Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[MMolloy]

Estesbob:

Wouldn’t it be fun to get together a bunch of Ron Paul speeches, interviews, etc, and cut and paste them to create a “Paul Doctrine”? I guess it would have to include legalization of prostitution, which was dodged by the Paulists here, but said by Paul himself. Not sure how to work that in, exactly, between “America brought 911 on itself” and “Abolish the fed and adopt the gold standard.” But if we try earnestly, we might get it done.

Just as a partial piece, perhaps “Prostitutes deserve to be paid in gold, especially when taken across state lines for the purpose, and it’s America’s fault that they’re not.”

Add your contribution if you wish, and have the time.

Why bother the MSM does plenty of the same yellow journalism that you’re advocating… So I guess that means you are for: Bombing or bribing any and all countries throughout the world, borrowing money from China to keep this bombing going, doing away with all State and Local Police and their handling of most crimes and transfer that power to a Federal Police Force, and the best for last… you’re in favor of Illusionary Money and giving control over the printing of this monopoly money to an unelected and unaccountable Banking Cartel.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As to your notion that Iraq II was simply a continuation of Iraq I, that is incorrect. That’s not my opinion. That’s based on the reasons given to us by the George W. Bush Administration. In 2003, the United States invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us, and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have, on the false pretext that Iraq had played a role in 9/11 and was building WMDs to attack us. We are now tied down to a region, with blood and treasure, in an effort to create democracy in a region where it has never before existed. Here are some questions we need to ask with the 2012 election in mind: Did the 15 hijackers from Saudi Arabia fly into the WTC to protest the Bill of Rights or because they want us off sacred Saudi soil and out of the Middle East? **Neither. They did it because they perceived the U.S. as a threat to their designs to form a “caliphate” in the Middle East as a whole, with them as the rulers. ** Is a huge U.S. military presence in the Arab and Islamic world the way to win the war Arab and Islamic terrorists have launched against us - or is that a principal cause of the war? Iraq? Probably at least there. Afghanistan? Very doubtful. Incerlik? Probably. Kuwait? Almost without doubt. Bahrain? Almost certainly. Saudi Arabia? Good question and only time will tell. Is there anything over there - oil, bases, empire - worth risking an atomic bomb on U.S. soil?**Whose bomb are you talking about? At least we know it won’t be Saddam’s and probably not Syria’s either. **

You have a point. All Saddam Hussein did was start two wars, one of them a world war, violated the terms of a “truce” formulated to stop active fighting, killed a million people, used WMD, tried to build atomic weapons, tried to assassinate a former American president, paid families to persuade their children to be suicide bombers to kill civilian members of an ally, run terrorist camps for terroists from many countries, starve his people, bribe the UN, shoot missiles at American and British planes during the “truce” and keep his “WMD coterie” intact and paid.

But you’re right in this. Notwithstanding that virtually every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam was actively working on WMD, notwithstanding that his own in-laws said he had them, and notwithstanding that his own generals said he spirited them off to Syria, and notwithstanding that nobody has yet dug up the entire Iraqi desert looking for them, nobody found but a handful of old WMDs, well, and a pretty substantial amount of yellow cake. He absolutely did not have a trigger-ready atomic weapon on a launch pad. He sure didn’t.

No threat there. We just jumped on an unsuspecting and entirely innocent nation just because we’re imperialists. That’s what you all in the Paul camp (and the hard leftist camp) think, isn’t it?

But guess what, Pardner? If Ron Paul gets the Repub nomination, I’ll support him against Obama. I sure will. Ron Paul, in my opinion, ought to tell his acolytes that they do more harm than good by jumping on people who fully intend to support him if he’s nominated. I don’t have to agree with everything he ever said, let alone every interpretation on his words that his supporters want to tease out of them, like so many Islamic scholars glossing endlessly on the Koran.

And NEVER did G.W. Bush EVER claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Even Ron Paul wouldn’t say he did.

 

[kubark]

Now, this is a revelation! Quote Bush from a reliable source wherein he enunciates the “Bush Doctrine”, containing all of the Paulist/Leftist allegations contained in your view of same. Upon doing so, I will admit there is such a thing as a “Bush Doctrine” and that it’s not just a fabrication of the far left which, for some reason, has been adopted by Libertarians.

Failing to do that, you will be admitting that it’s an opinion held by Paul partisans and the left about Bush’s motivations, to which they, and now you, give a name, and nothing more.

