Thanks Bob

[elected4ever]

It has? can you show me please?

You cannot pass a bill in congress and have it constitutional that overrides the rights of the born mother. The unborn have no protection of the right to life over the born mother. That is what I have been telling you concerning the effect of the 14th amendment. All rights of the unborn are subject to the rights of the born mother and the supreme court has so ruled. I understand what Ron Paul is trying to do but it just will not work. There has to be a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of the unborn.

 

[S†ephen]

You can read Roe v Wade for yourself.

Yep I thought you'd say that. Paul's bill will make roe v wade ineffective in a sense because it allows state's to decide for themselves. Right now they can't and this bill allows for those 17 states w/ trigger laws to enact them. I wouldn't call Paul a wacko or nutcase over this. He's following Constitutional bounds and trying to make a push against abortion here. I really don't understand your argument.

 

[elected4ever]

Yep I thought you'd say that. Paul's bill will make roe v wade ineffective in a sense because it allows state's to decide for themselves. Right now they can't and this bill allows for those 17 states w/ trigger laws to enact them. I wouldn't call Paul a wacko or nutcase over this. He's following Constitutional bounds and trying to make a push against abortion here. I really don't understand your argument.

You can keep your head stuck in the sand if you wont too but you will have no solution until a constitutional amendment is passed. The courts will not declare the bill unconstitutional on the grounds that it prevents them from hearing abortion cases or that the states con choose for themselves. It will be defeated because it attacks the right of the mother as a born person guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Ron Paul's bill is unconstitutional and will be ruled as such if it ever passes.

 

[S†ephen]

You can keep your head stuck in the sand if you wont too but you will have no solution until a constitutional amendment is passed. The courts will not declare the bill unconstitutional on the grounds that it prevents them from hearing abortion cases or that the states con choose for themselves. It will be defeated because it attacks the right of the mother as a born person guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Ron Paul's bill is unconstitutional and will be ruled as such if it ever passes.

Whether it is defeated or not wasn't my point. Forgive me, I didn't clarify. I'm saying you can't crawl all over Paul because of this bill. He did what he could regardless of whether it passed or not.

 

[S†ephen]

Mr Kevin,

My question really is this. Do you agree that the abortion problem could more easily and effectively be tackled by the common man (as is Ron Paul's position) or do you think we stand a better chance of running the risk of getting one good man in office to win the fight against abortion? (such as Alan Keys)

Please bear in my mind I'm not trying to make you a gung ho Ron Paul voter here... I believe that, in this case, Bob was wrong and Paul is a better candidate for accomplishing our mutual goal of stopping abortion. Paul may be way off in another area which I am perfectly willing to discuss. I just am not sure he's off in this one.

Lemme know your thoughts

 

[Lighthouse]

I could have told you that. I cannot prove anything to you. "Proof" is only proof if the other party accepts it. You won't.

:blabla:

 

[S†ephen]

:blabla:

:baby:

 

[PKevman]

Do you agree that the abortion problem could more easily and effectively be tackled by the common man (as is Ron Paul's position)

I think that our completely polar opposite views on government and the way that government should be run is really the heart of the issue. In other words, I don't think we should leave it up to the common man, or to mob rule, to do what is right. I think that God gave government the authority to punish the wicked AND to fight for the innocent.

or do you think we stand a better chance of running the risk of getting one good man in office to win the fight against abortion? (such as Alan Keys)

While I understand your question and your position (despite what your dad says to the contrary), I don't think it is the best way to tackle the issue.

I am also less convinced today than I was yesterday that Keyes is the right man for the job. I still think he is the strongest pro-life candidate that we've had for years, but if he is still advocating the rape, incest, and life for mother positions, then I cannot and will not EVER support him or vote for him. So I may very well be back to square one. But that won't change my views on Paul either.

Please bear in my mind I'm not trying to make you a gung ho Ron Paul voter here... I believe that, in this case, Bob was wrong and Paul is a better candidate for accomplishing our mutual goal of stopping abortion.

See I don't think the whole "Give the states more power" idea is the answer to the problem. But it's just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Paul may be way off in another area which I am perfectly willing to discuss. I just am not sure he's off in this one.

Fair enough. I appreciate your openness and willingness to discuss things. Maybe your pop might learn a few things from his boy.

(That was meant as a razz not an insult big Stephen)

 

[S†ephen]

I think that our completely polar opposite views on government and the way that government should be run is really the heart of the issue. In other words, I don't think we should leave it up to the common man, or to mob rule, to do what is right. I think that God gave government the authority to punish the wicked AND to fight for the innocent.

Sure. But remember, I'm not speaking of mob rule. I'm speaking of smaller branches of government (state size) that can more easily be changed by you and me. Not only that, the damage done state by state would be smaller than Federal damage we have now.

While I understand your question and your position (despite what your dad says to the contrary), I don't think it is the best way to tackle the issue.

No offense meant but what other situation could there possibly that would handle the issue better?

I still think he is the strongest pro-life candidate that we've had for years

No, no... he is the strongest Federal pro life candidate.
Remember, I'm not debating whether or not Ron Paul is pro life. We both know he is. I am debating what the best way to solve our dilemma is. And as of now I don't see that solution being in the federal government... at least after roe v wade.

