Republican Primaries

[bbarrick8383]

So if abortion was illegal and someone wanted to decriminalize it, that isn’t legalizing it in some form?

The fact that the “war on drugs” hasn’t been won shouldn’t affect whether we just give up and go home. Try telling pro lifers that the abortion fight has been an epic disaster and we should give up.

You’re funny in a way because you said in another post that you acknowledge the personal responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves but you don’t like the government doing the same thing. What is a government consist of? People. What different should it make if a large group of people try to help others or a person?

This part of libertarianism is evil and in my humble opinion is unCatholic.

Murders not a federal crime.

 

[jam070406]

Unfortunately, this thread has deteriorated immediately into the usual Ron Paul apologists raising him to demigod status and lashing out angrily at anybody that points out his shortcomings.

He is unelectable, his simplistic views from solving on solving the economic problems facing this country are unworkable and his simplistic foreign policy would put the country at risk. Couple that with his belief that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race and you have an absolute disaster if he were to become the GOP nominee.

In all of these polls formally. I’ve voted for Romney, but his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge has reinforced my uneasiness about his commitment to pro-life issues. I voted for Bachmann this time around, although I still think it is probable Romney will be the nominee unless Perry gets into the race.

Simplistic??

Mr. Paul would not try to overturn the Civil Rights Act so your point is a nonissue.
No matter how often you try to make it one.

 

[estesbob]

Simplistic??

Mr. Paul would not try to overturn the Civil Rights Act so your point is a nonissue.
No matter how often you try to make it one.

Yes simplistic. His solution to the economic problems is to throw the nation’s banking system into turmoil by eliminating the Federal Reserve and reinstating the gold standard.

You are about the only Ron Paul supporter in CAF you still does not admit that Ron Paul believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.

 

[gilliam]

Good Lord, here we go again. ROn Paul is not for “legalizing” heroin. He is for decriminalizing it at the FEDERAL LEVEL. States can still do whatever they want. Businesses can still have zero tolerance policies. Federal employers can have zero tolerance policies.

OK, Ron Paul will use his influence where he can in the office he holds (which is on a FEDERAL LEVEL) to eliminate all the laws he has control over, which are federal, to eliminate any federal laws restricting the use of any drug including heroin. Is that better?

Seriously, I understand what you are saying. But realize how it is perceved by Republicans, and they aren’t totally wron ghere. Ron Paul is a Libertarian with Libertarian views. He sould be running in the Libertarian Party.

The federal War on Drugs has been an epic disaster and has done nothing but created an army of powerful, violent drug cartels in South America.

Yes, that statement is used by Paul in his defense of legalizing heroin and other hard drugs.

I am simply pointing out that the chances of someone who has that position being the leader of the Republican Party is nil. Goes back to my point that Ron Paul is unelectable.

 

[estesbob]

Bob, I’m a bit frustrated that you talk those of us who like Ron Paul the same way Catholic democrats talk to you about supporting pro life candidates.

I am a bit frustrated that Ron Paul supporters try to rationalize his assertion that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race the same way as Catholic democrats try to rationalize their candidates support of abortion

 

[bbarrick8383]

I am a bit frustrated that Ron Paul supporters try to rationalize his assertion that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race the same way as Catholic democrats try to rationalize their candidates support of abortion

Whether or not Ron Paul believes it or not doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.

There are thousands of Democrats out there trying to rationalize their support for Democrats regardless of their stance on abortion, there is only one Ron Paul.

These days, if the laws were taken off the federal books they could be done so under a stipulation that state laws protect minorities civil rights. Any business around here that tried putting up a sign not allowing a person to enter their establishment based on the color of their skin would eventually go out of business.

Ron Paul just does not believe that the federal government is the answer to race relations the same way that you and I do not believe the federal government is the answer to abortion. Abortions got to be a states rights issue.

 

[jam070406]

Yes simplistic. His solution to the economic problems is to throw the nation’s banking system into turmoil by eliminating the Federal Reserve and reinstating the gold standard.

You are about the only Ron Paul supporter in CAF you still does not admit that Ron Paul believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.

A central back issuing currency is a greater menace to the nation then a standing army.

He didn’t say businesses should be allowed to discriminate and you can’t admit that. Is there a possibility that could happen if that part of the act, regarding private property, were removed? Maybe.
Is the issue irrelevant? Yes. Because he has said he wouldn’t work to overturn the CRA because it has done much good regardless of the point he objected to.

 

[gilliam]

I grew up in the 50s and was in high school in the 60s. If we had waited for the states to fix their civil rights laws we would still be waiting for Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arizona and a number of other states. In some cases, like civil rights, slavery, etc. The Federal Government had to step in to make things right. It may not be strictly constitutional, but it was the right thing to do. Ron Paul is simply wrong on this point.

 

[estesbob]

A central back issuing currency is a greater menace to the nation then a standing army.

