C
CMatt25
Guest
Birdpreacher, I loved your chart. Thanks for sharing it. I guess they weren’t only booing Ron Paul. God bless and peace to all His people coexisting in the world.
- Status
E
exnihilo
Guest
If Ron Paul despises anything it is what our country stands for now and so do I. He values civil liberties, small government, private property and property rights, freedom, following the constitution and peace. The modern US government is strongly against all those things. Besides what our government does I am disgusted by rampant abortion, divorce, drug use, immoral entertainment, a focus on entertainment and other aspects of our culture. Ron Paul thinks we have gotten way off track and wants us to back up. I agree with him.
During the debate the front running Republican said he thinks it is good to abolish habeas corpus which is a fundamental principle of our legal system and necessary for freedom. I despise the law that abolished it and have contempt for any politician or citizen who supports that. That a leading candidate can come out in favor of this and still be supported makes me realize that the nation has lost its mind and quite possibly its soul.
Americans do help others. But the debate last night was about the presidency and government, not the American culture. We dont need a president who is our moral leader. For moral leadership I would turn to the Pope, and I’m a Protestant, long before I’d turn to any political candidate including Ron Paul. We need a president who we hardly ever hear about because he is simply doing his job which is enacting the will of the people through Congress. If we want a figurehead that leads us then we should establish a monarchy so that we’ll have leaders who are raised to be that with a broad culture and not the kind of man democracy elects, which is the man who is best at deception.
I agree sometimes Ron Paul can run on. He is getting older. Running a presidential campaign is grueling even for a man half his age. Debates are difficult. If you want to know his positions his written works, including essays, are a great place to learn from.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Well, since the portion of your post I bolded seems to indicate he isn’t presidential material, why should I get to know his positions better?
The presidency is a physically, mentally and emotionally draining job. If a candidate can’t handle the campaign trail and debates, why would anyone think he can handle the job of President?
S
scipio337
Guest
Bare assertion fallacies (and jingoistic ones, at that), all.
Well, he also despises Abraham Lincoln. In Paul’s view, the “states rights” over slavery overruled basic human rights. Lincoln was a tyrant who destroyed the republic with an “unneccessary war”.
I don’t want him representing the “Party of Lincoln”.
S
scipio337
Guest
Or even the simple job of publishing a newsletter?Well, since the portion of your post I bolded seems to indicate he isn’t presidential material, why should I get to know his positions better?
The presidency is a physically, mentally and emotionally draining job. If a candidate can’t handle the campaign trail and debates, why would anyone think he can handle the job of President?
R
rlg94086
Guest
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I left the “Party of Lincoln” because I hate tyranny more than I love a particular hunk of land. I am no longer mesmorized and bamboozled at the fallacious arguement about how Lincoln saved the Republic". He destroyed it and in its place he established the American Empire.
J
JMJSHJ
Guest
Estesbob was responding to Porkroll’s posting about how Catholics must support the Democrats. How come you didn’t take Porkroll to task?
J
JMJSHJ
Guest
Of course the most interesting part of the night for myself was when Brett Baier asked Ron Paul to explain his comments about the Bin Laden Raid which I have posted about extensively here on CAF.
Paul did a good job explaining himself even contradicting some posters here as he did vote in favor of going into Afghanistan and he wisely said that if you vote in favor of that, the Bin Laden does become a legitimate target. However he wanted to say that the US was too quick to go into another Country (Pakistan) and wondered if it would set a dangerous precedent.
In light of this, I would still disagree with Ron Paul on this matter but not to the extent that I previously held.
Paul did a good job explaining himself even contradicting some posters here as he did vote in favor of going into Afghanistan and he wisely said that if you vote in favor of that, the Bin Laden does become a legitimate target. However he wanted to say that the US was too quick to go into another Country (Pakistan) and wondered if it would set a dangerous precedent.
In light of this, I would still disagree with Ron Paul on this matter but not to the extent that I previously held.