So I may very well be back to square one. But that won't change my views on Paul either.

I really encourage you to change your view on this, at least for this particular issue (abortion). See I agree with you that Alan Keys is a good candidate. What is picking at me is how we are going to stop abortion and through what strategy we will implement it. That is the giant gap between Paul and Keys.

See I don't think the whole "Give the states more power" idea is the answer to the problem. But it's just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

I most definitely take it. But I encourage you to either consider this much more closely or present an entirely different plan. You've seen my openness on this forum. I promise to genuinely consider what you bring to the table. But I also ask that you deeply investigate my view without bias towards Bob. I trust your word that he is a good Christian man. I just think that on this issue he may be wrong.

Please remember neither Ron Paul nor I are advocating mob rule. We are advocating smaller government with less power so that good will hopefully triumph more easily and evil will be confined to smaller spaces. I really am on your side on this. But I encourage you to look at the past. Look at what Federal rule has done to our country. Considering what is happening now with aborted child having no chance at all do we really have much to lose by switching the power a bit? It's not like anything is being prevented as is.

I really encourage you to pray and think on this as I have done on the issues you have given me.

God bless,

Stephen

 

[PKevman]

Stephen Dale, I hope to see you and your dad battling atheists with us on the subject of creation, and not just confine yourselves to politics.

 

[PKevman]

I really encourage you to pray and think on this as I have done on the issues you have given me

Always :up:

 

[S†ephen]

Stephen Dale, I hope to see you and your dad battling atheists with us on the subject of creation, and not just confine yourselves to politics.

NO NO NO!!!! :wave2: :wave2: :wave2:

Don't quit on me now, this is just starting to get interesting:crackup: .

 

[PKevman]

No offense meant but what other situation could there possibly that would handle the issue better?

To have a God-fearing man leading our country and making "Do not murder" a binding law for every state, territory, or province that wants to consider itself part of the United States of America.

 

[S†ephen]

To have a God-fearing man leading our country and making "Do not murder" a binding law for every state, territory, or province that wants to consider itself part of the United States of America.

But we've had the last 250 years to do that. And are you sure this could be better? Think of the unbelievable power vested in him.

 

[S†ephen]

oh boy,

yer logged on but no post yet.

WE GOTTA WOPPER COMIN!!!!


(sarcastic drumroll)

 

[PKevman]

But I encourage you to either consider this much more closely or present an entirely different plan.

I think I've consistently presented what I believe is the solution. It hasn't wavered in the least. A Godly leader making Do not murder a binding law for the United States of America as a whole is the solution. No other strategy would be as sure as this one! And if we get a Godly leader in place, let's get rid of the 8 year limit and keep him 'til death. It's obvious our whole political structure doesn't work anyway. The president takes 4 years to try to win another 4 years, and then gets complacent in the 2nd 4 year term, so nothing actually is ever done. I'm for a total reform of our political system.

You've seen my openness on this forum. I promise to genuinely consider what you bring to the table. But I also ask that you deeply investigate my view without bias towards Bob.

Of course! I have just tonight emailed Bob some of my concerns about Alan Keyes. But understand that I don't just accept something because Bob says it without investigating it. That would make me an utter fool. I have been reading and listening to Alan Keyes for months and have just now come across those statements he made about rape/incest/life of mother. None of these are reasons to murder a baby.

I trust your word that he is a good Christian man. I just think that on this issue he may be wrong

You are right about the first statement, and from what I know of Bob, I'm sure he'd be willing to admit he was wrong if that were the case. I don't think he was wrong about Ron Paul however. Sorry, I just don't.

 

[PKevman]

A month or so ago I asked you who you'd vote for and you said Alan Keyes. I repeatedly asked what specific positions he would take as president on various issues and you finally said - and this is a quote - "Well, honestly I've not really looked that deep into him. I'm just voting for righteousness." Those were your exact words.

Actually I remember saying that in regards to Ron Paul, that I hadn't really spent a lot of time up to that point investigating Ron Paul. And you asked me what I was looking for in a candidate, and I said righteousness. I'm pretty sure that was how the flow of the conversation went. I have been listening to and reading Alan Keyes statements for months. That is why I was shocked to come across the statements he made in 1995, because I hadn't seen him say anything like that up to this point.

 

[S†ephen]

I'm sorry,

I just don't understand how you can vest that much power into one man.

It's just too much. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Look at every past leader for the last thousands of years. Can you show me one instance where mankind had two righteous leaders in a row.

I'm sorry but it is just to much power. One man can't handle all that. I won't stand for that.

I humble myself before God, and the list ends there.

I will give you the authority and splendor of the governments of the world. For they are mine and I can give them to anyone I wish. -Satan (Matthew 4:5-7)

 

[Granite]

It doesn't appear that any of the so-called "conservatives" here have any problem with giving the federal government more power when it suits them.

And who said ethics weren't situational?

 

[S†ephen]

It doesn't appear that any of the so-called "conservatives" here have any problem with giving the federal government more power when it suits them.

And who said ethics weren't situational?

And yet another instance where a Satanist can better discern freedom than Christians.

This is really starting to creep me out.