Thanks Bob

[PKevman]

This is not an emotional issue, Kevin, nor is it an accusation. It is a simple fact. You have asked government to kill homosexuals.

We need to stop asking government to do things for us that we are unwilling to do for ourselves. An act is either right or it is wrong. Who commits the act is irrelevant. Killing does not become righteous if you wear a badge when you do it. The notion that slaughtering people is wrong until you get hired by a government - after which it becomes righteous and holy - is indefensible.

So what you're doing is tossing out everything God has said on the matter as irrelevant and you're setting up your own standard. :think:

Was it wrong for God to order the death penalty for homosexuals and murderers?

 

[PKevman]

Good, Godly men don't lie. Ron Paul is not pro-choice. That is a lie. Bob Enyart should apologize publicly to Ron Paul and to those to whom he has spread this lie.

It isn't a lie just because you say it's a lie. You have supplied no proof or evidence that what Bob is saying is a lie. You refuse to call his show and discuss the issue with him openly. I doubt you have actually invested the time to actually read through the things he is saying or listen to the shows I emailed you, because if you had you would understand the positions a whole lot better. Instead you're making frivolous accusations against someone that I know is a good man of God and has Godly character. You know me, would I lie to you about someone if I weren't sure? You should give a fellow Christian brother a full hearing before dismissing him as a liar and openly accusing him as one on a board that is owned and operated by a member of his church. (The better part of wisdom I think)

I know you dismissed what he said when I emailed you the links and the information based upon what you said in your email replies to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the impression that you saw the anti-Libertarian list and instantly dismissed everything else.

This is one of the reasons I am glad you have come on here, because I would honestly love to win you away from some of the views you hold. Because I care about you and your whole family, both as a friend and as a brother in Christ.

What if you're wrong about the government, about the conspiracies, about Ron Paul, about the things you believe going back to Abe Lincoln and the Union? What if you've been misled, mistaught, or misinformed for years? Would you be open to learning more if your positions were shown to be in error?

 

[PKevman]

So who are we to take out a ruler whose power was delegated by God? Saddam is dying to know.

When God delegated power to government it was a general delegation, not specific to every single government or ruler that exists. Sometimes EVIL MEN take power when they don't deserve it, and they CERTAINLY were not given that power by God. So to remove a brutal and wicked tyrant like Saddam is always a good thing. Further, none of this negates the fact that not ONLY did God delegate some power and authority to human government, but He also gave the principles by which a Godly criminal justice system should be ran. Saddam being dead makes the world a safer place, and saves innocent lives, and thus was not an evil act in the least. If more countries followed our example in that situation the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately we're not very consistent!

Indisputable acts of deliberate murder accompanied by 100% irrefutable prima faci evidence. Enforced by the person(s) who suffered demonstrable loss, or the agent to whom they choose to delegate that authority.

So no laws, and no government, but mob rule vigilanteism is your view for how government should be run? God says something different in His Word my friend.

Exactly. If we enact the death penalty for say, blondness, the number of blonds would decrease. We would also see a decrease in the number of blonds who continue to be blonds, and a corresponding increase in the sale of dark hair coloring. On that we agree.

This is not even a good argument buddy. God never condemns blondeness and NEVER says people should be put to death for it. He DOES however condemn homosexuality and say those who do it should be put to death, did He or did He not say that? Was He or was He not right?

That's a circular argument. If God can change, we have no guarantee that he will continue to be good.

If God can't change and neither can ANY of His instructions then why do you not still practice all of the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament given to israel? And why do you not agree that homosexuals can be put to death? The fact is that YOU KNOW there has been a change in God's program and the way He works with people, because I know for a fact you don't practice the dietary laws or support the death penalty for homosexuals.

