A
_Abyssinia
Guest
How can there be little enthusiasm if we are all talking about the candidates?
Well quite a few have won against Democrat opponents so they are not seen as weak by the American people.
Yeah, it is way too early.
- Status
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Of course, just as the Crusades were often just, yet sometimes people did gravely bad things.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Agreed.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Lest we accuse only the Brtis for waging a war with unjust tactics, the US Army Air Forces did the same against Japanese targets, specifically wanting to burn cities and their inhabitants even when there were no military targets.
It is good that the Allies won the war, but the morality of how much of it was done would have failed the Just War Theory.
G
gilliam
Guest
P
pismopal
Guest
Because to liberals…liberalism trumps religion.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Nice blanket statement there. How about “to conservatives, conservatism trumps justice and compassion”?Because to liberals…liberalism trumps religion.
Both statements are lies, so why say them?
E
estesbob
Guest
So of the last 6 Democrat Caniodates for President how many could a Catholic who adhered to the teachings of the Church have voted for? How about the last 6 republican Caniodates?Nice blanket statement there. How about “to conservatives, conservatism trumps justice and compassion”?
Both statements are lies, so why say them?
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
I’ve already said that some killing is justified, but not for Iraq
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Obama is just the same. I’m not going to defend him
We do not need the Church to tell us whether or not a war is justified. Just use common sense
E
estesbob
Guest
The Church exkcitly said ghat a zcTholic could in good conscience support the war There was no more equivalence between supporting the war and supporting abortion
I
irishpatrick
Guest
That is your opinion and your entitled to it, but being your personal opinion I am free to disgard it.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
You are basing this on what? On your divine knowledge of all the security data present for the war in Iraq? Has it not struck you (or others with your view) that there must be valid reasons why Obama took nearly the same course Bush had already outlined, and that Obama has followed nearly all of the same paths Bush took regarding foreign policy? Is it just possible–now here I am really going out on a limb–that we normal people do not know as much as those who get security briefings every day of their lives? Is it just possible that CNN and Fox News are not quite as current as many people think?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
:ehh: You are addressing neither pismopal’s prejudiced remark nor my response to it.
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Just war is when all diplomacy has officially failed and is needed to protect the people for the greater good
R
Red_Wolf
Guest
How can we solve our problems if we are not willing to talk about what is causing them? Any candidate who does is labeled second tier, or worse, by the “talking heads”. As long as the electorate takes their lead from what they are told to think and consider, we will not make progress.
Ron Paul has been in congress a long time. He came in to address the problems that led to the crash in 2008 (the basic flaw that allowed the rest to develop) and called the 2008 crash to within weeks. He is called “Dr. No” because he will not support anything unconstitutional; but is listed as one of the most effective members of congress. And he started what is a considerable political movement AFTER losing the 2008 GOP nomination. He is a serious candidate, IF, we want solutions.
If you want rosy lies, and a trip further down the slippery slope, vote for someone else.
another thing.
There were two candidates in 2008, for the major parties, who were in national office in 2003, who had opposed going into Iraq from the start; and all the way through: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Neither was taken seriously by the vast majority of their parties. It seems that a track record of being right is a disqualification with the talking heads.
Ron Paul has been in congress a long time. He came in to address the problems that led to the crash in 2008 (the basic flaw that allowed the rest to develop) and called the 2008 crash to within weeks. He is called “Dr. No” because he will not support anything unconstitutional; but is listed as one of the most effective members of congress. And he started what is a considerable political movement AFTER losing the 2008 GOP nomination. He is a serious candidate, IF, we want solutions.
If you want rosy lies, and a trip further down the slippery slope, vote for someone else.
another thing.
There were two candidates in 2008, for the major parties, who were in national office in 2003, who had opposed going into Iraq from the start; and all the way through: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Neither was taken seriously by the vast majority of their parties. It seems that a track record of being right is a disqualification with the talking heads.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Nice post.
V
valentino
Guest
I don’t care who’s elected he’s never going to able to do what he promises.the first thing every candidate has to do is get elected.so he’s going to do just that.After he’s achieved that he’s got congress and the senate to deal with.but before all this he has to get nominated and that means raising money and you have to be someone your party thinks is electable.As I said before as president you’re not your own man.In this day and to get elected you owe to many people.You’re always trying to please the people that got you there.Do you think Johnson wanted to continue the war?Jimmy Carter finallyy came out and told the American people what was wrong with them but he ended up a dismal failure.
- Status