Nine days after 9/11, Bush went before a joint session of Congress to lay down the principles and strategy he would pursue. He said: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” In other words, perpetual war for perpetual peace. Bush went on to describe the war on terror in moral terms, telling diplomats at State, “This war is a struggle between good and evil.” For Bush, terrorists constituted not a conspiracy or a criminal gang but the very embodiement of evil. For Bush, this war was not about, as Clausewitz would have it, an extension of politics, but a moral imperative that transcended politics. In the State of the Union, in 2002, Bush identified "Iran, Iraq, and North Korea by name as an “axis of evil” and delivering a virtual ultimatum to all three: “We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America wil not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Like I said in an earlier post, the Bush threat of war upon nations that had not attacked us was unprecedented and definitely not part of any earlier “doctrine.” I could go on an on but you get the point, Ridgerunner. These are Bush’s words not mine.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Nine days after 9/11, Bush went before a joint session of Congress to lay down the principles and strategy he would pursue. He said: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” In other words, perpetual war for perpetual peace. Bush went on to describe the war on terror in moral terms, telling diplomats at State, “This war is a struggle between good and evil.” For Bush, terrorists constituted not a conspiracy or a criminal gang but the very embodiement of evil. For Bush, this war was not about, as Clausewitz would have it, an extension of politics, but a moral imperative that transcended politics. In the State of the Union, in 2002, Bush identified "Iran, Iraq, and North Korea by name as an “axis of evil” and delivering a virtual ultimatum to all three: “We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America wil not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Like I said in an earlier post, the Bush threat of war upon nations that had not attacked us was unprecedented and definitely not part of any earlier “doctrine.” I could go on an on but you get the point, Ridgerunner. These are Bush’s words not mine.

Sooooooo, no official pronouncement of a “Bush Doctrine” at all. It’s nothing but an interpretation of another man’s mind built by people who despise him. Glad that’s finally acknowledged.

And you don’t think Iran, Iraq (under Saddam) and North Korea are governed by evil principles and individuals? Do you similarly criticize Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire”? One supposes so.

Can I not think of them as evil either? Am I only allowed to think in terms of Clauswitz’ utilitarian principles, or perhaps Henry Kissinger’s “realpolitic”? What if I, too, think regimes like Saddam’s Iraq, Iran and the unimaginably odious North Korea are fomenting “evil”? Can I say so, or not?

Is it okay for the Ron Paul News website to refer to “evil union thuggery”? Or do his people think of “evil” in some way different from the way George Bush sees it? A different definition, perhaps.

 

[kubark]

You have a point. All Saddam Hussein did was start two wars, one of them a world war, violated the terms of a “truce” formulated to stop active fighting, killed a million people, used WMD, tried to build atomic weapons, tried to assassinate a former American president, paid families to persuade their children to be suicide bombers to kill civilian members of an ally, run terrorist camps for terroists from many countries, starve his people, bribe the UN, shoot missiles at American and British planes during the “truce” and keep his “WMD coterie” intact and paid.

But you’re right in this. Notwithstanding that virtually every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam was actively working on WMD, notwithstanding that his own in-laws said he had them, and notwithstanding that his own generals said he spirited them off to Syria, and notwithstanding that nobody has yet dug up the entire Iraqi desert looking for them, nobody found but a handful of old WMDs, well, and a pretty substantial amount of yellow cake. He absolutely did not have a trigger-ready atomic weapon on a launch pad. He sure didn’t.

No threat there. We just jumped on an unsuspecting and entirely innocent nation just because we’re imperialists. That’s what you all in the Paul camp (and the hard leftist camp) think, isn’t it?

But guess what, Pardner? If Ron Paul gets the Repub nomination, I’ll support him against Obama. I sure will. Ron Paul, in my opinion, ought to tell his acolytes that they do more harm than good by jumping on people who fully intend to support him if he’s nominated. I don’t have to agree with everything he ever said, let alone every interpretation on his words that his supporters want to tease out of them, like so many Islamic scholars glossing endlessly on the Koran.

And NEVER did G.W. Bush EVER claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Even Ron Paul wouldn’t say he did.

“NEVER did G.W. Bush EVER claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911.” Maybe G.W. Bush “never” did, but Richard Perle ( claimed it and Dick Cheney insinuated it. And so what if Iraq looked “threatening” to us. So what if he killed millions of his own people.
(Our nation has allowed the legal killing of millions of people in this country for forty years). So what if he was a bad guy. We got along fine with men much worse than Sadaam for over 50 years, and the country was safer for it. We don’t go to war based on potential threats and potential aggressors. And when we do go to war on those premises, we don’t call them constitutional wars and we certainly don’t call them just wars.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why bother the MSM does plenty of the same yellow journalism that you’re advocating… So I guess that means you are for: Bombing or bribing any and all countries throughout the world, borrowing money from China to keep this bombing going, doing away with all State and Local Police and their handling of most crimes and transfer that power to a Federal Police Force, and the best for last… you’re in favor of Illusionary Money and giving control over the printing of this monopoly money to an unelected and unaccountable Banking Cartel.

