S
sharptiger999
Guest
Yes, I’m concerned which is why I like Ron Paul - the constitutional scholar. He’s what used to be the ‘cool conservative’ yet everyone has seem to lost in the past decade.
- Status
S
sharptiger999
Guest
I quoted and owned a few people on page 35. Feel free to respond if you want.
R
rlg94086
Guest
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
The issue with the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act is that it is talking about US Military forces operating within the United States and against US citizens.
As you pointed out, the Constitution protects US Citizens from possible abuses by law enforcement agencies like the FBI. Reclassifying citizens as “belligerents”, designating the United States a battlefield and saying “oh well, the same protections don’t apply because now it’s a military matter” is extremely dangerous and unconstitutional.
The Bill of Rights was included largely out of fears of oppression by the military. The 3rd Ammendment reads:
You’ll also note the 3rd ammendment makes clear that “war” is a distinct circumstance and still must be conducted in accordance with the law. Currently, we are told we are at war, but no declaration has been made, yet the perpetual “war” is the new normal.
Furthermore, the ones who would have been doing all the searching and seizing mentioned in other ammendments at the time would have been soldiers. State police, FBI, etc did not exist.
Pax
I
ishii
Guest
Okay.
A society has a legitimate interest in the definition of marriage, lest the foundation of society crumble. If the institution of marriage is under and organized attack by the gay lobby, then why not have a state pass a law affirming marriage as being between a man and a woman. This, btw, is one reason why I’m not a libertarian. Why should we let a vocal minority help destroy the instituion of marriage?
Freedom doesn’nt get old, but Ron Paul certainly is. McCain was 71 when he ran. How old is Paul, 77? Older than when Reagan left office. Run a 77 year old against Obama and you’ll see a 50 state sweep by Obama. Is that what you want?
Ishii
P
pnewton
Guest
In a forum like this, no one gets “owned”. That is not what Christians try to do to each other. If there is a lack of response, might I remind that this thread is on Santorum, not Ron Paul.
V
Veridical16
Guest
I can’t believe the amount of people empathetic to Ron Paul.
Especially among Catholic (online at least thankfully) circles. His answers tonight should have been a clue
Assuming that our world operates, as if every single country is a civil country, or all nations are not prone to evil or tyranny???
Apply GOLDEN RULE?? to all countries. Pakistan??
I’m troubled that he has some sway among Catholics. Since we are for Faith & Reason…
One can criticize Santorum’s hawkish, on few points. But there is no excuse for Ron Paul’s Libertarian Insistence, especially when it comes to moral issues.
What is not to get about Ron Paul’s pied piper, approach. He lives in a false paradigm and couches everything, under “tantalizing” sophistry, and purely academic points.
Especially among Catholic (online at least thankfully) circles. His answers tonight should have been a clue
Assuming that our world operates, as if every single country is a civil country, or all nations are not prone to evil or tyranny???
Apply GOLDEN RULE?? to all countries. Pakistan??
I’m troubled that he has some sway among Catholics. Since we are for Faith & Reason…
One can criticize Santorum’s hawkish, on few points. But there is no excuse for Ron Paul’s Libertarian Insistence, especially when it comes to moral issues.
What is not to get about Ron Paul’s pied piper, approach. He lives in a false paradigm and couches everything, under “tantalizing” sophistry, and purely academic points.
V
Veridical16
Guest
Well, Christians are not supposed to go trying to win arguments for the sake of winning.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Who does the golden rule not apply to? When Jesus said love your neighbors as yourself, which neighbors did He exclude?
I didn’t see the debate, what exactly did Paul say that you disagreed with?
I’d disagree that Paul doesn’t see the dangers of evil coming from the state. Rather, he is one of the only candidates whose positions are based upon the observation that the state that is most likely harm us is our own.
Paul’s positions on so-called “social issues” are frequently misunderstood or misconstrued. For example, people say “Ron Paul wants to legalize marijuana”. That isn’t what he says. He’s in favor of repealing *federal *laws against marijuana. If that happened, in almost all states, marijuana would still be illegal under state law.
