D
Dan_Daly
Guest
So do you defend the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski? Please respond to my points rather than name calling.
Pax Christi
Pax Christi
- Status
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I’d also point out that your criticism of perpetuating the status quo could just as easily be applied to the incrimental strategy and morality that you advocate. Actually, the incremental strategy has witnessed a growing degradation into additional evils- assisted suicide and state sanctioned sodomy.
Including “rape,incest, life/health of the mother” exceptions hasn’t done anything to curtail abortion in the US. It does undermine the moral authority of those trying to end abortion though.
Pax
Including “rape,incest, life/health of the mother” exceptions hasn’t done anything to curtail abortion in the US. It does undermine the moral authority of those trying to end abortion though.
Pax
R
rlg94086
Guest
Ooookay…become an irrelevant, Ron Paul supporting, “I won’t vote for anyone else because none of them are perfect,” voter.
K
kubark
Guest
Okay. Gave you enough time to correct the record. Time to jump in.
Ron Paul DID NOT endorse the pro-choice Cynthia McKinney.
Ron Paul DID endorse the pro-life Chuck Baldwin.
The press club event was held over four issues that the three candidates that showed up agreed on: civil liberties, foreign policy, the fed, and the national debt.
Here are the relevant portions of Ron Paul’s speech during that press conference:
"…This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address [abortion was not one of those issues]?
Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty — freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs…
…Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East…
…The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.
I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.** I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Again, I’d ask you to refrain from the name calling. It doesn’t hurt my feelings, but it detracts from the discussion.Ooookay…become an irrelevant Ron Paul supporting, “I won’t vote for anyone else because none of them are perfect,” voter.
Do you think dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was justified?
I think it’s an important point, because based on the utilitarian calculus you’ve argued for, I’d think you would- it probably saved lots of lives- but I don’t want to put words into your mouth.
Or would you support a constituional ammendment that banned abortion after the first trimester, but specified that before that time, it would be legal? Again, one could argue that would save lots of lives, and would “be better than nothing”.
The problem with arguing from utilitarian mathematics is that the same arguments can be used against you, in fact they are. Abortion proponents argue that the status quo already is the lesser of two evils, that the evil of abortion prevents a greater evil of abuse of unwanted children. They are of course wrong, but it shows the way justification of evil in the name of good can lead people into grave error.
Are you Catholic? If so, I would again submit to you that some things are indeed absolute and disagree with your use of the term “absolutist” as a perjorative. Another historical example to look at would be the Anglican schism. One could very easily argue that the Church lost England because the Pope stood up for the sanctity of one, solitary, marriage. Would it have been more advantageous for him to compromise, rather than result to “absolutism”?
I do not believe so. The critical piece of the argument is how we define “success”. Is success, establishing a worldly kingdom and making whatever compromises with evil are needed to do so? Or is success meeting Our Lord in Heaven?
Pax Christi
R
rlg94086
Guest
I didn’t name call, I described your political position. Again, we agree morally on many things, but you are proving to be an absolutist from a political perspective. When we vote, we have real decisions to make. If you choose to reject compromise, then you support the status quo. You may as well vote for Obama.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I’m not looking for a perfect candidate. I’m looking for one that doesn’t support killing innocent people. That complete adherence to that priniciple has to be classifed as “perfect” speaks to how deeply into sin our nation has sunk. There are lots of other qualifications that a good President should have, but right now we are at a place in our culture where the simple basics, such as respect for human life, are most often lacking. The simple truth may very well be that no one running for President is qualified to be President.
Pax Christi
Pax Christi
R
rlg94086
Guest
Exactly. Thank you for confirming your position. Supporting no one, supports the status quo. It is an untenable position from my perspective. I will support the best candidate that can affect change in my direction…even if he isn’t perfect. There is always the option of being a hermit. You may want to look into it…
K
kubark
Guest
Ah, “the lesser of two evils” argument, again. We are not buying that debunked theory anymore. That kind of mind trick is what got us into this mess.Ooookay…become an irrelevant, Ron Paul supporting, “I won’t vote for anyone else because none of them are perfect,” voter.
And if you still insist that Ron Paul is “unelectable” and a “fringe candidate” I suggest that you look at the most recent ARG poll in South Carolina. I also suggest that you take a good look at the following article “What the New PPP 3-Way Race Poll Shows: Only A Ron Paul Led Republican Ticket Can Beat Obama” over at freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/
Cheers!
