Foreign Policy, the war on drugs and the Federal Reserve are widely known and reported on in the MSM, blogosphere and around the water cooler. That they may be poorly understood, perhaps. This may be why his appeal as a Presidential candidate has not expanded beyond his minority core of constituents.

I am not insinuating anything. But your admonishment ending in ‘my brother’ did echo the sincerity of one of Malcolm McDowell’s most famous characters.

I would agree that the Characterization of Ron Paul’s positions on;
Foreign Policy:
amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001
War on Drugs / Prohibition:
amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314218579&sr=1-1
amazon.com/Ron-Paul-Speaks-Philip-Haddad/dp/1599214482/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314218545&sr=1-1#reader_1599214482
Federal Reserve:
amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=end+the+fed&x=0&y=0
amazon.com/Pillars-Prosperity-Ron-Paul/dp/1933550244/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314218774&sr=1-10#reader_1933550244

are well known, unfortunately too many people don’t read and get their talking points from the MSM and unless it comes in a 20 second sound bite… forget it.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe we should ask Ron Paul, he knew Jefferson didn’t he?

Ishii

I beleive he shared Jeffersons view on “property”

 

[Big_Ro]

“Entangling alliances” are what gave us The Great War. And before you can defeat any enemy, you must know that enemy. Why did al Qaeda attack us? Was it because of “who we are” or because of “what we do” in their region? I’m not sure what you mean by “engagement in the world that will prevent another global conflict.” U.S. armed forces do not take an oath to defend the peace that makes all progress possible. They take an oath to defend the Constitution. Perhaps by “engagement” you mean the Bush Doctrine as codified in the National Security Strategy of the United States on Sept. 21, 2002, which embraces preemptive and preventive war. Perhaps you are confusing our new foreign policy of “engagement” with the foreign policy of “containment” that, for 50 years, kept two nuclear superpowers from destroying each other. As to WWII, America did not go to war to defend democracy. We went to war to exact retribution from a Japanese empire that had attacked us in our sleep. When the Allies declared war on Hitler on Sept. 3, 1939, FDR did not come to the defense of France and Britain. He delivered a fireside chat that same night pledging there would be “no blackout of peace” in the United States. When France fell in 1940, pleading for planes, FDR sent words of encouragement. Not until 18 months after the fall of France did we declare war on Hitler and not until after Hitler had declared war on us.

I am well aware of the history. I think you’re ignoring that FDR was very much in favor of entering the European conflict long before 1941. He simply didn’t have the support from Congress and it’s widely believed that the American people were also not supportive of our entry. The horror of WWI was still fresh for many. Are you forgetting the Lend/Lease Policy. There is a body of scholarship which suggests that FDR embarked on this policy as a means to force our entanglement in the War. There’s also a long running conspiracy theory that he knew ahead of time that the Japanese intended to bomb Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen in order to get in the War. It’s very, very similar to the oft repeated conspiracy that GWB did likewise regarding 9-11. As far as the policy of Containment being a bulwork against a conflict with the then Superpower USSR. I think your almost right. It was actually the Policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD, aptly named ) that is more widely credited with preventing a nuclear conflict. Our policy of non-proliferation is also widely credited with preventing a nuclear conflict. And, for what it’s worth, Ron Paul does not seem to think that we should be allowed to tell Iran that they are not allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Containment, on the other hand, was a policy which allowed for proxy wars between the two superpowers that would not or should not lead to an all out nuclear war. So, Containment didn’t prevent War between the two nuclear powers it allowed for a smaller grade War to take place. The success of the policy is controversial. FDR was able to get us in to the European conflict because the entire attitude of Americans had completely changed after Pearl Harbor. The isolationism and fear of foreign entanglements that had previously inhibited American Foreign policy prior was shattered with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And, these conflicts lead directly to a new American paradigm which eminated from Brettonwoods CT after WWII. America would henceforth be the world economic, political and military leader. The Soviets took exception. So, whatever isolationism that had existed before was left behind. If you or Ron Paul want to suggest a return, fine. But you can’t pretend that GWB somehow put it asunder. I’m no fan of Bush Doctrine, but GWB did not break with any policy. He maybe extended it beyond it’s limits.

 

[Big_Ro]

Maybe we should ask Ron Paul, he knew Jefferson didn’t he?

Ishii

Same HS debate team.

 

[Big_Ro]

I beleive he shared Jeffersons view on “property”

Que ouch!! Estesbob, Snark Champion of this thread. Well played.

 

[MMolloy]

So, you’re suggesting that the USA has been fomenting war throughout the world in order to slow down population growth? Was the policy promulgated at area 51?

Did you bother to read what Human Life International wrote about National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200)? This is not new information, NSSM-200 was declassified in 1989.

This has been covered by many national and international Pro-Life groups… are you telling me you never heard of it?
lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/nssm200/
From ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=24655

 

[Big_Ro]

Did you bother to read what Human Life International wrote about National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200)? This is not new information, NSSM-200 was declassified in 1989.

This has been covered by many national and international Pro-Life groups… are you telling me you never heard of it?
lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/nssm200/
From ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=24655

I have some vague recollection. I’m sorry it’s just hard to take all of this seriously when you suggested in an earlier post that we actually killed OBL’s body double. Out of respect, I erased my sacastic remark. It was funny, but uncharitable.

 

[MMolloy]

Does the Tea Party back the foreign policy of Ron Paul? I think that they are on opposite sides on foreign policy.

They Should!
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." ~ James Madison

 

[MMolloy]

I have some vague recollection. I’m sorry it’s just hard to take all of this seriously when you suggested in an earlier post that we actually killed OBL’s body double. Out of respect, I erased my sacastic remark. It was funny, but uncharitable.

Don’t worry, you uncharitableness, is coming through loud and clear despite your efforts to avoid raising a moderator red flag.

