Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[Granite]

Personally I disagree with him but characterizing him as being opposed to the death penalty is simply not accurate based on this quote. He made a point of saying he opposes a federal death penalty. Perhaps he clarified this more elsewhere.

 

[Clete]

Personally I disagree with him but characterizing him as being opposed to the death penalty is simply not accurate based on this quote. He made a point of saying he opposes a federal death penalty. Perhaps he clarified this more elsewhere.

He believes that if a state decides they want to allow murders to live then they should be permitted to allow them to live. He is anti-death penalty, state by state.

 

[Granite]

He believes that if a state decides they want to allow murders to live then they should be permitted to allow them to live. He is anti-death penalty, state by state.

The cynicism you guys have as well as the willful distortion you're content to use is actually somewhat surprising.

All Paul supports is exactly the system we have in place now. He's just as much a supporter of a state enacting capital punishment as he is supportive of a state's decision to rescind the death penalty. It's completely ignorant and puerile to call him "anti-death penalty" when his position's of course more nuanced than that.

Are you guys incapable of thinking of any issue outside an either/or black or white yes or no matrix? I'm dead serious.

 

[Clete]

Ron Paul is also pro-homo.

Paul has stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[citation][citation] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[citation]

 

[Granite]

A classy defender of personal liberty stirs the ire of some of TOL's amen corner. Well that's a surprise.

Attitudes like this explain an awful lot.

 

[drbrumley]

:yawn:

 

[Clete]

The cynicism you guys have as well as the willful distortion you're content to use is actually somewhat surprising.

All Paul supports is exactly the system we have in place now. He's just as much a supporter of a state enacting capital punishment as he is supportive of a state's decision to rescind the death penalty. It's completely ignorant and puerile to call him "anti-death penalty" when his position's of course more nuanced than that.

Are you guys incapable of thinking of any issue outside an either/or black or white yes or no matrix? I'm dead serious.

If a state decided to abolish the death penalty Ron Paul would support that decision.

How is that not anti-death penalty?

He places the rights of the state over the concerns of justice. Ron Paul's error is in his belief that the states have the right to decide what is and what is not just. The state has no such right and the advocacy of such a right is fundamentally unjust.

Not only that but it is in self-contradiction to Ron Paul's own clearly stated allegiance to the Constitution, which gives the states no such right.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[drbrumley]

You know Clete, if you wanna snoop around people's bedrooms, then have at it.

I have better things to do.

 

[drbrumley]

Not only that but it is in self-contradiction to Ron Paul's own clearly stated allegiance to the Constitution, which gives the states no such right.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Gives the states no such right to do what?

 

[Granite]

If a state decided to abolish the death penalty Ron Paul would support that decision.

How is that not anti-death penalty?

He places the rights of the state over the concerns of justice. Ron Paul's error is in his belief that the states have the right to decide what is and what is not just. The state has no such right and the advocacy of such a right is fundamentally unjust.

Not only that but it is in self-contradiction to Ron Paul's own clearly stated allegiance to the Constitution, which gives the states no such right.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But the federal government should have such a right? Well that's a terrifying totalitarian prospect. Small wonder you see zero problem with it.

You know Clete, "big government" liberals have nothing on you. You're one of the more fervent advocates for a downright massive government on TOL. You guys love the idea of big government solving your problems. That's not a surprise: since nobody buys what you're selling anymore, coercion must seem awfully appealing.

 

[Clete]

But the federal government should have such a right? Well that's a terrifying totalitarian prospect. Small wonder you see zero problem with it.

NO! Of course the Federal government should have no such right. You're stupid Granite. You beg and plead with me to engage you in a debate and then inside of two posts of my doing so you resort to this sort of inane, idiotic nonsense.

You know Clete, "big government" liberals have nothing on you. You're one of the more fervent advocates for a downright massive government on TOL. You guys love the idea of big government solving your problems. That's not a surprise: since nobody buys what you're selling anymore, coercion must seem awfully appealing.

Well this is obviously a lie but I'll respond to it anyway...

A Biblical government would be very small indeed compared to the monstrous beast that exists at every level of government in this country. The government has three and only three basic responsibilities...

1. To enforce civil and criminal justice.
2. To protect the nation's borders.
3. To build and maintain the nation's infrastructure.

Of course each of those things entail a great many details but really the point I am making here is that the government has no business feeding people, housing people, educating people, providing health care, etc, etc, etc. If the government minded its own business it could run itself with less than a 10% tax rate, much less. I'd hardly call that "big government". Indeed, the only thing about government that should be big is the stick it uses to clobber the criminal with.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[drbrumley]

NO! Of course the Federal government should have no such right. You're stupid Granite. You beg and plead with me to engage you in a debate and then inside of two posts of my doing so you resort to this sort of inane, idiotic nonsense.




Well this is obviously a lie but I'll respond to it anyway...

A Biblical government would be very small indeed compared to the monstrous beast that exists at every level of government in this country. The government has three and only three basic responsibilities...

1. To enforce civil and criminal justice.
2. To protect the nation's borders.
3. To build and maintain the nation's infrastructure.

Of course each of those things entail a great many details but really the point I am making here is that the government has no business feeding people, housing people, educating people, providing health care, etc, etc, etc. If the government minded its own business it could run itself with less than a 10% tax rate, much less. I'd hardly call that "big government". Indeed, the only thing about government that should be big is the stick it uses to clobber the criminal with.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

I guess the obvious question for you Clete is who granted the power to the Federal Government? Therein lies your answer.

