Thanks Bob

[PatriotBeliever]

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:



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?

I have to chime back in here although it is tiring to go back and keep rebutting Bob Enyart's arguments just being repeated by people. It keeps getting recycled. You guys need some more depth to the claims. Are you going to copy him and call Ron Paul a secular humanist as well? Are you also supportive of a "constitutional" monarchy like he wants? You do realize that a monarchy was the evil we separated from, right? All kings claim authority from God.

The discounting of Ron Paul because of his association with the Libertarian party is ridiculous. He has always ran and been elected as a Republican beside a one year span when he ran as the Libertarian candidate for President. I have dealt with this with mounds of information for all to go back and read to include this written by Paul in 1981 to the Libertarian party: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=912
This opinion (which has not changed to this day) illustrates Paul's number one difference with the Libertarian party and position. But as I said, go back where I've dealt with this in more depth.

And apply your guilt by association with even Alan Keyes, starting with his membership in the Knights of Columbus and all that that might imply. Try applying it again to Ron Paul and the fact that he spoke at the national Right to Life conference. Using your logic, that one speech proves his dedication to being truly pro-life, does it not?

As for H.R. 300 and the Sanctity of life Act (H.R. 2597 is the current version) I have provided ample evidence in this thread to show it is exactly opposite that you and Enyart try to characterize it and is intended to reversed the effects of Roe, keep the SC from turning right back around and allow states to protect the unborn immediately.

I have sought medical and legal opinion on the claim about the word "conception" versus "fertilization" and I believe your claim to be total assumption. The pro abortion community has tried to garble the definition of conception to confuse the issue. The fact is, there is no legal difference. The NRTL has even issued the statement that they will not participate in the fraud. Conception and fertilization have always meant the same thing. Stay on the defense with Planned Parenthood if you wish.

 

[sopwith21]

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

The first two are emphatically untrue. The last five are true, but your carefully chosen phrasing is humorous.

Remember, you are pro-legalizing athiesm. You are also pro-legalizing rejection of God. You are also pro-legalizing people going to hell. Kinda funny, huh?

You see, simply because you do not wish to use government violence against these sins doesn't mean that you support them, does it? And you are right for taking such a stance.

COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY PRO-CHOICE. No dancing.

The passage you quote, in which some Libertarians wish to remove government from the equation in every way, is the result of a long-standing argument within the Libertarian community over the issue. That's why the party does not support abortion. Its a shame that the current party leaders would not outlaw it, however.

Please provide the quote from Ron Paul where he openly rebukes the Libertarian Party for its pro-choice, PRO-MURDER position.

You already know what Paul's position is but you choose not to accept it.

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.

Why bother asking a question if the possible answers are pre-assigned?

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?

You don't have even the most remote understanding of my positions, which is probably due to my poor articulation. How could you ever know if they were consistent?

 

[sopwith21]

Who are they spying on and why? Please give specifics.

You will reject anything that is offered. You must arrive at truth through your own efforts.

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

You just answered your own question.

the insane cult leader who told people he was Jesus, molested children, and stockpiled dangerous weapons

The first two counts are utterly false, but again, there is no point in demonstrating that here. You will reject everything. You must find the truth in your own time. Regarding the third accusation... aren't all weapons dangerous?

Have you actually researched what kind of a ruler Saddam was?

Yes. Saddam killed about 30,000 people per year. Bush 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".

It won't be any better. You will reject it regardless of the source. The study was done independently about six months ago and every detail of it was released publicly to reveal precisely how the figures were arrived at. When you want the truth, you will look it up yourself.

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.

God does say that once we have sinned we are guilty of the whole law, and the epistles do soundly condemn all immorality equally. So, answer the question... why do fornicators and prostitutes get off easy, when scripture says he who is guilty of one is guilty of all?

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

Why would one alter a view that stood up to cross examination?

 

[sopwith21]

He did tell me last summer that we would be at war with Iran before the summer was over if I'm not mistaken.

Almost. I told you that an attack on Iran was planned for April-June of 2007, after being delayed in late 2006. I still hold that position although the timetable has clearly changed. I believe war with Iran is imminent.

 

[sopwith21]

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!

No, Bob has lied. Ron Paul is not pro-abortion. Bob deliberately and repeatedly said something that is demonstrably untrue. That is a lie. He should publicly apologize to his congregation, his audience and to Ron Paul.

