I
ishii
Guest
I’m interesting in what Jimmy Carter said about the American people as to “what was wrong with them” ? Please explain.
Ishii
- Status
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Ron Paul is not the answer. He has lots of answers to the issues we face - from a libertarian perspective - but he will not become president. He will be 77 before taking office. Libertarianism may have its merits and Ron Paul may have lots of good things to say about what we need to do to fix our problems. But, he will not be elected president. That is a reality I think all Ron Paul supporters need to face. You have a choice: you can go down as a “true believer” voting for Ron Paul - and not change a thing in this country. Or you can find the candidate who is closest to a small government, fiscal and social conservative and actually make a difference. I believe that candidate is Tim Pawlenty.
Ishii
S
stephe1987
Guest
I put “Other”… it is way too early to tell who I’m going to vote for.
I would like to see a third party candidate in office, though. I am sick of Democrats and Republicans.
I would like to see a third party candidate in office, though. I am sick of Democrats and Republicans.
P
pnewton
Guest
I will vote for Ron Paul… again. I voted for him the first time he ran and I see this country is more in need than ever of a man like him. I am biased, of course, as he is home town doc and delivered my son back when he was in practice. I agree with him and admire his solid character. I have to vote my conscience, even if it is a losing proposition. However, when someone say he is not electable at** this** point, I have to disregard such a comment as being contrary to what history has taught me.
A
antonivs
Guest
Zogby Poll results:
source: rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/23/herman-cain-top-2012-presidential-candidate-among-gop-primary-voters/
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Yup yup. I am not buying into Sean Hannity’s “This is the most critical election in the history of the universe” nonsense that he spouts every year. The guy needs to get a new mantra. Cain looks interesting, but until I see someone with as consistent a record as Ron Paul, I am voting for him, even if I have to write him in.
C
cheers2u
Guest
I just find it VERY IRONIC that people complain about “too much government”, “big government”, etc., but yet the issue of the federal government not making abortions illegal(the very government people are complaining is “too big”) is such a hot topic. That’s just contradictory to me. Is the federal government only “too big” when the laws/bills that we want aren’t passed or in the case of Roe vs. Wade, reversed?? Something to think about…can’t have our cake and eat it, too.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Do you think that government has an appropriate role in preventing people from murdering each other?
S
St_Francis
Guest
Wow, I can’t believe y’all stopped posting long enough for me to catch up to the end of the thread!
Anyway, I have an eeconomic question for those who vote on social justice issues.
How can we continue to spend the current amount, and increasing amounts, if our economy is going downhill? This is where I feel confused: the worse our economy gets, the less money we will have to help people, and the more people will need help.
Anyway, I have an eeconomic question for those who vote on social justice issues.
How can we continue to spend the current amount, and increasing amounts, if our economy is going downhill? This is where I feel confused: the worse our economy gets, the less money we will have to help people, and the more people will need help.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
In many cases, you are right. Tim Pawlenty said in his speech yesterday said that he would tell the American people the truth even if it was not what they wanted to hear. Let’s see if he can do that. It’s high time someone speaks truthfully about the economic condition this country is in.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Exactly.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
You do not seem to understand. If the Federal had remained out of the abortion issue in 1973, and had it left those choices in the hands of each state (which is what the Feds should have done), then many millions that were killed might very well be alive TODAY!
People, such as myself, who believe smaller government do not mean NO GOVERNMENT.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
The larger questions, imo, are:
Why does our culture nearly worship the idea of retirement and where did that come from?
Where in cultural or faith history does it say we are called to work for about 3/4 of our life and then spend the last 1/4 doing nothing? (it seems to me God places a high value on work)
How many Saints stopped working when they were 60 or 65?
How many Popes retired at age 60 or 65?
Isn’t it a fairly well proven fact that work, despite how much people complain, is very good for us?
Isn’t it also fairly obvious that we spend decades worrying about retirement funds, when in fact retirement is just another finanical industry for people to get rich off of?
What, exactly, is so great about retiring and becoming essentially worthless to society?
In the context of this thread, how many candidates want to do something real about these sorts of issues? There are many things wrong with our culture–when do we start fixing things and who wants to do so?
B
bellasbane
Guest
I believe the question is where does the federal government get its authority to enforce national social policy and what are the limits of that authority? Roe vs. Wade does puts limits on federal authority, but some say it does so based on unsound reasoning and therefore should be overturned. I can’t speak to that. I’m not an expert on jurisprudence and don’t want to get into a conversation about it.
However, if you are a supporter of Ron Paul, you might reply with his view of the matter:
Federalizing Social Policy
“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html
On the other hand, the 14th Amendment restricts the authority of states of to pass laws that undermine the Bill of Rights, which prior to 1868 only applied to the federal government.
The 14th Amendment states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Today, the federal government recognizes that women are citizens and persons - so a woman’s rights are protected by the 14th Amendment (although it took an additional amendment, the 19th Amendment, to grant women full citizenship). However, under Roe vs. Wade, unborn babies are not legally recognized as persons and are therefore not protected by the 14th Amendment. From what I understand, this is the law of the land until Roe vs. Wade is overturned.
Catholics recognize that the unborn babies are indeed persons and should have 14th Amendment protections - someday I hope everyone will see it this way too, but that is definitely not the case at the present time
Peace
E
estesbob
Guest
So you dont beleive the government should have any say in protecting the lives of its citizens? I believe that protecting the right to life is the primary purpose of any government. Lets not try and dress up supporting infanticide as supporting big government
E
estesbob
Guest
The right to life is not merely another social issue. It is the fundamental right of all citizens , the right from which all other rights flow.I believe the question is where does the federal government get its authority to enforce national social policy and what are the limits of that authority? Roe vs. Wade does puts limits on federal authority, but some say it does so based on unsound reasoning and therefore should be overturned. I can’t speak to that. I’m not an expert on jurisprudence and don’t want to get into a conversation about it.
However, if you are a supporter of Ron Paul, you might reply with his view of the matter:
Federalizing Social Policy
“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html
On the other hand, the 14th Amendment restricts the authority of states of to pass laws that undermine the Bill of Rights, which prior to 1868 only applied to the federal government.
The 14th Amendment states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Today, the federal government recognizes that women are citizens and persons - so a woman’s rights are protected by the 14th Amendment (although it took an additional amendment, the 19th Amendment, to grant women full citizenship). However, under Roe vs. Wade, unborn babies are not legally recognized as persons and are therefore not protected by the 14th Amendment. From what I understand, this is the law of the land until Roe vs. Wade is overturned.
Catholics recognize that the unborn babies are indeed persons and should have 14th Amendment protections - someday I hope everyone will see it this way too, but that is definitely not the case at the present time
Peace
B
bellasbane
Guest
Good point.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I cannot agree that what Gift from God wrote, “Just war is when all diplomacy has officially failed and is needed to protect the people for the greater good,” is automatically true. It does not line up with Just War theory, that the good to be gained mist oitweigh the evil to be reasonably expected, for one thing.
E
estesbob
Guest
It is fine for a Catholic to beleive the Iraq War was unjust and vote accordingly. The problem arises when they declare the war was unjust and then use their judgement of such as a rationalization to support a pro-abortion canidate.
B
bellasbane
Guest
That is a fairly narrow-minded statement. It implies that the only “worth” a person has is to be a “worker” in the macro economy. What about “home economics” - which is what my field used to be called “once upon a time”. The economic worth of vibrant grandparents who are still young enough and healthy enough to support their working children and grandchildren is incredibly valuable.
- Status