Ron Paul Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron Paul is the only one that supports due process, rule of law, privacy, and mercy.

Nobody else has pledged to pardon non violent drug offenders (disproportionately minorities). In fact, Mitt Romney refused to pardon anyone as Governor of Massachusetts. Why? Because he put his political ambition above mercy.

Obama could pardon known innocent detainees in Guantanamo. He doesn’t because he puts his political ambition above mercy and justice.

I know Ron Paul isn’t a perfect candidate. Some would like him to seek to use government to purse many issues such as day marriage and abortion. He would scale back government. This is a problem for many.

But in my study of Jesus’ life, I don’t see any movement to reform Rome. Instead, we are in the world but not of the world. Now I am not Catholic, just married to a lady who grew up Catholic. But it seems to me that peace and mercy are good Catholic values. I am not sure why they don’t seem to have much weight when considering Ron Paul in the discussions we see here.
 
gilliam said:
Let’s start with why he voted against the MLK holiday, said unkind things about MLK and go from there. :cool:

thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/15/ron-paul-on-mlk-and-his-newsletters.html
Click to expand...
Well Dr. King did plagiarize his doctoral dissertation. The rest of those citations are things which have been said about lots of people in politics. Newt Gingrich in this race is being called a serial adulterer. As for the source of the citations Dr. Paul has said someone else wrote those newsletters.

By the way John McCain the last Republican nominee voted against the MLK holiday. There is no other federal holiday for a single person. And as much noise as people make about this I seriously doubt more than 1% of the country did anything to celebrate this holiday today in a meaningful way.

To be sure some people will find these controversial issues a problem, despite the fact that Dr. Paul disclaims these as his thoughts. But I think many more people are worried about the destruction of our nation through debt and endless war.
 
exnihilo said:
Well Dr. King did plagiarize his doctoral dissertation. The rest of those citations are things which have been said about lots of people in politics. Newt Gingrich in this race is being called a serial adulterer. As for the source of the citations Dr. Paul has said someone else wrote those newsletters.

By the way John McCain the last Republican nominee voted against the MLK holiday. There is no other federal holiday for a single person. And as much noise as people make about this I seriously doubt more than 1% of the country did anything to celebrate this holiday today in a meaningful way.

To be sure some people will find these controversial issues a problem, despite the fact that Dr. Paul disclaims these as his thoughts. But I think many more people are worried about the destruction of our nation through debt and endless war.
Click to expand...
Well, we have a federal holiday for Christopher Columnus (God only knows why?). I can see holidays for Lincoln (I don’t agree, but I am tired of fighting against the Cult of Lincoln) and Washington, and even these have been combined into a single “President’s Day”, as if ALL of them are worthy of a holiday.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Well, we have a federal holiday for Christopher Columnus (God only knows why?). I can see holidays for Lincoln (I don’t agree, but I am tired of fighting against the Cult of Lincoln) and Washington, and even these have been combined into a single “President’s Day”, as if ALL of them are worthy of a holiday.
Click to expand...
Ah, I forgot about Columbus Day (which if there is a holiday should be for Leif Ericson of course). I do not now and never have while working gotten those holidays off anyway.
 
pnewton said:
This is slander, unless you can actually point to a lie.
Click to expand...
One lie consists of telling his supporters that the label, “Dr. No,” has been given to him because of his stand against un-Constitutional bills, when actually it has been given to him by his fellows in Congress for the game I described earlier.

Another lie is that he had nothing to do with the newsletters that were SIGNED with his name. Whatever the case, even if Lew Rockwell wrote them (which I do not believefor a minute), Dr. No had to know what those newsletters said - no one allows a newsletter to go out under one’s name without reading it. If he did not proof them (he says he did not), it proves he is too stupid to ever be near the White House, let alone residing in it.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
One lie consists of telling his supporters that the label, …
Another lie is that he had nothing to do with the newsletters that were SIGNED with his name. …
Click to expand...
I was actually looking for a lie, not more allegations and argument. You know, like where someone says one thing knowing it to be contrary to truth, then upon further investigation we find out that it was untrue. We should not accuse people of lying without* knowing*.
 
pnewton said:
I was actually looking for a lie, not more allegations and argument. You know, like where someone says one thing knowing it to be contrary to truth, then upon further investigation we find out that it was untrue. We should not accuse people of lying without* knowing*.
Click to expand...
Would you agree then that it is just as wrong to say of Rick Santorum “so-called catholic” and that the GOP “loves war” ?