 

[louis91766]

They Should!

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." ~ James Madison

I agree, except that everyone should heed the words of James Madison.

 

[Big_Ro]

New polling out today from Gallup and PPP show Perry taking a commanding lead. Paul’s numbers continue to be stable. Bachman appears in free fall. No one else is even in double digits.

Feeling a little cocky right now.

 

[Big_Ro]

Perry is the New Frontrunner
A new Gallup poll shows Texas Gov. Rick Perry has jumped to the front of the Republican presidential race with 29%, followed by Mitt Romney at 17%, Ron Paul at 13% and Michele Bachmann at 10%. All other contenders are below 5% in support.

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds Perry at 33%, Romney at 20%, Bachmann at 16%, Newt Gingrich at 8% and Herman Cain and Ron Paul at 6%.

Key finding: “There was some thought that Perry’s entry would actually help Romney because it would lead to a split in the conservative vote between Perry and Bachmann but Perry is now winning those voters by such a wide margin that it doesn’t even matter.”

politicalwire.com/

gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx

publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/perry-leads-nationally.html

 

[MMolloy]

I have some vague recollection. I’m sorry it’s just hard to take all of this seriously when you suggested in an earlier post that we actually killed OBL’s body double. Out of respect, I erased my sacastic remark. It was funny, but uncharitable.

And since you wish to make an issue of OBL (nice diversion away from answering my questions about NSSM-200 by the way)… What proof do you offer that it was in fact OBL and that it was not his double and that he was killed? A body? Eye Witnesses? Anything besides the US Government saying so via the MSM?

 

[MMolloy]

Perry is the New Frontrunner
A new Gallup poll shows Texas Gov. Rick Perry has jumped to the front of the Republican presidential race with 29%, followed by Mitt Romney at 17%, Ron Paul at 13% and Michele Bachmann at 10%. All other contenders are below 5% in support.

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds Perry at 33%, Romney at 20%, Bachmann at 16%, Newt Gingrich at 8% and Herman Cain and Ron Paul at 6%.

Key finding: “There was some thought that Perry’s entry would actually help Romney because it would lead to a split in the conservative vote between Perry and Bachmann but Perry is now winning those voters by such a wide margin that it doesn’t even matter.”

politicalwire.com/

gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx

publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/perry-leads-nationally.html

Don’t you find all this even a little contrived, especially given that Perry hasn’t even participated in ONE debate? Totally sidestepped any type of vetting by avoiding the Iowa Straw Poll altogether?

 

[Big_Ro]

And since you wish to make an issue of OBL (nice diversion away from answering my questions about NSSM-200 by the way)… What proof do you offer that it was in fact OBL and that it was not his double and that he was killed? A body? Eye Witnesses? Anything besides the US Government saying so via the MSM?

You’re right I shouldn’t have brought it up because it’s off topic which is a violation of forum rules. It’s sometimes hard to know where the line is. I am in possesion of no proof since I am not a member of governent nor an employee of any intelligence agency. I guess I could turn it around and ask you what proof you have that it wasn’t, but I’m afraid you would quote/link to all sorts of blogs, websites or alternative news agencies that purport to have “incontrovertible” evidence that it was a body double. But I’ve been down that road on a bygone thread regarding the Presidents supposedly questionable place of birth or citizenship status. I have no time for it. You are, of course, welcome to your beliefs and I respect your right to have them. God bless.

 

[estesbob]

Don’t you find all this even a little contrived, especially given that Perry hasn’t even participated in ONE debate? Totally sidestepped any type of vetting by avoiding the Iowa Straw Poll altogether?

Is Ron Paul a Truther?

 

[TMC]

Is Ron Paul a Truther?

He is sometimes accused of being a truther, mostly because he has made some statements that on the surface seem sympathetic to the truther community - but he has repeatedly denied that he himself is a truther.

 

[estesbob]

He is sometimes accused of being a truther, mostly because he has made some statements that on the surface seem sympathetic to the truther community - but he has repeatedly denied that he himself is a truther.

Thx!

 

[Big_Ro]

Don’t you find all this even a little contrived, especially given that Perry hasn’t even participated in ONE debate? Totally sidestepped any type of vetting by avoiding the Iowa Straw Poll altogether?

I’m not sure contrived is the appropriate word. It smacks of manipulation and as I am not a subscriber to conspiracy theories, I don’t buy it. That Perry is benefitting from not having undergone a vetting process thus far as thorough as maybe Romney, Bachman or Paul have withstood, is probably correct. However, let’s be honest, I didn’t say this or any poll except the one in November of 2012 is definitive or conclusive. You seem to want to take me there but I’m not taking the bait. My reasons for asserting for now more than two months that Perry would be the nominee has nothing to do with polls. Check the time line. Perry had not announced and up to that point was not even admitting to be in the running. The Texas Leg was still in session and Perry’s comments up to that point were perceived by many as ruling out a run. My prediction, at that time, was akin to moving all in without looking at my cards. I made my prediction based on my own analysis of the dynamic within the Republican nominating process and a wealth of perspective gained from more than some 40 years of being obsessed with politics and Presidential politics in particular. To my knowledge, there was no polling publically available that measured Perry’s strength as a potential candidate. I will say that he is about to get a vetting like he’s never seen. He’s about to experience a level of scrutiny that he has never encountered. He is about to face off in both the Primaries and the General Election cycle with opponents like he never faced in Texas. I have a prediction as to the outcome, but I don’t plan to share it just yet. I will say that my prediction will be right. Perry will be the nominee.

 

[Big_Ro]

I have also made a predcition as to who his running mate will be. Boy talk about getting out on a limb. I mean I’m out there with a saw baby!! I got my chips in…all in. Woo-hooo!!