Paul notes the important distinction between what he personally may believe, and what the authority of the office of President permits him to do.
Pax Christi
K
kubark
Guest
I was actually thinking the same regarding allegedly pro-life, Catholic Rick Santorum.
How do you defend the fact that Rick Santorum ENDORSED the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey over a “supreme court nominee deal” that Arlen Specter denies ever took place?
How do you defend the fact that the allegedly pro-life, Catholic Rick Santorum stood in direct opposition to the guidance and writings of Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger on the issue of the Iraq War and our interventionist foreign policy in general?
How do you defend the fact that Rick Santorum (and Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry and Mitt Romney for that matter) represent everything (fiscally) that the Tea Party rejected in 2010?
How do you defend Republican candidates that put Party ahead of the Constitution and the rule of law?
But to answer your first questions regarding Pakistan and the Golden Rule. “Yes,” all nations are prone to evil and after all, a strong biblical case can be made that the United States is one of the most wicked nations on the face of the earth (see: socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/06/is-america-wickedest-nation-ever-yes.html). So, what’s your point exactly? Care to demonstrate how Ron Paul’s foreign policy is opposed to conservativsm or is irrational?
Now, to your statement that “there is no excuse for Ron Paul’s Libertarian Insistence, especially when it comes to moral issues.” First, you may remember that in 1975 Ronald Reagan said: “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” So I sort of doubt that you even could define Ron Paul’s “libertarian” philosophy nor even begin to summarize for us here in public Ron Paul’s stance on “moral issues.”
Ron Paul is the diametric opposite of a “sophist.” Sophists tell you exactly what you want to hear. Ron Paul told the truth at yesterday night’s debate, and he got booed. Ironically, the so-called “conservatives” (Neoconservatives, actually) that booed him are booing the Republican Party, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the pro-life cause right down the drain.
K
kbf1970060
Guest
Where in the act, is there authorization for military force against its citizens?
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Note that US Citizens are not required to be detained by military forces, but they may be. Also, I do not believe Al Qaeda carries membership cards, so identifying who is or is not an Al Qaeda member would depend upon the judgement of the authorities in question. And if they determine that you are, then your Constitutional rights are forfeit.
One thing that jumps out at me when I read the act is how often “war” is invoked. The President and military claim special “war” powers for the duration of the “war”.
There has been no declaration of war.
We are supposedly at war with “terror”. It’s less than clear when “terror” will be in a position to surrender.
Pax
K
kbf1970060
Guest
You seriously think, that it actually means: there is no requirement to detain U.S. citizens. That, truly, is sad if not tragic.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I think that is what it means because that is what it says.
Basically, if the government declares you a terrorist, not that they have to present evidence or anything, you can be kept in detention indefinitely without being charged or tried.
“But they’re a terrorist!” you say? Well how do we know? The “terrorist” can’t present any defense. Of course, the bill says the administration will periodically brief congress on who is being detained, but that is like the District Attorney presenting the accused criminal’s defense.
Pax Christi
I
ishii
Guest
True, but Jesus didn’t call us to committ suicide either did he? We have enemies and have a right to protect ourselves. There is a time for the golden rule, but we need to be realistic about the nature of our enemies and not underestimate their intentions and capabilities while uttering fuzzy “why can’t we all just get along” banalities.
I would say that Paul doesn’t see the dangers of evil coming from *other *states - nations and groups - that wish us harm whether we treat them according to the golden rule or not.
Agree somewhat, but I think libertarianism falls short in that it fails to see the real interest the government has in keeping marriage traditional and protecting it from further attacks - this time from the gay lobby.
I wish the Romney (mormon) bashers would believe this too.
Pax Christi
K
kbf1970060
Guest
I’ll communicate the matter to my representative.
P
pnewton
Guest
On this I totally agree. We have no business nuking ourselves! The rest really is not the definition of suicide. The Golden Rule does not preclude self-defense, as long as we allow all other nations the same right to self-defense, which I believe we all agree is just.