 

[Clete]

I guess the obvious question for you Clete is who granted the power to the Federal Government? Therein lies your answer.

All authority flows from God. Any unjust use/abuse of that authority is an affront to God and is immoral and fundamentally unjust.

 

[Granite]

NO! Of course the Federal government should have no such right. You're stupid Granite. You beg and plead with me to engage you in a debate and then inside of two posts of my doing so you resort to this sort of inane, idiotic nonsense.




Well this is obviously a lie but I'll respond to it anyway...

A Biblical government would be very small indeed compared to the monstrous beast that exists at every level of government in this country. The government has three and only three basic responsibilities...

1. To enforce civil and criminal justice.
2. To protect the nation's borders.
3. To build and maintain the nation's infrastructure.

Of course each of those things entail a great many details but really the point I am making here is that the government has no business feeding people, housing people, educating people, providing health care, etc, etc, etc. If the government minded its own business it could run itself with less than a 10% tax rate, much less. I'd hardly call that "big government". Indeed, the only thing about government that should be big is the stick it uses to clobber the criminal with.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

If you quit acting rude, stopped behaving like a blustery stuffed shirt, and stopped presuming I knew what you meant without having explained yourself we could get somewhere. I don't pretend to be a mind reader, Clete, unlike some of you people.

I at least appreciate the clarification. And I guess as an FYI if we are going to speak to each other you quoting scripture at me is a colossal waste of time.

 

[drbrumley]

All authority flows from God. Any unjust use/abuse of that authority is an affront to God and is immoral and fundamentally unjust.

Ok, so God granted the authority to the States' to sign an agreement between themselves (called the Constitution) on how they are to treat each other. Thereby making the States owners of these United States. Not this Federal monstrosity we call a government. Thats how we as a nation were made, and thats how it is now, even though the Federal Government is now in business of buying a states vote thru coercion and force. The Civil War notwithstanding.

 

[drbrumley]

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

So again, the law of the land has always been the States and the Constitution. The rulers Paul speaks of in this passage in the case of the United States are the States themselves. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[Clete]

drb,

You aren't making any sense.

How our government was formed is completely irrelevant to the point. Any law, in any nation, regardless of its form, source or derivation that effectively ends with "...and then you can kill the baby.", is a fundamentally unjust law and those that support the passage of such laws or even support the right to pass such laws are guilty of murder and have no business running for any office in any capacity in any nation, state, city or province.

I don't care if the state government pases the law or the federal government, or the Spanish, French or Sudanese government passes the law, the law is unjust - period. Get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[drbrumley]

drb,

You aren't making any sense.

How our government was formed is completely irrelevant to the point. Any law, in any nation, regardless of its form, source or derivation that effectively ends with "...and then you can kill the baby.", is a fundamentally unjust law and those that support the passage of such laws or even support the right to pass such laws are guilty of murder and have no business running for any office in any capacity in any nation, state, city or province.

I don't care if the state government pases the law or the federal government, or the Spanish, French or Sudanese government passes the law, the law is unjust - period. Get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

No kidding Sherlock! You came to this conclusion by yourself? I am not arguing it is a bad law if a state or nation legalizes the butchery. What I am saying is you go along with the problem by having the federal government (who won't be changed) keep on doing what they have been doing. You encourage them. But your to darn stupid to figure that out. I agree with you if California legalizes abortion, that it is a BAD LAW! And I agree we should put lots and lots of pressure on those states. But we have done alot to the FEDS and they haven't flinched! Why? Cause they have the power. And the guns. The Federal Government doesn't even follow the Constitution given to it by the states, so why not take them out of the picture entirely? Seems like the right thing to do! Get it?

 

[Clete]

No kidding Sherlock! You came to this conclusion by yourself? I am not arguing it is a bad law if a state or nation legalizes the butchery. What I am saying is you go along with the problem by having the federal government (who won't be changed) keep on doing what they have been doing. You encourage them.

How so?
Did I not just say that it makes no difference who passes the law?

I do not understand what you are getting at here.

But your to darn stupid to figure that out.

I'm anything but stupid DrB but I'm not simply going to take your word for it either.

I agree with you if California legalizes abortion, that it is a BAD LAW! And I agree we should put lots and lots of pressure on those states. But we have done alot to the FEDS and they haven't flinched! Why? Cause they have the power. And the guns. The Federal Government doesn't even follow the Constitution given to it by the states, so why not take them out of the picture entirely? Seems like the right thing to do! Get it?

No! I don't.

I mean, I understand your argument but it is fallacious. You are basically arguing for the lesser of two evils. When given the choice for Evil A or lesser evil B, I choose neither, as should anyone who calls themselves a Christian. For the lesser of two evils is still evil and when righteous people support evil, Satan gets to go on vacation and hang out with the homo buddies in San Fransisco or Miami.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[drbrumley]

Clete,

1st, I apologize for the "stupid" remark. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination.

2nd, please tell me how in the world I am arguing for the lesser of two evils? How is allowing the States' to outlaw it more evil then trying in vain to get the Federal Government to do the same? Please don't tell me the Federal Government is the main government of this nation.