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.

No you wouldn't. You question the source, excuse what occurred or reject everything outright. There is nothing that will convince you of anything. If the entire US congress showed up at your door and admitted to every conspiracy in history, it would take you years to accept it from your present mindset. You must arrive at truth in your own time.

Waco is utterly irrelevant to anything going on today and I see no reason to still be obsessing over it all these years later.

There are 86 families who beg to differ.

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:

Exactly. You reject it even when you hear it directly from the man in question.

 

[PKevman]

No, Bob has lied. Ron Paul is not pro-abortion. Bob deliberately and repeatedly said something that is demonstrably untrue. That is a lie. He should publicly apologize to his congregation, his audience and to Ron Paul.

No Bob has not lied. You are wrong about Ron Paul. We could go round and round like this. You should apologize to Bob, his audience, and his congregation for continuing to call him a liar without talking with him or hearing him out.

 

[PKevman]

Why would one alter a view that stood up to cross examination?

I think that's a matter of opinion really. If you think you are not wrong it makes it easier to think that nobody has shown you to be wrong, even if you are obviously wrong. :think:

 

[PKevman]

There are 86 families who beg to differ.

And I'm sure they are plenty upset with the psycho cult leader who misled their family into following him.

 

[CRASH]

the fact that he spoke at the national Right to Life conference. Using your logic, that one speech proves his dedication to being truly pro-life, does it not?

:rotfl:

NOT!

 

[Lighthouse]

First: Realize what you're saying. You are putting life and death power into a massive central government with power over 50 states and 302,715,000 people (2007 official estimate) and hoping they do good with it.

:bang:

The law needs to be irrevocable. Bottom line. Also, government needs to be smaller. This democratic republic is a not a good government.

Second: Read the Constitution. The 14th amendment already bans abortion and the states have already agreed to follow it.

Apparently not.

Third: The only reason the 14th amendment has been violated is because a massive amount of power has been given to the Federal government. They are the ones who violated the amendment.

Then take that power away from them.

P.S.
The first person to allow abortion was not a federal government representative, but a state one.

The closest thing has been Ron Paul's anti-abortion legislation and a few states that have tried to pass their own laws to ignore Roe v. Wade but stopped or overturned. South Dakota's 2006 law comes to mind, but again that was a state. So there is a part missing in the Alan Keyes puzzle. The federal bill outlawing abortion. You would still need legislation (like H.R. 2597) to reverse of over rule Roe and one to actually outlaw abortion. We have yet to see anything like the latter except, again, at the state level.

But it still allows for states to allow abortion. That is a bad law.

"the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."
And no it forces no state to do anything at all, the bill is to end the current abortion mandate forced on states and to restrict the Supreme Court from changing it back.

And it doesn't stop states from allowing abortion.

It makes the federal government, the current promoter of abortions and the current abortion mandate, get out of the life defining business as it relates to unborn humans.

:blabla:

Well you listed two things that you said we would "see" under Alan Keyes and the Judges are the only thing you were acurate about. So I pointed out the ineffectiveness of "pro-life judges" to rule against abortion and President Keyes would have no control over a bill banning abortion, just the power to strike one down by veto, which I know he would not do.

And? All you're doing is proving democracy is evil.

 

[S†ephen]

Ron Paul:

1- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

2- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.
HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000


3- Ron Paul also believes in no federal funding of abortion, and is pro-life.
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

Question: What is the RLC’s position on abortion?

(Ron Paul) Answer: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC14 on Dec 8, 2000


As you can see Ron Paul Has actually done what he said he would do. Alan Keys talks a wonderful fight, but he is an Ambassador and so we have only his talk to depend on. Ron Paul is a state representative and his votes SHOW a good track record.

 

[S†ephen]

The law needs to be irrevocable. Bottom line. Also, government needs to be smaller.

A few posts ago you were saying:

I'm merely saying that a bill outlawing it at the federal level is better than one allowing states to decide whether to outlaw it or not.

Consistency would be nice.

This democratic republic is a not a good government.

Agreed.

Apparently not.

Apparently so. Do a little research and you'll find that the massive power shift to federal level has made the constitution basically meaningless. When the nation depended on a state union we had almost none of the problems we do now.

Then take that power away from them.

By supporting Ron Paul that is what I am suggesting. :doh:

The first person to allow abortion was not a federal government representative, but a state one.