Lighten up, fellow! Can’t you take a joke? Somebody pasted some bits and snippets of Bush stuff together in an attempt to define a “Doctrine” that never was, and I simply said I’ll bet I could do the same with Ron Paul, and parodied what an attempt might look like. Anybody could with anybody. That was the point.

I’m really am beginning to wonder about Ron Paul if he instructs his supporters to attack people who would probably vote for him in the general if he’s the nominee. Don’t you guys have a handbook or something? “Make friends for Paul” or something like that?

 

[MMolloy]

You have a point. All Saddam Hussein did was start two wars, one of them a world war, violated the terms of a “truce” formulated to stop active fighting, killed a million people, used WMD, tried to build atomic weapons, tried to assassinate a former American president, paid families to persuade their children to be suicide bombers to kill civilian members of an ally, run terrorist camps for terroists from many countries, starve his people, bribe the UN, shoot missiles at American and British planes during the “truce” and keep his “WMD coterie” intact and paid.

But you’re right in this. Notwithstanding that virtually every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam was actively working on WMD, notwithstanding that his own in-laws said he had them, and notwithstanding that his own generals said he spirited them off to Syria, and notwithstanding that nobody has yet dug up the entire Iraqi desert looking for them, nobody found but a handful of old WMDs, well, and a pretty substantial amount of yellow cake. He absolutely did not have a trigger-ready atomic weapon on a launch pad. He sure didn’t.

No threat there. We just jumped on an unsuspecting and entirely innocent nation just because we’re imperialists. That’s what you all in the Paul camp (and the hard leftist camp) think, isn’t it?

But guess what, Pardner? If Ron Paul gets the Repub nomination, I’ll support him against Obama. I sure will. Ron Paul, in my opinion, ought to tell his acolytes that they do more harm than good by jumping on people who fully intend to support him if he’s nominated. I don’t have to agree with everything he ever said, let alone every interpretation on his words that his supporters want to tease out of them, like so many Islamic scholars glossing endlessly on the Koran.

And NEVER did G.W. Bush EVER claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Even Ron Paul wouldn’t say he did.

Wow, convenient rewrite of history. You left out Saddam was the US’s ally and we supported him in his was with Iran. No one here is claiming any country is innocent (except you might be making that claim about the US). Saddam did invade Kuwait but to say he started a World War is disingenuous at best… It was the UN and US that decided to make it a cause celeb for the New World Order… George Bush Sr. on September 11th 1990 in front of a joint televised session of congress told us why we were going to engage Iraq: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge…We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by it’s founders.”

As far as the rest of you rant… most of the things that you indict Iraq for trying to do, the US has actually done: Like Dropping Atomic Bombs on Cities. And if the UN led by China had imposed a no-fly zone over our east and west coasts, you can be sure Americans would be firing on those planes occupying our country.

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob:

Wouldn’t it be fun to get together a bunch of Ron Paul speeches, interviews, etc, and cut and paste them to create a “Paul Doctrine”? I guess it would have to include legalization of prostitution, which was dodged by the Paulists here, but said by Paul himself. Not sure how to work that in, exactly, between “America brought 911 on itself” and “Abolish the fed and adopt the gold standard.” But if we try earnestly, we might get it done.

Just as a partial piece, perhaps “Prostitutes deserve to be paid in gold, especially when taken across state lines for the purpose, and it’s America’s fault that they’re not.”

Add your contribution if you wish, and have the time.

And the prostitutes are all former employees of the Federal reserve and all are living in segregated housing

 

[Ridgerunner]

“NEVER did G.W. Bush EVER claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911.” Maybe G.W. Bush “never” did, but Richard Perle ( claimed it and Dick Cheney insinuated it. And so what if Iraq looked “threatening” to us. So what if he killed millions of his own people.
(Our nation has allowed the legal killing of millions of people in this country for forty years). So what if he was a bad guy. We got along fine with men much worse than Sadaam for over 50 years, and the country was safer for it. We don’t go to war based on potential threats and potential aggressors. And when we do go to war on those premises, we don’t call them constitutional wars and we certainly don’t call them just wars.