Ishii
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Another lie is that he had nothing to do with the newsletters that were SIGNED with his name. Whatever the case, even if Lew Rockwell wrote them (which I do not believefor a minute), Dr. No had to know what those newsletters said - no one allows a newsletter to go out under one’s name without reading it. If he did not proof them (he says he did not), it proves he is too stupid to ever be near the White House, let alone residing in it.
Click to expand...
You can worry about a few paragraphs in a few newsletters that may express a personal opinion that a politician held which is not reflected in any public statements in his congressional campaigns or while serving in office or in his legislative activities. Or you could worry about presidents who sign, in their name, thousand page laws without reading them. You can worry about the entire congress who votes, in their name, without reading the bills they vote on. That is what I would be more concerned with.
ishii said:
Would you agree then that it is just as wrong to say of Rick Santorum “so-called catholic” and that the GOP “loves war” ?
Click to expand...
It is wrong to say that of Santorum. But the GOP does seem to love war. Mitt Romney got a loud cheer for declaring he wanted to create a military no one would challenge (apparently this isn’t enough).

I do think we can now say the GOP hates the Golden Rule. In tonight’s debate Ron Paul mentioned our foreign policy should adhere to the Golden Rule which was followed by loud boos. I’d love to say I was shocked.
 
exnihilo said:
It is wrong to say that of Santorum.
Click to expand...
Then we agree on that.
exnihilo said:
But the GOP does seem to love war. Mitt Romney got a loud cheer for declaring he wanted to create a military no one would challenge (apparently this isn’t enough).
Click to expand...
As I said before, if Romney means (and I think he does) that we should have a military strong enough to discourage our enemies from challenging, then I am in full agreement. If you look at history, it is weakness that invites challenges from enemies and war. What were France and England doing in the 20’s and 30’s? Disarming. What did American do in the 20’s and 30’s? Disarm. We were weak and vulnerable and our enemies knew that. That’s partly why they thought they could get away with what they did. A weak, underfunded military invites war.
exnihilo said:
I do think we can now say the GOP hates the Golden Rule. In tonight’s debate Ron Paul mentioned our foreign policy should adhere to the Golden Rule which was followed by loud boos. I’d love to say I was shocked.
Click to expand...
I don’t think its quite that simple. When you have enemies and regimes that call you the Great Satan, then I am not sure following the Golden Rule will change their attitude. Ron Paul’s referring to the rescue of the Iranians by the U.S. military as more what we should be doing reminded me of the foreign policy of McGovern wing of the Democrat party from the 60’s on: profoundly and dangerously out of touch with the reality and nature of our enemies.

Ishii
 
It is wrong to say that of Santorum. But the GOP does seem to love war. Mitt Romney got a loud cheer for declaring he wanted to create a military no one would challenge (apparently this isn’t enough).
Click to expand...
I do think we can now say the GOP hates the Golden Rule. In tonight’s debate Ron Paul mentioned our foreign policy should adhere to the Golden Rule which was followed by loud boos. I’d love to say I was shocked.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I just talked about this with my very orthodox priest about how the GOP which agrees with Catholics on life issues, are anti-catholic on many other issues. What I’ve really come to realize is that there are Catholics like George Weigel and others who many of us looked up to but really have confused many good intentioned Catholics on issues concerning war and economics. JPII and BXVI have both spoke out against pre-emptive war and have called the invasion of Iraq unjust.

What many people on these forums don’t like to admit is that the GOP are only slightly better than the democrats in promoting catholic values. Some will go so far as to act as if you are morally obligated to vote republican. Where republicans completely are at odds with church teaching, they claim that they are free to make up there own minds, like on issues concerning economics and the environment and death penalty, much like pro-abortion catholic politicians.

Here are some things that the church teaches which goes against big business pro-war republicans:
subsidiarily
just wage (minimum wage)
protection of environment (solar panels of roof of Vatican)
dialogue between nations instead of conflict
international coordination and authority
disarmament of nuclear weapons
unions and solidarity
defensive military (not offensive)

The truth is, the church’s teaching on social issues and the environment is way “left” of the GOP.
 
’ Wanting a military that no one would like to challenge ’ - hmm…deep words …

Let us hope he does not mean Mormon mission teams that no one would be able to challenge …

or that he would remember that unless The Lord watches over the city , in vain does the watchman …and that The One who is called The Lord , is given the honor worthy of The Lord !

or that he and others in his role would come to learn more on how communsim fell - not by the might of the militray but becuase The Lord was bringing to light the role of heroic women , forshadowed in the Old Testaments , through His Mother - ’ terrible as an army set in battle array ’ and through those who followed up on her directives , for the age old promise , to be one , for a world that may believe !

Thus , the consecration of Russia , done in coopertaion with the Orthodox , who had stood apart for centures was to bring forth heaven’s promises , to be fulfilled - even if only partailly , since the unity too is still only partial !

There are some , like Gingrich and Santroum too would know and trust enough ,in the how of these events and would be with heaven’s plans in these matters , not against !

Thus ,plans to be wasting money on super military spending - hope that too is not part of the 'Moremoneyism ’ of pursuing the god of this world that have made for much capital for those who follow that path !