FURTHER, God's goodness is one of the qualities about God that is in fact immutable. Utter immutability is the false doctrine. Utter immutability says God cannot change in any way. The Bible teaches us that God has in fact changed. When God grieved that He had made man in Genesis 6 was that a change? Or had God grieved from eternity past that He had made man, even before He created man, and even when He made man and said that everything that He had made was good. Did He then lie when He said everything that He made was good, or was there a change in God when He looked at the wickedness of men in Genesis chapter 6 and grieved?

No. His principles, character and attributes remained identical in every way.

Yes, the immutable qualities about God are for example His goodness, His holiness, His love, that He is alive, that He is personal, that He is relational. We find all of these qualities in the Lord Jesus Christ while He was on earth. And yet Jesus changed quite a bit!

I suppose one could make the argument that God "changed" in that he had flesh rather than a spiritual existence, much like your character, principles and attributes "change" when you switch from white socks to brown. In that sense, I suppose God changes.

The Bible says in Luke 2:52:

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Think about that and then tell me that God cannot change. If God cannot change how could Jesus have INCREASED in favor with Him? :think:

And the great news is that you have in fact already seen and admitted that in some ways God can change.

Who did he say it to?

Believers in the Body of Christ that were in Rome.

Why not make a law that everyone must be saved with the death penalty for those who refuse? What a great tool for God that would be!

WRONG! God never commanded such a thing! We aren't making up things, we are preaching the Bible my friend.

 

[S†ephen]

Exactly. If we enact the death penalty for say, blondness, the number of blonds would decrease. We would also see a decrease in the number of blonds who continue to be blonds, and a corresponding increase in the sale of dark hair coloring. On that we agree.

LOL. That is some funny stuff right there:chuckle:

We should make a law against stuff being that funny (jab jab)

 

[S†ephen]

So what you're doing is tossing out everything God has said on the matter as irrelevant and you're setting up your own standard. :think:

I believe that this is a rather hasty conclusion to an idea that deserves a bit more thought.

Was it wrong for God to order the death penalty for homosexuals and murderers?

Was it wrong for Jesus to let the prostitute who was to be stoned live?

 

[S†ephen]

You refuse to call his show and discuss the issue with him openly.

In Sopwith's defense I listened to the entire radio show on which Bob discussed this issue and the one man who disagreed with him was not even given a chance to voice his thoughts. Bob was shooting him down literally before he could even finish his sentences.

I doubt you have actually invested the time to actually read through the things he is saying or listen to the shows I emailed you, because if you had you would understand the positions a whole lot better.

I have listened to Bob's position in detail and can assure you that Sopwith understands the issues better than Bob himself and really better than anyone else on the forum. (I have 2 months of very intense study on this exact issue to back this up.)

When God delegated power to government it was a general delegation, not specific to every single government or ruler that exists. Sometimes EVIL MEN take power when they don't deserve it, and they CERTAINLY were not given that power by God. So to remove a brutal and wicked tyrant like Saddam is always a good thing. Further, none of this negates the fact that not ONLY did God delegate some power and authority to human government, but He also gave the principles by which a Godly criminal justice system should be ran. Saddam being dead makes the world a safer place, and saves innocent lives, and thus was not an evil act in the least. If more countries followed our example in that situation the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately we're not very consistent!

Remember, Saddam is only brutal and cruel in your eyes. He would (have) certainly thought the opposite about us and could present roughly the same argument for our demise and been completely biblical in it. What verse says that some governments get power but other ones don't? And what are the criteria for a legitimate one?

So no laws, and no government, but mob rule vigilanteism is your view for how government should be run? God says something different in His Word my friend.

And I believe what he says is a direct attack against ALL man made government.

This is not even a good argument buddy. God never condemns blondeness and NEVER says people should be put to death for it.

Ok... i'm sorry but his line was downright hilarious and you took it waaayyyy to seriously. :chuckle: :chuckle:


Stephen

 

[sopwith21]

If you want to go somewhere, start a country, and make murder, child molestation, slavery, adultery, and whatever else you like legal, more power to you. Or you could just join the Libertarian party.