It is that offensive part that is the kicker.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
We agree on a good bit. I agree on the importance of protecting marriage. I’m not sure what the comment on Romney means though. I don’t think the fact that someone believes they can become a god is an insignificant issue when you consider making them your leader. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose Romney, but his faith shouldn’t be off the table for discussion, nor should any other candidate’s.
Pax Christi
K
kbf1970060
Guest
Whatever the treaty with Japan, it seems: we have not allowed them a right to self-defense, but Germany? Then after the cease fire of 1991, Iraq, there was self-defense on their part; although, limited.
Although The U.S. has a nuclear arsenal, wrought from Germans, and their pursuit of The Hydrogen Bomb, we do, or have, along with former Soviet republics: reduce the arsenal.
Iran has a varied missile derfense system: there is no issue about them being defenseless. Most states of America, are defenseless against The U.S. Armed Forces, it seems unlikely, the national guard, or state militas, could out-man, out-gun, out-do The U.S. Armed Forces. We appear to be defenseless, constitutionally.
The development of nuclear energy is done in Iran, without apparent compliance to The International Energy Commission. Cause for concern, then there is Mubarak, and the boming of a nuclear facility by The C.I.A., many years ago in the past.
Our allowance toward others, that they may defend themselves, that’s interesting. Whether we allow it, or not, it seems: it will be done.
V
Veridical16
Guest
I really don’t care about Santorum one way or the other.
I just am against this Ron Paul phenomenon. Even swaying Catholics who should be able to discern this guy.
And btw Santorum has answered that Arlen Specter vote. And continues to answer it.
He was at fault then. Because he’s not supposed to support those for Abortion. I believe
Santorum went along with the president. And that deal resulted in Specter helping to make a case for Alito and Roberts as Justices. In the Senate.
And Unlike some of the other candidates however, Santorum is able to give a straight answer. And sometimes he doesn’t apologize for his votes like the Felons who’ve served their time and gaining their voting rights.
**
But I am also not going to doubt that Santorum is pro -life. He walks the walk. **
See Ron Paul’s views on Gay Marriage. He won’t lift a finger.
staustinreview.com/ink_desk/archives/defending_marriage
Because Ron Paul is stuck as an ideologue. Who won’t venture out of thinking that the world can always WORK in a politically driven philosophical theory.
It can’t.
This is why Ron Paul said he wouldn’t lift a finger knowing that Hitler was murdering Jews.
Ron Paul’s sophistry told Anti-War Hippie crowds want to hear that if America didn’t act like a big bully there would be no more violent countries in the world?
As if Man isn’t fallen everywhere except our own darn nation.
I am not a bellicose guy. So I can critique Santorum too.
But Ron Paul isn’t the answer to those who are against nation building and acknowledging that Dwight Eisenhower had valid concerns about the Military Industrial Complex.
I admire George Washington. I thought his address about political parties are correct to an extent.
But there are two people, one who is able to interpret, historical insights based on a sound philosophy. Those are non Ron Paul-ers. Who don’t use instances in history by certain luminaries to say , ’ then we should do away with this…’
And those who base their interpretations on conspiracy theories and a distorted view on what man is --rather they keep placing their philosophical trust on the hopes of what man can be–
That is Ron Paul. And those are many of his young supporters.
For instance,
Ron Paul and those who always cite the constitutional precedents think that projecting the context of the 18th century opinons of say Thomas Jefferson pre- Barbary pirates, and George Washington avoiding foreign entanglements, when Washington originally wanted our nation to can still apply ALWAYS today.
Ron Paul did it AGAIN last night, when he believed that the US can function as if it ever is going to go back to being an isolationist, rural country pre WWI and WWII.
Nope you have to discern between a transcendent thought that is still true, and a relative thought, that applied to the circumstances of that setting.
Their Libertarianism, Constitution is the ANSWER mantra, is just a thin yearning for some utopian ideal that Ron Paul falsely promises to deliver to many of his hard core following.
As if allowing Drugs to be legalized & wishing that wars will go away forever, will eliminate strife.
- Status