Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[jam070406]

I guess that works out great, unless you are the one being denied the right to vote, eat where you want, and wanted equal access to employment and lodging. Again, you have highlighted what the problem with Ron Paul is-a political philosophy that has terrible consequences regardless of whether that was what was intended or not.

Except this is all a fallacy, so your point is moot.

 

[jam070406]

That’s what I was thinking. Liberty for me, but not for thee.

Mr Paul seeks liberty for all, hence his opposition to big government tyranny.

 

[estesbob]

Still peddling that myth are you? Have you read any of my posts on the nominations of the GOP in the past twenty-five years? If you did read those with an open mind, you wouldn’t make such simplistic statements. Are you interested in the truth or in scoring cheap political points?

Ishii

It also peddles the myth that you can only judge the Republican Party’s commitment abortion by court appointees. Just this year we have Republicans in Congress. trying to defund Planned parnethood and remove funding for abortion from the Health Care Bill. Indiana Republcians passed a bill defunding Planned parenthood . Texas Republicans pushed through a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period and a sonogram be viewed before woman is allowed to have an abortion, The Republicans in Georgia have moved to limit abortions by tightening the definition of what constitutes the health of the mother and instituting stricter informed consent laws South Dakota has passed a tough new parental and informed consent law-and that is just what is happened in the last four months. Every single restriction on abortion since Roe V Wade was imposed has come via Republican Party. Every single restriction that they had been able to implement has been fought vigorously by the Democratic Party.

The truth is, the only people that claims the publicans are not opposing abortion of those claiming to be pro-life but trying to rationalize their support of abortion with their votes. I defy anyone to go to any pro-abortion organizations website and find any indicationsthey believe Republicans are not trying to limit or end abortionI defy them to find any Democrat candidate who ever campaigned by saying “don’t believe my opponents opposition to abortion, it’s all for show.”

 

[estesbob]

Except this is all a fallacy, so your point is moot.

I don’t see how you can on one hand saying that opposing the civil rights and voting rights acts was an excercise liberty but on the other hand claim it is a fallacy when people point out the consequences of this action.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Before the last two supreme court justices were appointed, there were only 2 serving that were appointed by democrats. Them good 'ole republicans got the job done then, didn’t they?

Ron Paul submitted the Sanctity of Human Life Act to Congress THREE TIMES, with barely a yawn from other “pro-life” Republicans. And people wonder why I look at the GOP with skepticism. The Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade narrative even admitted that if Congress were to determine when personhood started, then the rendering of their opinion would be moot. This is the one way to eliminate Roe v. Wade using a legitimate act of COngress. What has Congress done? Let it die in committee THREE TIMES. Paul couldn’t even get a majority of Republicans to co-sponsor the thing.

 

[jam070406]

I guess that works out great, unless you are the one being denied the right to vote, eat where you want, and wanted equal access to employment and lodging. Again, you have highlighted what the problem with Ron Paul is-a political philosophy that has terrible consequences regardless of whether that was what was intended or not.

Why do you presume that Ron Paul’s philosophy of liberty for all excludes people with certain skin color?
Please prove that Ron Paul would deny blacks the rights that every American has protected under the constitution. Otherwise quit repeating your lie.

 

[ishii]

That is the truth. Before the last two appointed justices, only two serving were appointed by democrats. But we have to believe every republican is not pandering to a bloc of voters.

Join bob, he says I complicit because I didn’t vote for someone I totally did not believe…

I don’t doubt your sincerity, Prodigal Son. But I do believe that even when we vote for the perfect pro-life candidate who has no chance of winning, instead of the flawed pro-life candidate who has a chance of winning, we are strengthening the hand of the pro-abortion candidate. The way for pro-abortion candidates to win is for the pro-life movement to be divided, don’t you think?

As for your comments on supreme court justices, here is a reply I made to one of your posts a while ago which I don’t think you commented on:

“Your beef is with the Democrat catholic senators who vote party first, catholic second. They effectively make it very difficult for Republican presidents to nominate conservatives to the bench. On the other hand, if you have a Republican senate and president you get Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. You’re directing your anger toward the Republicans when it should be directed toward the Democrats - and specifically toward the catholics who vote Democrat - thus enabling the pro-abortion politics of the Democrats.”