Yes and if CHRISTIANS had stayed out of it the whole thing would've stayed at the state level. Instead we have a whole nation killing unborn babies.

 

[PKevman]

Ron Paul:

1- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

2- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.
HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000


3- Ron Paul also believes in no federal funding of abortion, and is pro-life.
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

Question: What is the RLC’s position on abortion?

(Ron Paul) Answer: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC14 on Dec 8, 2000


As you can see Ron Paul Has actually done what he said he would do. Alan Keys talks a wonderful fight, but he is an Ambassador and so we have only his talk to depend on. Ron Paul is a state representative and his votes SHOW a good track record.

Wow thanks Stephen Dale. You have just given me the clear evidence I need to NEVER support Ron Paul. I am not sure you really understand the information contained within those statements and how they prove Ron Paul is not totally pro-life.

He would not even condemn partial birth abortion fully, making an exception EVEN for that wicked practice by saying:

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

AND

The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger

Wow, how dispicable Ron Paul is. So it's ok when the mother's life is in danger to go in and murder the partially born baby?

 

[PKevman]

Ron Paul is not pro-life, he is pro-choice with exceptions!

 

[PKevman]

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

SOURCE

 

[PKevman]

So Ron Paul would NOT restrict transporting minors across state lines to get abortions!

Ron Paul would NOT make it a crime when someone harms a fetus when committing another crime. This makes it clear what he really thinks of unborn babies.

Ron Paul says it is OK to MURDER a partially born baby in some cases.

And THIS is a Pro-Life record?

 

[S†ephen]

Wow thanks Stephen Dale.

You are welcome.

You have just given me the clear evidence I need to NEVER support Ron Paul.

Mr. Kevin, no offense sir, bur I believe you already had that.

I am not sure you really understand the information contained within those statements.

Mr Kevin, I have studied this man and the constitution for the last two months straight. I am also the ONLY ONE ON THIS FORUM to admit my ignorance on a topic.(see our posts on whether or not the law still applies to certain people.) Please don't assume my ignorance on a topic, I will (and already have) listened to you and researched in detail everything you have sent me.

So it's ok when the mother's life is in danger to go in and murder the partially born baby?

So if Betsy was about to have a child and the doctor said your wife will die if she has this child then you'd let them both die instead of trying to save one?

So Ron Paul would NOT restrict transporting minors across state lines to get abortions!

Yes, and this is a good thing because as I'm sure you can see unless her life and the life of her unborn are in danger then all this law really is is nothing more than an attempt to violate someone's rights.

Ron Paul would NOT make it a crime when someone harms a fetus when committing another crime. This makes it clear what he really thinks of unborn babies.

Mr. Kevin... What sort of crime would you have to commit in order to harm a fetus? This is pretty much the same as saying, well he murdered her and cut her throat but we're going to give him 2 death penalties instead of 1 because he cut her wrists too.

Ron Paul says it is OK to MURDER a partially born baby in some cases.

I refer back to my first answer

 

[PKevman]

So if Betsy was about to have a child and the doctor said your wife will die if she has this child then you'd let them both die instead of trying to save one?

No we would do the right thing and try to save BOTH! It is never OK to murder one person to try to save the life of another! There are plenty of other options than just murdering the baby! Any good doctor is going to recognize he has TWO patients and not one and try to save them both! God says you never do evil so that good may come from it! :think:

Yes, and this is a good thing because as I'm sure you can see unless her life and the life of her unborn are in danger then all this law really is is nothing more than an attempt to violate someone's rights.

People do not have the right to decide whether someone else is murdered. Murder is not a right. :think:

Mr. Kevin... What sort of crime would you have to commit in order to harm a fetus? This is pretty much the same as saying, well he murdered her and cut her throat but we're going to give him 2 death penalties instead of 1 because he cut her wrists too.

The point was that Ron Paul has a low view of fetuses. Don't miss that in the rhetoric buddy.

I refer back to my first answer

And I say the first answer was wrong, as well as the premise that it is EVER necessary to murder a baby in order to save his mother. And it definitely isn't right! :think:

 

[PKevman]

For those interested in discussing Ron Paul further, I've set up a separate thread in the "Politics" forum about Ron Paul. See HERE

 

[CRASH]

We've killed 1.2 million in four years.

Really?
According to whom the Council of American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) or Osama Bin Laden himself?