Kevin, you have essentially called me a willing accomplice to murder, child molestation and slavery. You may dance around the semantics a bit, but that's pretty much the size of it in reality.

Don't worry, I'm not offended.

I will ask you, however, to justify and demonstrate the claims. What research have you done that has brought you to this conclusion? What portion of the Libertarian party position statement supports murder, child molestation and slavery? If you're going to call me a murderer, child molester and slaver supporter - which is quite literally what you have done - I believe I have a reasonable cause to ask you to demonstrate your case. Please do so.

 

[sopwith21]

So what you're doing is tossing out everything God has said on the matter

Said to whom? Show me where Jesus introduced legislation in Jewish society to have government agents kill homosexuals for him and I'll change my position. Show me where God told the Israelites to kill homosexuals and I'll show you where he said not to wear woolen and linen clothing.

You are relying on the massively confused, ever-changing status of pre-Christ Israelite laws which are quite literally impossible to follow in today's society, which were established for an entirely different purpose in an entirely different culture, drawing a subjective conclusion from it that is not accepted by many biblical scholars with far greater credentials than you and I, and using this as a basis to kill people.

This is not a good thing. Killing people is irreversible.

 

[sopwith21]

It isn't a lie just because you say it's a lie.

Of course not. Its a lie because its untrue.

You have supplied no proof or evidence that what Bob is saying is a lie.

Bob is the accuser. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. However, ten seconds on Paul's web site shows this:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.​

A few more minutes spent on his congressional record shows that he's held this position consistently throughout his entire tenure in congress. You can debate his strategy or wording of his bills to kingdom come, but to call Ron Paul "pro abortion" is an outright lie.

And why am I doing your homework for you? How on earth can you even enter this debate when you haven't even done this much?

You refuse to call his show and discuss the issue with him openly.

I'm discussing it openly here. If he wants me on his show he can invite me as a guest. I will only appear after Ron Paul's campaign has refused a similar offer to speak for themselves. A mutually agreed guest host anchors the show in his stead. Two minutes opening statements for each side. All questions are agreed upon in advance. Sixty seconds for each of us to answer and then the mic is cut off. Deal?

you're making frivolous accusations against someone that I know is a good man of God and has Godly character.

Godly men don't lie. Bob Enyart lied. Repeatedly, deliberately and knowingly.

What if you're wrong about the government, about the conspiracies, about Ron Paul, about the things you believe going back to Abe Lincoln and the Union? What if you've been misled, mistaught, or misinformed for years?

Now THAT'S funny.

I once believed exactly as you do. I was raised exactly as you are today. I didn't realize the truth until I was in my mid-thirties, and it countered everything I had been misled, mistaught and misinformed about for years. Rather than cling to my previous beliefs and try to force reality to conform to my views, I chose to accept truth - no matter what it was - and act accordingly.

I told you about George Bush and you didn't believe me. I told you about Waco and you didn't believe me. I told you we would invade Iraq and you didn't believe me. I've worked in network news for more than a decade. I know where the garbage comes from and have seen things that would stand your hair on end.

If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. I'm not offended. But I research my topics. I work at it. I spend time at it and you know that. Disagree with me if you like, but to accuse me of simply believing everything I've been "mistaught" for years is foolish. I can't get you to spend thirty seconds on Ron Paul's web site, yet you accuse me of being "misled?" You know better.

 

[drbrumley]

I told you about George Bush and you didn't believe me.

What did you say about George?

I told you about Waco and you didn't believe me.

Same question

I told you we would invade Iraq and you didn't believe me.

Same question

 

[drbrumley]

Hey Sop, have you seen ENDGAME yet?

 

[sopwith21]

When God delegated power to government it was a general delegation, not specific to every single government or ruler that exists.

So when the USA spies on its own citizens, burns 80 of them alive in their own church, tortures people and breaks its own laws, that's okay and the US government still retains that nebulous, mysterious delegation of authority from God. But if Saddam does the same stuff, he doesn't?