He didn’t say businesses should be allowed to discriminate and you can’t admit that. Is there a possibility that could happen if that part of the act, regarding private property, were removed? Maybe.
Is the issue irrelevant? Yes. Because he has said he wouldn’t work to overturn the CRA because it has done much good regardless of the point he objected to.

So what are you going to replace single currency with? Is each state would issue their own currency? Each town? As I said the idea that you can fix economy by eliminating the Fed is simplistic beyond belief.

The problem with Ron Paul’s stance on the Civil Rights Act is not that he would attempt to overturn it, we all know he would not. It is that his opposition to it is a symptom of a political philosophy that puts property rights before all else.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I grew up in the 50s and was in high school in the 60s. If we had waited for the states to fix their civil rights laws we would still be waiting for Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arizona and a number of other states. In some cases, like civil rights, slavery, etc. The Federal Government had to step in to make things right. It may not be strictly constitutional, but it was the right thing to do. Ron Paul is simply wrong on this point.

I could agree with you to a certain extent on this Gilliam, but I don’t think people understand Pauls position. Just because he did not support the legislation at that time doesn not mean he wouldn’t have supported some sort of legislation.

Correcting major flaws in the states like that should have been handled on a more temporary basis.

We are no better off if we go from not allowing someone to do something based on the color of their skin to being forced to select someone to do something based on the color of their skin.

This is an interesting argument that I’ve failed to understand. To me slavery is morally equivalant to abortion. How are we not at war over abortion with more dead than the entire civil war?

 

[jam070406]

I grew up in the 50s and was in high school in the 60s. If we had waited for the states to fix their civil rights laws we would still be waiting for Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arizona and a number of other states. In some cases, like civil rights, slavery, etc. The Federal Government had to step in to make things right. It may not be strictly constitutional, but it was the right thing to do. Ron Paul is simply wrong on this point.

That’s why he has stated he would never work to overturn the CRA and never has introduced anything attempting to.

 

[bbarrick8383]

So what are you going to replace single currency with? Is each state would issue their own currency? Each town? As I said the idea that you can fix economy by eliminating the Fed is simplistic beyond belief.

The problem with Ron Paul’s stance on the Civil Rights Act is not that he would attempt to overturn it, we all know he would not. It is that his opposition to it is a symptom of a political philosophy that puts property rights before all else.

I didn’t, and still don’t to a certain extent on certain issues, understand libertarianism. It just doesn’t come to me unless someone explains it to me first. I don’t consider much of anything Paul says too simplistic in that sense.

ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

 

[gilliam]

Correcting major flaws in the states like that should have been handled on a more temporary basis. [/qutoe]

Cancers need to be erradicated permantly, not with temporary fixes.

We are no better off if we go from not allowing someone to do something based on the color of their skin to being forced to select someone to do something based on the color of their skin.

 

[jam070406]

I could agree with you to a certain extent on this Gilliam, but I don’t think people understand Pauls position. Just because he did not support the legislation at that time doesn not mean he wouldn’t have supported some sort of legislation.

Correcting major flaws in the states like that should have been handled on a more temporary basis.

We are no better off if we go from not allowing someone to do something based on the color of their skin to being forced to select someone to do something based on the color of their skin.

This is an interesting argument that I’ve failed to understand. To me slavery is morally equivalant to abortion. How are we not at war over abortion with more dead than the entire civil war?

It is rather ironic that we have a Fed government in bed with a company formed to commit silent genocide on black communities, which Ron Paul has worked repeatedly to end but he gets raked over the coals for an objection in a bill 47 years ago.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Cancers need to be erradicated permantly, not with temporary fixes.

Chemotherapy is often a temporary treatment if it successfully kills the cancer cells. In the same sense, the federal government chould have been the chemotherapy this country needed without passing permanent legislation that intrudes into peoples personal property rights.

If a black man asks me to sell chemical for his oil wells, and I do not like his reputation I should be able to refuse service to him based on that alone. But, since he’s black I have to worry about whether or not he files a civil rights lawsuit?

I will agree with you there and that is slowly being adusted now without getting rid of the civil rights act.

How so?

Because the don’t have the will power to do it.

So you think people should fight to end abortion to the extent that they fought to end slavery?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So if abortion was illegal and someone wanted to decriminalize it, that isn’t legalizing it in some form?

The fact that the “war on drugs” hasn’t been won shouldn’t affect whether we just give up and go home. Try telling pro lifers that the abortion fight has been an epic disaster and we should give up.

You’re funny in a way because you said in another post that you acknowledge the personal responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves but you don’t like the government doing the same thing. What is a government consist of? People. What different should it make if a large group of people try to help others or a person?

This part of libertarianism is evil and in my humble opinion is unCatholic.