May God help us and prayers of Pope John Paul 11 be with us !
 
Pork_Roll said:
Absolutely. I just talked about this with my very orthodox priest about how the GOP which agrees with Catholics on life issues, are anti-catholic on many other issues. What I’ve really come to realize is that there are Catholics like George Weigel and others who many of us looked up to but really have confused many good intentioned Catholics on issues concerning war and economics. JPII and BXVI have both spoke out against pre-emptive war and have called the invasion of Iraq unjust.

What many people on these forums don’t like to admit is that the GOP are only slightly better than the democrats in promoting catholic values. Some will go so far as to act as if you are morally obligated to vote republican. Where republicans completely are at odds with church teaching, they claim that they are free to make up there own minds, like on issues concerning economics and the environment and death penalty, much like pro-abortion catholic politicians.

Here are some things that the church teaches which goes against big business pro-war republicans:
subsidiarily
just wage (minimum wage)
protection of environment (solar panels of roof of Vatican)
dialogue between nations instead of conflict
international coordination and authority
disarmament of nuclear weapons
unions and solidarity
defensive military (not offensive)

The truth is, the church’s teaching on social issues and the environment is way “left” of the GOP.
Click to expand...
The Church neither endorses or opposes either parties apporach to the issues you mention. And of course the idea that the party of big Govt is closer to Church teaching on subsidiarity is specious from the outset. What you have done is try and take valid poliitcal differences on how to best apporach these issues and tried to raise them to the same level as abortion The Church categorially rejects this. And of course none of rthe solution to ANY of these issues help those who are denied the right to life. All rights flow from the right to life. Saying that the democrat party is closest to Church teaching where those fortunate enough to escape the womb are concerend is utter nonsense.,
 
estesbob said:
The Church neither endorses or opposes either parties apporach to the issues you mention. And of course the idea that the party of big Govt is closer to Church teaching on subsidiarity is specious from the outset. What you have done is try and take valid poliitcal differences on how to best apporach these issues and tried to raise them to the same level as abortion The Church categorially rejects this. And of course none of rthe solution to ANY of these issues help those who are denied the right to life. All rights flow from the right to life. Saying that the democrat party is closest to Church teaching where those fortunate enough to escape the womb are concerend is utter nonsense.,
Click to expand...
The topic is Ron Paul, not Democrats.
 
Still, I’d rather vote for the crazy old uncle at the family reunion than a benevolent tyrant marquerading as a “conservative constitutionalist”
 
estesbob said:
Id vote for Ron Paul in a minute over Barrak Obama.
Click to expand...
Why would you vote for another Republican candidate over Ron Paul when it was shown to you that, after abortion, his other views are more consistantly in line with Catholic Teaching then all the others?
 
A few thoughts
Code: 
 1. **Ron Paul** has shown enormous independence and courage in Congress. I admire that. However, he is simply too extreme for me and I could never vote for him. There is a peculiar idealism in his logic which seems to attract young people.

 2. **Dr. King** was far from being a saint, but he too, was a man of unusual courage, leading to his assassination. He confronted the outrageous evil of second-class citizenship that had been imposed upon fellow Americans whose ancestors had been brought here in chains. God bless his memory.

  3. **Gingrich** seems to have been a serial adulterer. He has a very clever tongue, which gets huge applause. However, he strikes me as a total opportunist, and a mean on at that. He would be embarrassing if he ever managed to occupy the Oval Office.

  4.** Iran** has a government that could be dangerous. On the other hand, we need to understand their perspective. To their east the US invaded Afghanistan. To their west the US invaded Iraq. Israel has 100 or so nuclear weapons and will not permit inspection, while it continues to grab what little is left of Palestine. Israel unilaterally bombed facilities in Iraq and Syria and the US said nothing. The US helped overthrow the last democratic government in Iran and imposed the Shah upon the nation. Oh, and Ghaddafi agreed not to build a nuclear bomb and even seemed somewhat friendly to the US - and see what happened to him.

  Let's hope and pray that Iran doesn't get a nuclear bomb, but I don't believe the Iranians are stupid enough to use it first as that would lead to a total destruction of their nation. There are - tragically - powerful forces in this country who want us to bomb Iran. They have their own agendas, some related to their first loyalty to Israel, others to their fervent nationalism that thinks the US should police the world, still others because they make plenty of money off war. Then there are those evangelical fundamentalists who revel in what they expect to be the approaching battle of Armageddon and those other off-the-wall well-intentioned folks who are always alarmed by alarmists. 

 In line with the Pope, let us pray and work for peace and reconciliation. It's a difficult and delicate road to travel, but we need to move in that direction. Unfortunately, the GOP candidates (except Paul) sound like classical warmongers. Obama doesn't seem any wiser. Matt. 5:9.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top