Sometimes EVIL MEN take power when they don't deserve it, and they CERTAINLY were not given that power by God.

God either authorized government or he didn't. We need to make up our minds.

So to remove a brutal and wicked tyrant like Saddam is always a good thing.

Not if God put him there. But of course, one could also make the argument that the USA put him there... so if Saddam had invaded us, would you have supported it?

Saddam being dead makes the world a safer place, and saves innocent lives, and thus was not an evil act in the least.

Reality check -

When Saddam was in power, there was no war in Iraq. Now he's not and now there is.

Saddam killed right at 30,000 people per year throughout his entire reign. We've killed 1.2 million in four years.

So... who's the evil country? Seems that the USA gets a free pass from God on just about everything.

If more countries followed our example in that situation the world would be a much better place.

If every country invaded two more the world would be a better place?

This is not even a good argument buddy. God never condemns blondeness and NEVER says people should be put to death for it.

It was your argument, not mine. You said that the death penalty for homosexuals would reduce the number of homosexuals. I agreed with your point entirely, and suggested that the death penalty pretty much reduces the population of any demographic against which it is employed.

He DOES however condemn homosexuality and say those who do it should be put to death, did He or did He not say that?

Yes. He also said that men should not shave the sides of their beards. But to whom did he say it and why?

WRONG! God never commanded such a thing! We aren't making up things, we are preaching the Bible my friend.

But that really wasn't the question, was it? Let's try again.

1) God commanded everyone to be saved. Why not pass a law that says everyone must be saved? If we cannot trust people to make their own decisions on their personal sex lives, how on earth can we trust them with big decisions like their eternal salvation? Clearly, we need a law on this.

2) God said that if we've broken one law, we're guilty of the whole law. Sexual impurity - all of it - is condemned soundly in the epistles. So how is it that fornicators and prostitutes get off without dying, but homosexuals get killed? About 70% of the world's population is guilty of sexual immorality of some type, and God says that one sexual sin is no worse than another. Are you willing to kill (or have your government kill for you) a huge percentage of your church members? Kinda makes church building a real chore, one would think.

 

[sopwith21]

Hey Sop, have you seen ENDGAME yet?

No, but I would like to. Alex Jones is an American hero, and the last of a dying breed who have the courage to love liberty and fight for it. If you've seen it, I would appreciate your review.

 

[drbrumley]

No, but I would like to. Alex Jones is an American hero, and the last of a dying breed who have the courage to love liberty and fight for it. If you've seen it, I would appreciate your review.

ENDGAME Part 8

To me at least, this is really disturbing!

 

[drbrumley]

My review? It is well made, lays a case out, and attempts to prove the case.

But it is really disturbing!

 

[S†ephen]

ENDGAME Part 8

To me at least, this is really disturbing!

Horrifying.

Instituted by God? hmmmm

 

[PKevman]

Kevin, you have essentially called me a willing accomplice to murder, child molestation and slavery. You may dance around the semantics a bit, but that's pretty much the size of it in reality.

Ok I'm sorry but I thought you were in support of the Libertarian Party. They may not OVERTLY say these things, but their party platform is pretty clear with a little investigation.

Would you say the following statements are TRUE or UNTRUE about the Libertarian Party:

Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (Crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution


Do you believe abortion is murder? I believe abortion is murder. I believe it is taking an innocent life. Whatever else you want to argue about, this is about abortion moreso than anything else. So let's talk about that first, shall we?

If a person supports the Libertarian Party they are supporting murder. How can I say that? From their own words:

I.8 Reproductive Rights

The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY PRO-CHOICE. No dancing.

See HERE

Please provide the quote from Ron Paul where he openly rebukes the Libertarian Party for its pro-choice, PRO-MURDER position. When they are featuring him as a keynote speaker, I doubt very seriously he has distanced himself that far from them. In fact isn't it the very fact that Paul was so strongly Libertarian that you are backing him so much? Or am I wrong and you are NOT in support of the Libertarian Party.