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Sorry, I took “typical paulbot” as name calling. If you say it wasn’t, fine.
If you compromise by accepting Obama’s position (that some people are deserving of legal protection, but others may be killed in cold blood), than in many ways you may as well vote for Obama.
The GOP and the Democratic Party are both taking this country in the same direction…over a cliff. Right now we are going 60MPH towards the cliff. The Democrats want to gas it to 80MPH, the GOP shows “restraint” by only wanting to go 70MPH. Either way, we’ll go over the cliff. We don’t need to rush to our doom in a slightly slower manner. We need to stop and change direction.
That is my concern about Santorum (to try and steer this thread back on track). He appears to be essentially the same as G.W. Bush only with better talking points. Bush was incredibly bad for this country, just as Obama has been. Paul is the only candidate who presents a vision for a clear change in direction rather than a minor course correction (which still takes us over the cliff).
Pax
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I’m still interested in your position on the atomic bomb.
Was an evil act morally justifiable because it saved many lives?
Pax
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Another counter to the argument that Paul is “unelectable” or fringe when compared to say Santorum or Gingrich, is that Paul got enough signatures to be on the ballot in Virginia, while the other two gentlemen did not.
Pax
Pax
R
rlg94086
Guest
:yawn: Sure…that will make a big difference. :yawn:
Do you think he will win Virginia? Personally, I don’t think Ron Paul expects to win Virginia. I think he is smarter than his supporters.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Who do you consider electable in the Republican field? Anyone but Romney? I ask because, I thought you were arguing for Santorum. If so, he certainly doesn’t plan on winning Virginia either, since he is not on the ballot.:yawn: Sure…that will make a big difference. :yawn:
Do you think he will win Virginia? Personally, I don’t think Ron Paul expects to win Virginia. I think he is smarter than his supporters.
Also, what do you think of dropping the atomic bomb? I keep asking because it’s an important point. Your reasoning would seem to support the decision- it wasn’t perfect, some people died, but others were saved. But the Church has clearly said unjust means cannot be used even in a just war. It’s one of those absolutes.
Pax Christi
K
kubark
Guest
I think you hit the nail on the head with your “simple basics” point.
The problems of legal abortion and the waging of unjust wars will not be solved unless we get back to basics - on a Constitutional level and at in terms of a private morality that respects (at the very least) the Natural Law. Ron Paul has stressed this numerous times and echoes the Founders on this essential point. Catholics have an even greater burden to get this right because we have been given much more than simply the Natural Law.
Also, I think the message of Fatima is more relevant than ever now in light of recent events in the Middle East, especially the part of the message that predicts that if the requests of the Virgin Mary at Fatima are not honored, many souls will be lost, “the Holy Father will have much to suffer”, there will be further wars and persecutions of the Church and “various nations will be annihilated.” It is just uncanny that the nation with the most innocent blood on its hands is currently warmongering like never before. On this point see Dave Armstrong’s (I don’t agree with Dave on every point, especially as regards the Iraq War, but he remains an excellent resource) excellent article, “Is America the Wickedest Nation Ever? Yes (a Strong Biblical Case Can be Made)” at socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/06/is-america-wickedest-nation-ever-yes.html
I know, I sort of went on a tangent here, but it is that time of night (morning).
R
rlg94086
Guest
I support Romney. He is a pro-life, conservative.
Dan Daly:
Really? It’s an important point in 2012? That makes sense?
Your argument makes your voting choice irrelevant. I’m sorry, but you want to base your 2012 vote on decisions made in 1945? 67 years later? This makes sense to you?BTW…the decision was made by a Democrat. I’m a Republican…born 20 years after that decision. I choose to make my choices based on the present - not the past.
K
kbf1970060
Guest
Going over the cliff, it is the only available option. Ron Paul may, as you say, have a vision, which may “stop and change direction”; nonetheless, as Rick Santorum stated in answer to a reporter’s question: would you vote for Ron Paul, after Rick Santorum stated Ron Paul to be a dangerous candidate with respect, to his position of withdrawing troops from all countries, that “yes”, Rick Santorum would vote for Ron Paul, which led to the follow-up question – why would you vote for Ron Paul, you just stated, that he is a dangerous man to have as Commander-in-Chief? To which Rick Santorum replied: I believe, that congress would limit any effort of Ron Paul, as Commander-in-Chief, against withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces, from all countries. Granted, the matter is limited to foreign policy; nonetheless, assume a broader point of The Executive Branch, limited either by The Legislative Branch, or The Judicial Branch, or both branches, and we have Ron Paul, his vision, and a direction of travel – we assume – over a cliff; well established prior to Ron Paul’s hypothetical occupation of The Executive Branch.