Oh, so Dick Cheney insinuated it. Now that’s persuasive! And it isn’t “maybe” G.W. Bush never did. It’s “he never did”, pure and simple. And I don’t think our Israeli allies or the British and American pilots Saddam shot at would think his threats quite as “potential” as you do. Do you not know that in paying the families of suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians, he was trying to start an Arab-Israeli war, just as he did when he was shooting Scuds at Israel?

And remember, Saddam started two wars, the last of which ended in a truce, which he violated. Fortunately, he was not allowed to start a third.

Wait, don’t you guys believe the U.S. should have stayed out of World War II? Or is that just Buchanan and a handful of leftists who believe that?

 

[Ridgerunner]

And the prostitutes are all former employees of the Federal reserve and all are living in segregated housing

Careful there, Estesbob, Mmolloy got the vapors over what I wrote. I guess they don’t think it’s funny.

 

[MMolloy]

Lighten up, fellow! Can’t you take a joke? Somebody pasted some bits and snippets of Bush stuff together in an attempt to define a “Doctrine” that never was, and I simply said I’ll bet I could do the same with Ron Paul, and parodied what an attempt might look like. Anybody could with anybody. That was the point.

I’m really am beginning to wonder about Ron Paul if he instructs his supporters to attack people who would probably vote for him in the general if he’s the nominee. Don’t you guys have a handbook or something? “Make friends for Paul” or something like that?

I have no problems making friends with anyone who shows the least bit of forthrightness and honesty. But when every comment contains 1/2 truths and insults, It’s doubtful how good of an ally that person would be. It’d be like having a know-it-all green Lt in combat… he’s much more likely to get you killed, than he is to kill the enemy.

 

[estesbob]

Careful there, Estesbob, Mmolloy got the vapors over what I wrote. I guess they don’t think it’s funny.

I have noticed Rons supporters seem to have the same sense of humor deficit as those on the far Left Do

 

[Ridgerunner]

Wow, convenient rewrite of history. You left out Saddam was the US’s ally and we supported him in his was with Iran. No one here is claiming any country is innocent (except you might be making that claim about the US). Saddam did invade Kuwait but to say he started a World War is disingenuous at best… It was the UN and US that decided to make it a cause celeb for the New World Order… George Bush Sr. on September 11th 1990 in front of a joint televised session of congress told us why we were going to engage Iraq: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge…We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by it’s founders.”

As far as the rest of you rant… most of the things that you indict Iraq for trying to do, the US has actually done: Like Dropping Atomic Bombs on Cities. And if the UN led by China had imposed a no-fly zone over our east and west coasts, you can be sure Americans would be firing on those planes occupying our country.

Huh? Now we’re making a new “Bush Doctrine” out of something George H.W. Bush said twenty years ago? Not that I agree with him, or even liked him. But we’re starting to get uncomfortably close to Black Helicopter stuff here, piecing this and that together to come up with something that looks coherent but isn’t on its own.

Ah! So you believe Saddam Hussein was justified in shooting missiles at American and British planes in violation of the truce he entered, and he was ever bit as justified as the U.S. would be in repelling Chinese planes from California. My stars! If you don’t see the difference in those things, then I can easily understand how you and the Ron Paulists manage to blame America for virtually everything. Did we cause the Japanese tsunami too? Just asking.

So, it seems the only country you would perhaps deign to call “evil” is the United States.
You guys are not painting all that attractive a portrait of what your man stands for. Are you UinstructedU by the organization to drive off as many potential voters as you can?

The Iraq War wasn’t a world war? My goodness man, even Japan was in on it. From start to finish, nearly every country one ever heard of played some part in it. Just because nobody invaded the Philippines in the course of it does not make it any the less a “world war”.

 

[kubark]

Sooooooo, no official pronouncement of a “Bush Doctrine” at all. It’s nothing but an interpretation of another man’s mind built by people who despise him. Glad that’s finally acknowledged.

And you don’t think Iran, Iraq (under Saddam) and North Korea are governed by evil principles and individuals? Do you similarly criticize Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire”? One supposes so.

Can I not think of them as evil either? Am I only allowed to think in terms of Clauswitz’ utilitarian principles, or perhaps Henry Kissinger’s “realpolitic”? What if I, too, think regimes like Saddam’s Iraq, Iran and the unimaginably odious North Korea are fomenting “evil”? Can I say so, or not?

Is it okay for the Ron Paul News website to refer to “evil union thuggery”? Or do his people think of “evil” in some way different from the way George Bush sees it? A different definition, perhaps.