Here's the deal: NOBODY, ANYWHERE, should have the RIGHT to kill an unborn child. Period! It's murder and to support a party that is pro-choice is to support legalizing murder! So instead of painting me as the bad guy, why not reject the Libertarian Party ?That is what this debate is all about.

As it relates to child molestation and slavery, do you think the government has the right to outlaw it or not? If a person is caught molesting children or owning slaves, what steps do you think should be taken to stop this from happening. I don't believe that YOU PERSONALLY hold that position, but I am curious as to what you think should happen to those who do it? And please don't give me any mumbo jumbo about the victims choosing the punishment. That is NOT justice. That's mob rule.

In one breath you seem to spout off positions that are against outlawing anything, and so I name off some things and you don't like the implications that come from it, but I'm only seeing if you are going to be consistent with your positions. Please make up your mind, which is it?

 

[PKevman]

So when the USA spies on its own citizens,

Who are they spying on and why? Please give specifics. Do you honestly think they are listening to every single phone conversation and reading every single email that is typed? What kind of time and staffing do you think these people have?

burns 80 of them alive in their own church,

Please provide the church where the government burned 80 people alive. My guess is you're referring to Waco. Please prove that Waco wasn't an isolated incident in which some mistakes were made (even the agents involved admit that) in dealing with an utter and complete madman who thought he was Jesus. I would bet your information on this subject was one-sided and slanted towards anti-government views and completely ignored the insane cult leader who told people he was Jesus, molested children, and stockpiled dangerous weapons. And this was all going on before the incident occurred. Say why couldn't Koresh have just surrendered instead of playing God with all of the lives that were in that building with him? He knew if they found all of the garbage he'd been up to he was going away for a really long time.

tortures people and breaks its own laws,

Examples please. And not ones slated to a particular view by the media. Thanks.

that's okay and the US government still retains that nebulous, mysterious delegation of authority from God.

:doh: I am no fan of the way our government is operated man. I honestly don't think you are reading the words I am typing to you. You pull out the things you want to argue about and ignore the rest. Come on my friend. I've known you too long for this. At least hear what we are saying. Our government is wicked and evil. That doesn't mean that it can't sometimes do something right. Our government is not Godly though, and it is not my claim that it is. I merely believe removing Saddam was a good thing. I don't think our government has to resort to conspiracies because if they want to do something wicked they just do it!

But if Saddam does the same stuff, he doesn't?

Have you actually researched what kind of a ruler Saddam was? Good grief man. Bush is a little Sunday school girl compared to that guy!

God either authorized government or he didn't.

He did. I already answered this objection in an earlier post.

Not if God put him there. But of course, one could also make the argument that the USA put him there... so if Saddam had invaded us, would you have supported it?

:doh:

Reality check -

When Saddam was in power, there was no war in Iraq. Now he's not and now there is.

Reality check, the entire region is always at war! But Saddam was a greedy, power-mad warlord from the moment he took office, believing himself to be a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. It's not as if Iraq was this peaceful place to live when Saddam was in control.

Saddam killed right at 30,000 people per year throughout his entire reign. We've killed 1.2 million in four years.

Please cite your sources for these figures. Thanks. Especially I would like to see the source for the 1.2 million we've supposedly killed. And I hope it's better than "Air America".

So... who's the evil country? Seems that the USA gets a free pass from God on just about everything.

All men will have to give an account on judgment day at the very least for their actions here on earth. Even your son recognizes that Satan is running the world governments right now through wicked men. :think:

If every country invaded two more the world would be a better place?

:doh: Point missed. Again.

It was your argument, not mine. You said that the death penalty for homosexuals would reduce the number of homosexuals. I agreed with your point entirely, and suggested that the death penalty pretty much reduces the population of any demographic against which it is employed.

It was a skilled debate tactic, but one that fell down quickly when the point was made that God never commanded blondes to be put to death.

