Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This strikes me as a bit of an overstatement. Ron Paul’s positions are not on “all fours” with those of the Church, and certainly not with the positions of the likely majority of Catholic churchmen.

He opposes for instance, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where would you find a bishop who would agree with that?
Q: In a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, you said: “Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
A: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it’d be OK for the military. Just think of how the government caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.
Q: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today?
A: If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.
Somethings are addressed at the following link: ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm But, I feel it’s safe to say we need more information than just a simple ‘he’s against, or for’ without explanations.
 
Somethings are addressed at the following link: ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm But, I feel it’s safe to say we need more information than just a simple ‘he’s against, or for’ without explanations.
Not my point at all, and I do understand his argument. But I think it’s a stretch to say he would be closer to the position of the Church than “all other candidates” in that respect, as with others.
 
You make one false assumption about me after another.:banghead:

I provide a link to the Bishops Referendum on Abortion and state unequivocally that they got it right, but you totally IGNORE that and proceed to accuse me of positions I do not hold. That is a knee-jerk conservative reaction that does nothing to help anyone.

You state that you are TIRED of this framing of the abortion debate - Then you admit you have heard it many many times, which means my CHARACTERIZATION of it is ACCURATE! I’m describing what the “abortion rights” groups are doing - I’m NOT endorsing it.

The rest of my post deals with a real weakness in the anti-abortion argument. While most people agree that abortion should be illegal, there is no consensus as to what that will mean to women. YES the anti-abortion side needs to do a better job of answering the questions I stated, because those are the questions people will be asking. If we don’t answer them first, the “abortion rights” lobby will answer them for us, and in ways that are designed to put fear into women.

As for compassion, my critique of the rhetoric of the “angry-right” is accurate. I have to protect my children from the influence of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as much as I need to protect them from Lady Gaga. I don’t want them to grow up hearing the vitriol that runs through this nations political discourse and is repeated all over and over again on the internet and in the main stream media.

Since I am not someone who “wants abortion to remain legal and available for anyone who wants it”, but am trying to win this battle by not alienating half the population, you might want to reconsider whether you should take my criticisms seriously.
Bellasbane, I agree with the bishops statement that you posted. But then you made some of your own comments and analysis and took things a step or two further, and I merely was commenting on that. For example you accused conservatives of “lacking compassion”, of not taking the concerns of women into account, etc. Don’t you know that the abortion lobby will twist the truth in any way they can to oppose the pro-life movement? If Rachel’s Vineyard, crisis pregnancy centers, etc. aren’t evidence to you of the compassion of the pro-life movement then I’m sorry- I can’t help you. I reject your notion that the conservative movement in general, and the pro-life movement in particular are “alienating half the population.” I also reject your rather overwrought characterization of Limbaugh as “vitriol” that you need to protect you children from. But I could be wrong - could you provide an example of Rush’s supposed vitriol that makes you so upset?

Ishii
 
Hillary Clinton is like most politicians. She wants to win elections. How many politicians are like Ron Paul, who will vote against powerful lobbies out of principle? Not many. I am not defending her voting record in the Senate, which I believe reflects her desire to win elections and what the Bishops describe below:

But she didn’t have to make this speech. She was speaking on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and could have celebrated all the political success that abortion rights groups have had over the previous 30 years. Instead she choose to bring moral arguments into the discussion. Arguments that undermine the heresy that abortion is not only tolerable, but good for society. Once you eliminate that heresy, the ugly truth of what NARAL and Planned Parenthood are really all about begins to emerge.

Perhaps this is why NARAL didn’t endorse her. It says something about who they felt would be a better champion of their cause. I’m surprised Hillary Clinton would be so naive as to believe they would overlook the threat that her views on ending abortion posed for them.
Hillary just wants to win elections? This is a very naive statement to make about a liberal ideologue whose every action in politics (that’s action, as opposed to a mere speech), has been geared toward furthering the liberal/left social agenda. I would suggest that you look at Hillary’s actions - they speak volumes more about her intentions than one speech. Also, I am sure that her one speech that you refer to, has been drowned out by the umpteen speeches she has made since then - reaffirming her unwavering support for abortion on demand. She is indeed part of the pro-abortion crowd.

Ishii
 
Huntsman versus Reagan:

Contrast and compare:

Huntsman never mentions Obama’s name … sounds like McCain or Dole or the other Republican losers

Huntsman Calls for Civility Where Reagan Stood to Eviscerate Carter
June 21, 2011

Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to the ChiComs for Obama – the former governor of Utah – has announced his intention to seek the Republican presidential nomination. He did it this morning using the Statue of Liberty.

HUNTSMAN:

“For the first time in our history we’re about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive, and less confident than the one we got.”

Let me say something about civility.

For the sake of the younger generation – it concerns me that civility, humanity, and respect are sometimes lost in our interactions as Americans. Our political debates today are corrosive and not reflective of the belief that Abe Lincoln espoused. I don’t think you need to run down someone’s reputation in order to run for the office of president. I respect the President of the United States. He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love, but the question each of us wants the voters to answer is “Who will be the better president?” not who’s the better American. Behind me is our most famous symbol of the promise of America. President Reagan launched the 1980 general election campaign from this very spot. – It was a time of trouble, worry – and difficulty.

And he assured us that we could make America great again.

And through his leadership, he did. Today I stand in his shadow, as well as the shadow of this magnificent monument to our liberty.

Ronald Reagan. September 1st, 1980, Liberty State Park behind the Statue of Liberty kicking off his general election campaign.

REAGAN: The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten. His answer to all this misery? He tries to tell us that we’re only in a recession, not a depression – as if definitions – words – relieve our suffering. Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well, if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his!

I have talked with unemployed workers all across this country. I’ve heard their views on what Jimmy Carter has done to them and their families. Let Mr. Carter go to their homes, look their children in the eyes, and argue with them that it’s only a recession that put dad or mom out of work. Let him go to the unemployment lines and lecture those workers who have been betrayed on what is the proper definition for their widespread economic misery. Human tragedy, human misery, the crushing of the human spirit. They do not need defining; they need action.

Call this human tragedy whatever you want. Whatever it is, it’s Jimmy Carter’s. He caused it, he tolerates it, and he’s going to appearance to the American people for it.

I’m looking forward to meeting Mr. Carter in debate, confronting him with the whole sorry record of his administration – the record he prefers not to mention. If he ever finally agrees to the kind of first debate the American people want, which I’m beginning to doubt, he’ll answer to them and to me.

This country needs a new administration with a renewed dedication to the dream of America, an administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again.
 
I voted Pawlenty here only because Rick Perry isn’t listed. Perry, should he decide to run, would be a strong candidate for the RNC. Personally speaking, Romney is too risky as we have to defeat Obama.
 
Right. He’s right on everything else but the important one. That’s why I support Ron Paul.
All the Republican hopefuls who have announced thus far are pro-life. I am a little concerned about Romney’s commitment given his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge and also have concerns about Ron Paul’s view on the role of federal government limiting the action he would take to end abortion. I would, however, vote for either of these if they ended up being the Republican nominee. Giuliani and Gary Johnson are nonstarters for me. Given their support of abortion.
 
All the Republican hopefuls who have announced thus far are pro-life. I am a little concerned about Romney’s commitment given his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge and also have concerns about Ron Paul’s view on the role of federal government limiting the action he would take to end abortion. I would, however, vote for either of these if they ended up being the Republican nominee. Giuliani and Gary Johnson are nonstarters for me. Given their support of abortion.
Ron Paul has submitted the Sanctity of Human Life Act that would have confired personhood onto a fetus from the time of conception, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade without a court battle and putting the case of abortion back in the states hands, where they are the ones who prosecute murderers. The federal government would only get involved in cross-jurisdictional cases or any other situation where state jurisdictions are not clearly defined. He has the only plan that I know that can overturn Roe by an act of Congress.
 
Ron Paul has submitted the Sanctity of Human Life Act that would have confired personhood onto a fetus from the time of conception, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade without a court battle and putting the case of abortion back in the states hands, where they are the ones who prosecute murderers. The federal government would only get involved in cross-jurisdictional cases or any other situation where state jurisdictions are not clearly defined. He has the only plan that I know that can overturn Roe by an act of Congress.
God bless him!! 👍
 
Ron Paul has submitted the Sanctity of Human Life Act that would have confired personhood onto a fetus from the time of conception, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade without a court battle and putting the case of abortion back in the states hands, where they are the ones who prosecute murderers. The federal government would only get involved in cross-jurisdictional cases or any other situation where state jurisdictions are not clearly defined. He has the only plan that I know that can overturn Roe by an act of Congress.
I have all sorts of problems with Ron Paul other than his views on abortion. He has shown in the past that is narrow view of the function of the federal government can lead into some outrageous positions-like rejecting the forced end of segregation in the South and laws designed to stop the illegal suppression of the black vote.
 
I have all sorts of problems with Ron Paul other than his views on abortion. He has shown in the past that is narrow view of the function of the federal government can lead into some outrageous positions-like rejecting the forced end of segregation in the South and laws designed to stop the illegal suppression of the black vote.
Yeah, we know dude. Even after you have been schooled 100 times.
 
Yeah, we know dude. Even after you have been schooled 100 times.
All I have been schooled on is that I was correct in my claim that Ron Paul opposed both the voting rights act and the Civil Rights Act and would not have voted for them. I find this very troubling , and it is one of the reasons he is far down my list of candidates. I support. You prefer to dismiss his opposition to the end of segregation of blacks and him allowing blacks free access to vote as some kind of exercise in personal liberty. I don’t
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top