There is no way to stop. There is no other direction of travel. There is the cliff. The only options available remaining include both distance travelled, and time elapsed across such a distance.
Although, we may be pre-mature in a conclusion, that going over the cliff is bad. We may approach a future in fear, either as a pre-emptive matter, or preventitive matter.
We may do better to evaluate the distance; the time to travel the distance, and either prepare a place to land; change to a more suitable vehicle for the launch, which will suit the distance to a destination with an appropriate speed, or resign ourselves to the end, which The Democratic Party possesses in their unity, behind one candidate, for another four yrs… Let us conspire to present to the world Obama’s twin brother, that The Democratic Party may be divided into factions.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I think perhaps you misread Paul supporters. Speaking for myself, I hope he wins Virginia and more importantly the nomination. But I’m not about to make any prediction. There is still “plenty of time on the clock” as they say, and the deck is strongly stacked against him.:yawn: Sure…that will make a big difference. :yawn:
Do you think he will win Virginia? Personally, I don’t think Ron Paul expects to win Virginia. I think he is smarter than his supporters.
If you think all Paul backers are members of a cult of personality who expect a political messiah you are mistaken.
Paul is not perfect. There’s plenty I disagree with him on. That’s okay, I don’t think there are any two people in the world who agree on everything. I do pray very much for his conversion to the Catholic Church. I think his search for truth and reason will serve him well in finding his way home to Holy Mother Church. Of course, Catholics are far from perfect, and our defects are even more agregious since we have been blessed the most.
The problems of this country did not come about because of bad Presidents, although bad Presidents helped compound them. The problems of this country will not be solved by good Presidents, although good Presidents would help.
The problems of this country are due to the failing and sins of individual fathers and husbands, wives and mothers. The only way to build a true culture of life, a Catholic culture that is, is one family at a time.
Politics is one important, yet small aspect, of the spiritual battle we find ourselves in. Perhaps that outlook is why I’m more willing to run the risk of “losing” in the political realm by not crossing the line of supporting murder, even a very few ones. Politics is one front. There are other ones. A “win” in politics that opens a gate for the devil to march into your soul is an ultimate defeat.
To quote Marshall McLuhan:
That is the truth. How is this all going to end? I don’t know how the election will turn out, but I do know we are all going to die. I do know Our Lord will retun in judgement. I do know this world will burn away, and all of us will either spend eternity in Heaven or Hell.
Pax Christi
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Whose lives is he in favor of and what exactly is he trying to conserve?
Is he “pro” for the lives of those concieved by rape or incest? Those killed by “contraceptives”, those killed in unjust wars? Those killed because they ended up on the Executive branch’s “kill list”? Those killed by tax payer funded abortions in his signature healthcare plan?
Is he trying to conserve MA’s gun laws? The idea that government can force one private citizen to buy a product from another private citizen? The idea that man is heating up the planet and must be taxed into cooling it down? The idea that the sin of sodomy is equivalent to the sacrament of marriage?
If conservatives want to keep things the same and liberals want to change them, a Catholic must be both. We must want to keep all the good things and change all the bad ones.
A good decision tool for the GOP candidates would be to make a grid with their names across the top and 10 ammendments in the bill of rights down the side. In each box check whether or not that person’s policies support that ammendment. I think we’d find that most of them disregard pretty much all of them.
Pax Christi
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I will of course wait to decide what to do in the general election, until the nominees are chosen, but an additional bit of history to rebut the charge that failing to vote for the GOP nominee whomever he is would in effect be voting for Obama.
Pope Leo XIII forbid Catholics to vote in Italian elections or hold public office in Italy. Was this action “nonsensical” and supportive of the Church’s enemies? Or was it both principled and practical aimed at the duel aims of getting souls to heaven and spreading the Gospel on earth?
Pax
Pope Leo XIII forbid Catholics to vote in Italian elections or hold public office in Italy. Was this action “nonsensical” and supportive of the Church’s enemies? Or was it both principled and practical aimed at the duel aims of getting souls to heaven and spreading the Gospel on earth?
Pax
- Status