Sooooooo…I guess there is no such thing as the “Truman Doctrine” because “officially” it was called the “Recommendation for assistance to Greece and Turkey.” I assure you, the Bush Doctrine is real. American men and women have died enforcing it. You are right, Reagan did call the Soviet Union “the evil empire” and declared that Communism was headed for the ash heap of history, but, like the tough union leader that he once was, after he took his stand and made his case, he was ready to sit down and talk. He was tough but not bellicose. Would Reagan have declared a policy of preventive war to keep any rival from rising to where it might challenge us? Would he have thrown over the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment (you don’t deny these “doctrines” do you?) as irrelevant to our time? Would he have called for world democratic revolution (like the one we are seeing come to “fruition” under Obama) to change regimes that did not threaten or attack us? How could Bush say that we are not secure if the Islamic world is not democratic? The Islamic world has never been democratic the few times it has been “democratic” we got “bad guys” like Nasser, Khadafi, Assad, Sadaam, and the Baath Party. Every president since FDR got along fine with the “bad guys” so long as it made us safe. And one more thing about your reference to the “evil empire.” We preach democracy and human rights, yet prop up dictators and oligarchs who oppress Islamic peoples and squander their wealth. In other words, we meddle in their affairs. And then you have America’s neopagan culture - alchohol, drugs, abortions, pornography - all a satanic lure that corrupts the morals of Islamic children. You see, to millions of muslims, we are the “evil empire.”

 

[louis91766]

I have noticed Rons supporters seem to have the same sense of humor deficit as those on the far Left Do

America’s inclination to get involved in wars is not funny.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have noticed Rons supporters seem to have the same sense of humor deficit as those on the far Left Do

Similar to how some seem determined to undermine Ron as a legitimate candidate to the point of questioning him the same as some question the far left?

It’s amazing how some have targeted Ron Paul as they do the democrats after the primaries. So far, I haven’t seen another republican I am ready to go to as a second choice if Ron doesn’t get the nomination.

 

[MMolloy]

How about the Brits or even the Argentinians in the Malvinas? If you consider the Argentinians as punk, consider that the COAN sank six British ships and damaged twelve more in that war.

The Israeli AF did a nice job, however, of attacking the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 174. Brave lads, those Israelis, when they can attack an unarmed American ship. Most senior U.S. government officials involved with the incident, did not believe that the attack was a mistake. The attack, furthermore, remains the only maritime incident in U.S. history where American military forces were killed that was never investigated by the Congress.

So much for my opinion of the Israeli Air Force and their claim to third place.

Alright… whatever place you’d like to put them is fine with me… they are still quite capable of handling the Iranians. And I don’t support their attack on the USS Liberty, something that is never mentioned by the MSM. It still should be investigated.

 

[louis91766]

The Israeli AF did a nice job, however, of attacking the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 174. Brave lads, those Israelis, when they can attack an unarmed American ship. Most senior U.S. government officials involved with the incident, did not believe that the attack was a mistake. The attack, furthermore, remains the only maritime incident in U.S. history where American military forces were killed that was never investigated by the Congress.
.

then why does the USA give so many millions of dollars to Israel?

 

[kubark]

Oh, so Dick Cheney insinuated it. Now that’s persuasive! And it isn’t “maybe” G.W. Bush never did. It’s “he never did”, pure and simple. And I don’t think our Israeli allies or the British and American pilots Saddam shot at would think his threats quite as “potential” as you do. Do you not know that in paying the families of suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians, he was trying to start an Arab-Israeli war, just as he did when he was shooting Scuds at Israel?

And remember, Saddam started two wars, the last of which ended in a truce, which he violated. Fortunately, he was not allowed to start a third.

Wait, don’t you guys believe the U.S. should have stayed out of World War II? Or is that just Buchanan and a handful of leftists who believe that?

Of course he would shoot at planes flying over HIS country. And for the last time, infractions of no-fly zones was not the primary reason for launching the 2003 War on Iraq. And so what if he was hostile toward the Israelis. They are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves (thanks to the taxpayers of the United States) and have a history of taking care of themselves. There is not one country in the Middle East that is worth the life of a Marine.

 

[pnewton]

For any Catholics for Ron Paul that wish to hear what he really stands for, this he is going to be on FOX news this week.

LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Ron Paul, 2012 Republican candidate for president, will appear on the Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.
The appearances will occur over the next few days beginning today, Wednesday, August 24th and ending Sunday the 28th.
Details of the appearances are as follows. All times Eastern.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Fox Business Network
Thursday, August 25, 2011
10:00 a.m.
Varney & Co.
Fox Business Network
Sunday, August 28, 2011
9:00 a.m. (check local listings)
Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
Fox News Channel
ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/24/ron-paul-to-appear-on-fox-news-sunday/

FYI - Making up names like “Paulist” is very transparent propaganda. It is not very becoming of Christians.