E
estesbob
Guest
Lincold did trample on States rights-that is the States right to brutally enslave 4.5 million African Americans. Of course if Ron Paul had his way businesses would still have the right to deny services to Blacks.
*In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. *
E
exnihilo
Guest
Dr. Paul is older. That is a simple fact. Of course he is only one year older than John McCain who would be running for reelection if he had been able to beat Obama. Ron Paul is very much handling the rigors of running for president. He is doing fine in the debates just not as well as he would have 30 years ago. But that is hardly shocking. Do you think Benedict was not papal material when he was elected Pope? He is much older than Ron Paul and the responsibilities of the Pope are very demanding.Well, since the portion of your post I bolded seems to indicate he isn’t presidential material, why should I get to know his positions better?
The presidency is a physically, mentally and emotionally draining job. If a candidate can’t handle the campaign trail and debates, why would anyone think he can handle the job of President?
Lincoln was a thug tyrant who also, like Obama did and Romney approves of, suspended habeas corpus. At the end of the war the Union states still had slaves. That and Lincoln consistently saying he did not want to end slavery makes your assertion incongruent with historical facts.
As I wrote above Lincoln consistently said he did not want to end slavery. Since the Union still had slave states at the end of the war I would say your assertion is baseless.
Businesses should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. The government should not interfere with private property rights. In trying to force good many evils can result. Not everything immoral should be illegal. If the government can tell you who you must serve than the whole argument against slavery has itself been abolished. If people can be compelled to work for others than slavery surely cant be immoral.
C
Cascadian
Guest
Hi I’m a Ron Paul supporter and perhaps I don’t know enough to personally despise Lincoln, but I know enough to understand where Ron Paul is coming from.
The Southern States seceded over state rights, though I would say it’s obvious that they wanted to preserve slavery with those rights. Nonetheless it was legal, the federal government couldn’t stop it.
Now the Civil War didn’t technically begin over slavery, the soldiers didn’t pour into the South to free the slaves, they poured into the South to bring back the unruly secessionists, the border states were slave states and they stayed in the Republic. Even the Emancipation Proclamation technically didn’t free a single slave, because the slaves freed under it, weren’t under the control of the US yet, the border states maintained their slaves.
I understand it’s a complicated issue, and there was good that came out of the Civil War. Nobody denies that regardless of why it started it did indeed end slavery. I don’t know how long it would’ve taken to end slavery without it. Perhaps Ron Paul wouldn’t have started a war to end slavery, but then again neither did Lincoln.
Also the Civil War also set dangerous precedent for presidential powers (ie removing Habeas Corpus) , and it really dealt a blow to the balance of states rights and federal power, which with today’s issues of federally legalized abortion and such, I wouldn’t mind seeing the return of.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have always liked Kant’s Categorical Imperative, that we should only behave in a manner that we wish to be universal law. America in all her actions, if she is to be moral, should not act in anyway that we would not want codified into international law, permitting nations to do to us what we do. Anything less is immoral. It may be expedient, but it is not moral. We should not give into the heresy of utilitarianism in how we vote.
P
pnewton
Guest
Can you show a quote where he wants businesses to have this right?
Can you link where he called Lincoln a tyrant?
The civil war was over states rights. Slavery was not abolished until two years into the war. Abraham Lincoln stated over and over that he did not want war. Lincoln failed in his objective to avoid war. I question very much under the Catholic Just War Doctrine that the Civil War met all the criteria. Slavery was already well on the way to being eliminated throughout the civilized world. It was already on its last legs and the increasing industrial revolution would have finished it, with or without war.
I will not say that the Civil War was justified or not, but there are two legitimate sides to the issue.
R
rlg94086
Guest
You are the one who brought up his age and how tiring the campaign and debating is for him.
My reasons for not supporting him are his lack of leadership ability, his foreign affairs beliefs and the fact that he hasn’t articulated his vision well - how to get from the status quo back to his strict view of the Constitution. All he does is rant. The idea that you presented - he’s old and worn out from the campaigning and debating - is just further reason not to vote for him.