Yes. He also said that men should not shave the sides of their beards. But to whom did he say it and why?

I am all for understanding which instructions were given to whom, when, and why. That is at the heart of good solid dispensational Bible study. The key is determining WHICH commands of God are horizontal to all people, and which commands are verticle. God's moral commands (which were written on the hearts of men) are horizontal to all people for all time. It is and always will be wrong to murder. It is and always will be wrong to commit adultery. It is and always will be wrong to commit homosexuality. Symbolic laws given to Israel have passed away. Sorry if you find this hard to understand, but you still haven't actually acknowledged that you have read and understand the position. You keep making the same argument over and over again when your argument has been shot down.

1) God commanded everyone to be saved. Why not pass a law that says everyone must be saved? If we cannot trust people to make their own decisions on their personal sex lives, how on earth can we trust them with big decisions like their eternal salvation? Clearly, we need a law on this.

Your problem is still with the Word of God. God never commanded that people who refuse to get saved should be put to death. (At least not in this life, they will for certain experience the 2nd Death in eternity which is a fact we should never forget).

2) God said that if we've broken one law, we're guilty of the whole law. Sexual impurity - all of it - is condemned soundly in the epistles. So how is it that fornicators and prostitutes get off without dying, but homosexuals get killed? About 70% of the world's population is guilty of sexual immorality of some type, and God says that one sexual sin is no worse than another. Are you willing to kill (or have your government kill for you) a huge percentage of your church members? Kinda makes church building a real chore, one would think.

You fail to see once again the point that death penalty is a deterrent and when in place 70% of the world's population WOULD NOT be guilty of sexual immorality of some type as you say above. The DP is a deterrent to those types of behavior. God is right.

By they way, God bless you brother! I hope you aren't taking my harshness the wrong way. It is iron sharpening iron I believe.

So is there a chance you might be wrong Stephen, and the views you once held were actually right?

 

[PKevman]

What did you say about George?

I've known Stephen for a long time, and he did in fact try to warn me about GW Bush not being the strong Christian I thought he was. He was right and I was wrong. At the time, the church I was attending and my mentor were very strong supporters of Bush. It seemed he was a good Godly man running for president. But many Christians were fooled by Bush, not just me.


On Waco, Stephen has always believe the government was completely and totally in the wrong in what they did there. We have been round and round about that over the years.

Actually on Iraq, when we discussed the issue after 9-11 I was all for invading Iraq, so I'm not sure what he is talking about there. He did tell me last summer that we would be at war with Iran before the summer was over if I'm not mistaken.

 

[PKevman]

Of course not. Its a lie because its untrue.

And if you are wrong then it isn't untrue. It all hinges on your opinion and not on the facts.

Bob is the accuser.

No he isn't. You are acusing him of lying HERE. That would make the burden of proof on you HERE.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. However, ten seconds on Paul's web site shows this:

Are you going to find an objective opinion on Ron Paul's propoganda filled website?

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.​

Why has he always strongly stood with the Libertarian Party which is pro-choice by their own admissios? This cannot possibly be true! Sleight of hand is what it is.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

Leaves room for the "Morning after" abortion pill which is still murder. As a Doctor Ron Paul knows life begins at fertilization.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.

And it would also remove the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to murder babies.

This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

Remember you warned me about George W. Bush 8 years ago, and now I'm warning you about Ron Paul. Hopefully you will listen better than I did.

A few more minutes spent on his congressional record shows that he's held this position consistently throughout his entire tenure in congress. You can debate his strategy or wording of his bills to kingdom come, but to call Ron Paul "pro abortion" is an outright lie.

Why would he circle his tents with the pro-choice Libertarian party?

And why am I doing your homework for you? How on earth can you even enter this debate when you haven't even done this much?

You're assuming a lot aren't you?