"That is a fair question: you might say “gee, the Republicans have given us most of the justices on the supreme court. Why is Roe V Wade still the law of the land? That GOP must be really playing us for fools - cynically pandering to us for our votes by false claims of being pro-life.” On the surface, it seems to be a valid criticism of the GOP’s seeming inability to overturn Roe V Wade via supreme court justice appointments. However, if you go a little deeper into the issue and If you look at the politics surrounding the confirmation hearings for those justices nominated I think you might realize that in many ways the GOP’s hands have been tied by the Democrats, who in key instances were in a position to block justices who would have voted to overturn Roe V Wade. I assume you’ve heard of Robert Bork? He was defeated by pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics such as Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy (among others). He would arguably have been another vote to overturn Roe V Wade and the Democrats knew that - that is why they smeared him and made it their mission to defeat him. Bork would likely have been on the court with Scalia, Renquist, Byron White, and later, Clarence Thomas. The disappointments - Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor - prove that any nomination is a roll of the dice and that there are no guarantees - as much as we’d like to have a 100% certainty that the judges we appoint are going to vote to overturn decisions like Roe V Wade, there is no guarantee. One thing is for sure - the nominees coming from any Democrat will be 100% in lockstep with the abortion lobby that the Democrat party is owned by. Some say that Sotomayer may be a wild card - she’s catholic. Then again, so is Biden, so was Kennedy, and all of the other Democrats who voted party first and faith second."

Care to comment?

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Why do you presume that Ron Paul’s philosophy of liberty for all excludes people with certain skin color?
Please prove that Ron Paul would deny blacks the rights that every American has protected under the constitution. Otherwise quit repeating your lie.

one need only look at his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Act.

 

[jam070406]

one need only look at his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Act.

No. As shown to you numerous times. Provide the quote where he says people of certain color shouldn’t be allowed to vote or if he becomes president he would try and deny people the right to vote. Put up or shut up.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t doubt your sincerity, Prodigal Son. But I do believe that even when we vote for the perfect pro-life candidate who has no chance of winning, instead of the flawed pro-life candidate who has a chance of winning, we are strengthening the hand of the pro-abortion candidate. The way for pro-abortion candidates to win is for the pro-life movement to be divided, don’t you think?

As for your comments on supreme court justices, here is a reply I made to one of your posts a while ago which I don’t think you commented on:

“Your beef is with the Democrat catholic senators who vote party first, catholic second. They effectively make it very difficult for Republican presidents to nominate conservatives to the bench. On the other hand, if you have a Republican senate and president you get Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. You’re directing your anger toward the Republicans when it should be directed toward the Democrats - and specifically toward the catholics who vote Democrat - thus enabling the pro-abortion politics of the Democrats.”

"That is a fair question: you might say "gee, the Republicans have given us most of the justices on the supreme court. Why is Roe V Wade still the law of the land? That GOP must be really playing us for fools - cynically pandering to us for our votes by false claims of being pro-life." On the surface, it seems to be a valid criticism of the GOP’s seeming inability to overturn Roe V Wade via supreme court justice appointments. However, if you go a little deeper into the issue and If you look at the politics surrounding the confirmation hearings for those justices nominated I think you might realize that in many ways the GOP’s hands have been tied by the Democrats, who in key instances were in a position to block justices who would have voted to overturn Roe V Wade. I assume you’ve heard of Robert Bork? He was defeated by pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics such as Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy (among others). He would arguably have been another vote to overturn Roe V Wade and the Democrats knew that - that is why they smeared him and made it their mission to defeat him. Bork would likely have been on the court with Scalia, Renquist, Byron White, and later, Clarence Thomas. The disappointments - Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor - prove that any nomination is a roll of the dice and that there are no guarantees - as much as we’d like to have a 100% certainty that the judges we appoint are going to vote to overturn decisions like Roe V Wade, there is no guarantee. One thing is for sure - the nominees coming from any Democrat will be 100% in lockstep with the abortion lobby that the Democrat party is owned by. Some say that Sotomayer may be a wild card - she’s catholic. Then again, so is Biden, so was Kennedy, and all of the other Democrats who voted party first and faith second."

Care to comment?

Ishii

I’m sorry, but I think you missed a response I posted with a quote from a Scalia interview.

It boils down to speculation. The Republicans had opportunities but did nothing, but we continue to hear ‘one more time’.