R
Roy5
Guest
CMatt25
** As for Unitarianism and Protestantism here in New England**, where the UU is strongest, most Unitarians I know tend to identify as Protestants. Ironically, many of the same persons - true - may not want to be called Christians. I don’t know how explain that but it seems to be fairly common.
** I tend to think that the further away from New England the more likely that Unitarians reject being called Christians**. The large majority probably are converts. Here in new England many Unitarian (and Universalist, too) families go back as many as 200 years, when Unitarianism in the US got its start. My friend actually was raised in a conservative Presbyterian Church in New Jersey but her advocacy of Unitarianism was continual. I salute the UU for many fine things, though I have run across a few of that flock who come across as a bit intolerant, elitist and/or smug. Those UUers sometimes view Christians like me. even though I am ‘liberal’, as inevitably infected by superstition and such. While of mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage, I find that mainline Protestantism often is more open to a variety of opinions, attracts a less intellectual but much broader constituency, and seems better integrated (in this area, at least) than the UU Church.
** God bless everybody - no exceptions. **
Code:
I tend to agree with your postings.
Code:
**One of my close and brilliant friends**, a book editor, died recently at a ripe old age, and we debated religion often over the years. She actually was an atheist Unitarian but she definitely classified herself as a Protestant. That was confusing but it is true.
Code:
**Okay. I really should refer to Ron Paul somewhere in this posting**. As I recall he is a Baptist, though I don't know what variety. Southern Baptists (he, of course, is from Texas) include several million fundamentalists, but I doubt if he is one of those. Interesting that for the first time in GOP political history that the likely nominee of that party for president will not be a Protestant, unless there is an unexpected groundswell for.Perry (a Methodist). Romney, of course, is a Mormon, and Santorum is a very conservative Catholic. Gingrich was raised Lutheran, became Baptist, married his third wife an active Catholic, Callista, and he converted to Catholicism a couple years ago. One has to wonder....
E
exnihilo
Guest
No I said he is olded and that campaigning is hard on anyone, not just Ron Paul. He has a disadvantage at the debates due to his age but still makes far more sense than the others. He still destroys the other candidates in the debates by actually answering questions and talking about substantial things rather than just saying emotive, and evil, things like we should kill all enemies of the US or build some super army that no one would ever challenge.You are the one who brought up his age and how tiring the campaign and debating is for him.
My reasons for not supporting him are his lack of leadership ability, his foreign affairs beliefs and the fact that he hasn’t articulated his vision well - how to get from the status quo back to his strict view of the Constitution. All he does is rant. The idea that you presented - he’s old and worn out from the campaigning and debating - is just further reason not to vote for him.
Dr. Paul was raised Lutheran, switched to Episcopalian and more recently started going to a Baptist church according to an interview in Christianity Today.
I
incense
Guest
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71517.html
This is the only article I found about the debate which was written factually instead of editorially. This was the best debate so far, with great answers.
C
catholictiger
Guest
what are your thoughts on people booing the golden rule. I understand that probably isn’t what they are booing but it just came across as so wrong.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
Where did I say democrats are closest to church teaching? I would say that a pro-life pro-marriage democrat’s policies can be closer to catholic teaching than your hawkish-GOP neoconservative types. But of course that doesn’t say too much. The democrats are by in large a political party of death. They are completely unacceptable.
What I find disturbing is that many conservative catholics have unknowingly adopted many GOP errors which are rooted in fundamentalism and materialism. Read any papal social encyclical and you will find many ideas that blatantly contradict the economic and foreign policies of the GOP. Basically, conservative (not traditional) catholics are guilty for following their party over their faith, much like the pro-death democrats. But for some reason, like the Nancy Pelosi’s and Kennedy’s, they will make excuse after excuse why they don’t agree with the moral teachings of the Holy Father, like his explicit condemnation of our wars in Iraq and Libya.
- Status