I'm discussing it openly here. If he wants me on his show he can invite me as a guest. I will only appear after Ron Paul's campaign has refused a similar offer to speak for themselves. A mutually agreed guest host anchors the show in his stead. Two minutes opening statements for each side. All questions are agreed upon in advance. Sixty seconds for each of us to answer and then the mic is cut off. Deal?

Bob loves to do debates like this, but I cannot speak for him. I will definitely forward the message on though. Will you give him a fair hearing?

Godly men don't lie. Bob Enyart lied. Repeatedly, deliberately and knowingly.

That isn't true. The worst you can say is that if you are right Bob thinks he is right as well. He is not a liar. I resent that and I wish you would stop saying it. This man is a friend of mine and a man of God. You should not impugn the man's character in these ways! It isn't reasonable at all!

I once believed exactly as you do. I was raised exactly as you are today. I didn't realize the truth until I was in my mid-thirties, and it countered everything I had been misled, mistaught and misinformed about for years. Rather than cling to my previous beliefs and try to force reality to conform to my views, I chose to accept truth - no matter what it was - and act accordingly.

I would sure like to know what things led you to accept these consiparacy theories and anti-government positions you have been holding in recent years. I've given you opportunities in the past but I can't recall ever hearing anymore than it is things you have observed while in the media. Maybe your media friends are all biased?

I told you about George Bush and you didn't believe me.

I know that was 8 years ago and I had only been a Christian for 3 years at the time. I wish I had listened, but even then I was hoping to see a conservative Christian get into the White House. That was what I was after and I wish I hadn't supported Bush. What else can I say? You were right about that one!

I told you about Waco and you didn't believe me.

I still think you're off on that one, and my opinion has never changed about it other than to be even more solidly the way it is, but in reality Waco is utterly irrelevant to anything going on today and I see no reason to still be obsessing over it all these years later.

I told you we would invade Iraq and you didn't believe me.

I honestly don't recall any of that. I remember saying after 9-11 that I hoped we would go in and remove Saddam (who at the time had been thumbing his nose at weapons inspectors for years-but that's a different topic). I do remember you telling me last summer that Bush would start a war with Iran before the summer was over, and that never materialized.....

I've worked in network news for more than a decade. I know where the garbage comes from and have seen things that would stand your hair on end.

I know your background my friend. I believe that media bias is what has strongly affected your worldview. :think:

If you don't want to believe me, that's fine.

I don't think obsessing over government conspiracies and whether they are watching you every day, listening to you all the time on the phone and reading your emails is helping you. It is those positions that I don't believe (along with my lack of belief in Ron Paul). I'm not attacking you but those positions. I hope you understand. It is me as your friend and brother coming to you out of a spirit of Christian love.

I'm not offended.

:up: But I will tell you that it offends me that you accuse my good friend and brother of lying. Bob Enyart is not a dishonest man, so you should really examine this thing a little further before you make those accusations. At worst he would be guilty of being wrong and believing he is right. (Not that I think that is the case).

But I research my topics. I work at it.

I know and so do others besides yourself. Just because they come to different opinions doesn't mean they haven't worked and researched. I've read more Libertarian Party and information about Ron Paul than I ever had before we started talking about it. I appreciate these talks for that reason, because it keeps me up to date on what is going on. I tend to not be super interested in politics all the time because I am far more passionate about God and the Bible, my church, my family, the Colts, and other things than to worry about politics. This has also come from my disappointments and belief that there are few if any good politicians out there. I happen to believe Alan Keyes is a good man, and certainly different than GW Bush in his forceful proclamation of the truth.

I spend time at it and you know that. Disagree with me if you like, but to accuse me of simply believing everything I've been "mistaught" for years is foolish.

Ok then I apologize. I had assumed for years that your friends in the media had strongly influenced your views. Regardless of how you came to them, I still disagree with them.

I can't get you to spend thirty seconds on Ron Paul's web site, yet you accuse me of being "misled?" You know better.

I've seen Paul's website. I looked at it when you first sent me the links and when people were chatting about it on here. I just don't buy everything it says. :think: