Bob Debates Ron Paul Supporters

[Jefferson]

Bob Debates Ron Paul Supporters

This is the show from Thursday October 18th, 2007.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

If New York and California say we'll kill kids in our states, Ron Paul says the federal government should look the other way. That is brutally wicked and evil.

So, Alan Keyes will defend the national integrity of America. And he is strong on all the fundamental moral issues. So why support someone who celebrates and approves and is a cheerleader for the most godless, sexually immoral party we have - the libertarian party?

SUMMARY:

* Mark from Wheat Ridge CO: strongly supported libertarian Ron Paul but had a very hard time defending Ron Paul's willingness to tolerate child killing.

* Earl from Holyoke CO: from the northeast corner of Colorado, Earl thanked Bob for encouraging Earl to not give up on his homosexual brother, who became a Christian two days before he died and went to be with the Lord! Then the two men debated Earl's support of Ron Paul!

* Paul from Hartsell CO: from deep within Colorado's Rocky Mountains, Paul asked Bob about the problems with democracy, and they lamented the extent of the democracy (and republicanism) embedded in our Constitution.

* Britney Spears on BEL: Bob blasts those who support our filthy culture for helping to destroy young women like Spears who get paid to act like sluts, who in turn help to destroy the virtue of a million other women. Spears not only lost custody of her children in part for her "habitual" drug addictions, she also has been unable even to see them without supervised visits, and at least until her next court hearing, she's not even allowed to see them for refusing to undergo weekly drug testing.

Today's Resource: Watch our beloved DVD, Get out of the Matrix! Bob takes on a college professor and her philosophy class in a debate regarding God and absolutes. Who wins? The students have been taught that nothing is absolutely right or wrong, so Bob asks them if that is absolutely right. And they've been taught that they can only know that which their five senses have told them, so Bob asks them which of their five senses told them that. Is the lack of intellectualism in this college class representative of American higher education? You can decide as you view this video, one of Bob's most extraordinary presentations!

 

[Granite]

Keyes is a preening egotistical buffoon.

I guess Enyart's just ducky with another abuse of federal power so long as it suits him and his own personal mores. What a surprise.

 

[Delmar]

Keyes is a preening egotistical buffoon.

I guess Enyart's just ducky with another abuse of federal power so long as it suits him and his own personal mores. What a surprise.

Protecting the rights of the innocent is not an abuse of federal power, you dolt!

 

[Granite]

It depends on how one goes about it. Two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes.

 

[Delmar]

It depends on how one goes about it. Two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes.

I agree! Your assertion that a constitutional amendment declaring the personhood of unborn babies, would be an abuse of federal power is a lie!

 

[Granite]

I agree! Your assertion that a constitutional amendment declaring the personhood of unborn babies, would be an abuse of federal power is a lie!

I didn't say that. Don't know where you got that idea.

 

[Delmar]

I didn't say that. Don't know where you got that idea.

So what were you claiming to be an abuse of federal power?

 

[Granite]

So what were you claiming to be an abuse of federal power?

Something such as Congressional legislation or an executive order, ideas which have been floated here in the past. A constitutional amendment would be a worthless, temporary stop gap, nothing more. Also, like it or not, declaring the personhood of the unborn wouldn't necessarily do a thing to stop abortions at all. It's a feel good sop of a hypothetical idea, but would not be effective in practice.

 

[Delmar]

Something such as Congressional legislation or an executive order, ideas which have been floated here in the past. A constitutional amendment would be a worthless, temporary stop gap, nothing more. Also, like it or not, declaring the personhood of the unborn wouldn't necessarily do a thing to stop abortions at all. It's a feel good sop of a hypothetical idea, but would not be effective in practice.

nonsense

 

[Granite]

nonsense

Delmar, the "personhood" of people who are involuntarily euthanized hasn't stopped their being euthanized. The "personhood" of those on death row who are executed doesn't stop their execution. Declaring someone's "personhood" does zero to stop the state from exerting its will if the state so chooses. Saying the unborn are indeed "persons" will do nothing to stop or slow or end abortion. It'll simply make the lines in the sand that much sharper. Such an amendment would have no teeth.

 

[CRASH]

I am a preening egotistical buffoon.

Granite, tell us something we don't know!

 

[Servo]

Delmar, the "personhood" of people who are involuntarily euthanized hasn't stopped their being euthanized.

That is because many don't see them as people...

The "personhood" of those on death row who are executed doesn't stop their execution. Declaring someone's "personhood" does zero to stop the state from exerting its will if the state so chooses.

The execution of a guilty person (which is so rare it is hardly worth mentioning) is done so because the person is GUILTY! We are talking of COMPLETE innocence here. :duh:

Saying the unborn are indeed "persons" will do nothing to stop or slow or end abortion. It'll simply make the lines in the sand that much sharper. Such an amendment would have no teeth.

Granite, what on earth are you smoking? You really have no clue and you are just being argumentative.
Of course if we start seeing these unborn babies as people with rights it will stop abortion! What else would? Yet more legislation and procedures? Wake up!
Which way would you have it? Business as usual? What that has accomplished in the past 40 years is exactly nothing!

 

[Granite]

That is because many don't see them as people...



The execution of a guilty person (which is so rare it is hardly worth mentioning) is done so because the person is GUILTY! We are talking of COMPLETE innocence here.



Granite, what on earth are you smoking? You really have no clue and you are just being argumentative.
Of course if we start seeing these unborn babies as people with rights it will stop abortion! What else would? Yet more legislation and procedures? Wake up!
Which way would you have it? Business as usual? What that has accomplished in the past 40 years is exactly nothing!

I support capital punishment; my point was that whether or not the state recognizes someone's "personhood" is totally irrelevant depending upon the will of the state. Personhood has nothing to do with it.

You're telling me amending the Constitution will somehow make more people see the unborn as persons? How exactly does that work?

 

[Jefferson]

Granite, since you're against abortion, what is your strategy for making it illegal with teeth behind the law?

 

[Granite]

Granite, since you're against abortion, what is your strategy for making it illegal with teeth behind the law?

Since this a fundmentally states's rights issue it should be decided at that level. I support local candidates who are pro-life and work to get folks in office who can effect these kinds of changes. (New Hampshire has suffered quite a few setbacks recently, but those are the breaks.) I'm also involved in the pro-life clinic in my hometown and do all I can to assist them.

This is not an easy struggle, as we all know. Education and advocacy are the means to accomplish change. You can't change the hearts of the people through legislation. I don't understand why so many folks here refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[Stripe]

Granite, it would be so much easier if you would stop trying to support God's standards.

 

[Delmar]

Delmar, the "personhood" of people who are involuntarily -euthanized hasn't stopped their being euthanized. The "personhood" of those on death row who are executed doesn't stop their execution. Declaring someone's "personhood" does zero to stop the state from exerting its will if the state so chooses. Saying the unborn are indeed "persons" will do nothing to stop or slow or end abortion. It'll simply make the lines in the sand that much sharper. Such an amendment would have no teeth.

As E4E pointed out the other day the Fourteenth Amendment states that the State shall not deprive any person of, life, liberty, or property without due process. SCOTUS did an end run around this in 1973 by declaring an unborn baby is not a person. If the constitution is amended it will be clear to everyone that any law depriving an unborn baby of life, without due process, is clearly unconstitutional. You rightly point out that some will ignore the constitution as they do when they euthanize people. I can't help that!