Even though they are a minority, there are prolife democrats, but they are continually maligned on these forums. It’s not a party thing for everyone. It’s individuals and they have to be individually held accountable, but politics continue to be the primary argument. Many who use ‘prolife, not only politicians,’ are not discussing other issues important to the Church and that is suspect to say the least. Christ’s message was larger than a single issue.

Christ and the Apostles taught discernment, but when it comes to politics it seems there are some who push to vote for a chance that someone is telling the truth and not pandering. To be perfectly honest, that hasn’t worked out so good yet.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

one need only look at his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Act.

 

[elgar]

This is not a Conservative v. Liberal thing, it is a Statist v. Liberty thing. There are statists on both sides of the isle. John McCain is a semi-conservative Statist.

I will say this: Ron Paul’s supporters are some of the most enthusiastic as was shone in the 2008 Iowa Caucus I attended for the first time. They will go down with the sword for him. I voted for McCain, a big disappointment, because I thought he had the best chance of beating Obama. I don’t think Ron Paul is electable in spite of some good traits.

Someone mentioned US Supreme Court nominations. This election will be SO crucial as the Court is pretty evenly split. So if you say you are pro-life, you might have to put your pride aside for the greater good.

 

[estesbob]

No. As shown to you numerous times. Provide the quote where he says people of certain color shouldn’t be allowed to vote or if he becomes president he would try and deny people the right to vote. Put up or shut up.

Do you believe that a restaurant should be allowed to deny service to a person because of the color of their skin? Ron Paul opposed the law making this illegal. Do you believe a person should be denied employment because of the color of their skin? Ron Paul opposed a law that made this illegal. Do you believe that African Americans should be forced to use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains? Ron Paul opposed a law that made this illegal. Do you believe that poll taxes and literacy test can be be imposed exclusively on African-Americans , denying them the right to vote ? Ron Paul opposed a law that made that a legal

I suggest you perhaps go do some research on the America before these acts were passed and come back and tell us about a concept of personal liberty that excluded those who had the wrong color of skin.

 

[jam070406]

Do you believe that a restaurant should be allowed to deny service to a person because of the color of their skin? Ron Paul opposed the law making this illegal. Do you believe a person should be denied employment because of the color of their skin? Ron Paul opposed a law that made this illegal. Do you believe that African Americans should be forced to use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains? Ron Paul opposed a law that made this illegal. Do you believe that poll taxes and literacy test can be be imposed exclusively on African-Americans , denying them the right to vote ? Ron Paul opposed a law that made that a legal

I suggest you perhaps go do some research on the America before these acts were passed and come back and tell us about a concept of personal liberty that excluded those who had the wrong color of skin.

And your proof Ron Paul believes this?
Do you believe these things were constitutional to begin with?

 

[estesbob]

And your proof Ron Paul believes this?
Do you believe these things were constitutional to begin with?

His opposition to these bills has been posted ad nauseam. Their constitutionality was upheld. It is only those like Ron Paul, to adhere to a radical and simplistic political philosophy, who look upon the end of segregation and voting suppression as somehow being an unconstitutional denial of personal liberty.

 

[ExLibris]

On june 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to h.res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

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. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

===
Edit​

Formatting (capitalization) seems off from the cut and paste. I apologize.

Edit 2:

I think I fixed most of it.

 

[tomarin]

No. As shown to you numerous times. Provide the quote where he says people of certain color shouldn’t be allowed to vote or if he becomes president he would try and deny people the right to vote. Put up or shut up.

I call foul on your “put up or shut up” comment. Let’s try to be civil to one another, please.

 

[estesbob]

I call foul on your “put up or shut up” comment. Let’s try to be civil to one another, please.

Thats better than the posts in which he called me a liar.

 

[jam070406]

His opposition to these bills has been posted ad nauseam. Their constitutionality was upheld. It is only those like Ron Paul, to adhere to a radical and simplistic political philosophy, who look upon the end of segregation and voting suppression as somehow being an unconstitutional denial of personal liberty.

I get it now.

You are personally all for the Federal government telling businesses that they must meet a quota based on skin color, not qualification. You are all for colleges accepting people with lower grade point averages over people with higher grade point averages based on skin color. You are for the NFL paying fines if they don’t first interview black coaches rather then someone that may be more qualified for the position. You are for the Feds forcing banks to loan mortgages to people not because they are qualified but because they have darker skin.

This is your idea of ending segregation.

 

[jam070406]

I call foul on your “put up or shut up” comment. Let’s try to be civil to one another, please.

Mea Culpa.