Libertarianism is rooted in the concept that every person owns his/her own body and has the right to life based on that principle. God gave me to me. He didn’t give me to the State. As the owner of myself, I am also the owner of the fruit of my labor, because if someone else owns the fruit of my labor, then they also be default, own a part of me as well, since they can compel me to produce. The only one instance that we voluntarily give up ownership of part of ourselves is in Holy Matrimony, in which “two become one flesh”, and a spouse’s rights include the right to demand the marital debt, i.e., sex.

So, if I don’t have a right to my own body, who does? If God didn’t give me myself, who or what did He give it too? And what part of this concept is “evil”? Is it evil because you don’t like it, because you cannot control it? By claiming that you have the right, through the mechanism of government, to tell me what to do with myself, then you are claiming partial ownership of me. THAT, my friend, is evil. Jesus Christ demonstrated this principle of self-ownership when he told the Apostles “they do not take my life, I give it up willingly”. You don’t have the right to claim ownership over anyone but yourself and your spouse. In fact, you cannot even claim ownership of your children. You are given stewardship over their lives temporarily, for if you claim “ownership” of your children, then you fall into the same trap that pro-abortion people do, because if you own your children, even in utero, then you can do with them whatever you want. However, if a person owns him/her self from the moment of conception, then noone has the right to commit violence to him or her, and the one who commits violence against another is a murderer, or a thief, whathaveyou.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I didn’t, and still don’t to a certain extent on certain issues, understand libertarianism. It just doesn’t come to me unless someone explains it to me first. I don’t consider much of anything Paul says too simplistic in that sense.

ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

Feel free to message me and I’ll send you some good links to read.

 

[jam070406]

So what are you going to replace single currency with? Is each state would issue their own currency? Each town? As I said the idea that you can fix economy by eliminating the Fed is simplistic beyond belief.

The problem with Ron Paul’s stance on the Civil Rights Act is not that he would attempt to overturn it, we all know he would not. It is that his opposition to it is a symptom of a political philosophy that puts property rights before all else.

That wasn’t my statement but that of the founding fathers, but I guess you know better then them and all those that lived before 1913.

So, if I am a " Ron Paul" apologist then you are a Ron Paul detractor and can finally admit that the issue you tried to condemn him on isn’t really an issue at all.

And that he doesn’t put property rights above all, but the liberty of all citizens.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Libertarianism is rooted in the concept that every person owns his/her own body and has the right to life based on that principle. God gave me to me. He didn’t give me to the State. As the owner of myself, I am also the owner of the fruit of my labor, because if someone else owns the fruit of my labor, then they also be default, own a part of me as well, since they can compel me to produce. The only one instance that we voluntarily give up ownership of part of ourselves is in Holy Matrimony, in which “two become one flesh”, and a spouse’s rights include the right to demand the marital debt, i.e., sex.

So, if I don’t have a right to my own body, who does? If God didn’t give me myself, who or what did He give it too? And what part of this concept is “evil”? Is it evil because you don’t like it, because you cannot control it? By claiming that you have the right, through the mechanism of government, to tell me what to do with myself, then you are claiming partial ownership of me. THAT, my friend, is evil. Jesus Christ demonstrated this principle of self-ownership when he told the Apostles “they do not take my life, I give it up willingly”. You don’t have the right to claim ownership over anyone but yourself and your spouse. In fact, you cannot even claim ownership of your children. You are given stewardship over their lives temporarily, for if you claim “ownership” of your children, then you fall into the same trap that pro-abortion people do, because if you own your children, even in utero, then you can do with them whatever you want. However, if a person owns him/her self from the moment of conception, then noone has the right to commit violence to him or her, and the one who commits violence against another is a murderer, or a thief, whathaveyou.

I understand what you are saying but our bodies aren’t our own. They are a gift from God and I don’t see God in the Libertarian party. Other people have asked what your views are with regard to suicide and you have reiterated the Catholic position which I am glad to see. However you must realize that libertarian belief of who owns me would logically state that suicide is a personal decision and that the state can’t interfere at all. This is unCatholic. No if’s and’s or buts. Now before you say if we should incarcerate people who try suicide, bear in mind that no one is suggesting that or more importantly that I am saying that, but as a compassionate society, we should (with taxpayers money: ohh the horror of it!) help them to get back on their feet.

To say that what I am proposing is a slippery slope to more state encroachment, let me ask you this, does giving citizen’s the right to use lethal force (killing) in self-defence start a slippery slope to legalizing murder?

 

[jam070406]

So what are you going to replace single currency with? Is each state would issue their own currency? Each town? As I said the idea that you can fix economy by eliminating the Fed is simplistic beyond belief.

The problem with Ron Paul’s stance on the Civil Rights Act is not that he would attempt to overturn it, we all know he would not. It is that his opposition to it is a symptom of a political philosophy that puts property rights before all else.

You should really read Paul’s economic views and what he proposes before dismissing what he says as “simplistic”