Thanks Bob

[sopwith21]

You could care less if a good and Godly man like Keyes got into office because the TYPE of government is what you are against.

Exactly. I do not look to government for spiritual leadership. It would be a good thing personally for the president if he were a Christian because he would then not go to hell, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with honoring constitutional law and protecting liberty. An unsaved man can do that just as well.

The frightening thing about most Christians is that they ask government to use violence to impose their beliefs on others. This, of course, is precisely what unsaved people do. The only difference is the causes they support.

For instance, Christians want to use government violence to force people to use only government approved drugs and to force others to live under specific types of government. Unsaved people want to use government violence to force folks to accept abortion and send their children to public indoctrination camps.

So Christians have adopted the violent ways of unbelievers. We want to kill, imprison and assault just as many folks as unbelievers do... we just want to do it for different reasons. If I am accused of opposing "that" type of government, I plead guilty.

You favor your TYPE of government. THAT is why you would support Ron Paul over Alan Keyes. Because you believe Keyes would keep the type of government we have now largely the same, and that Paul would bring in the TYPE of government that you want.

Yup.

You have never been a big fan of Republicans in the past

I was a staunch, unwavering Republican until I was 35 years old. As the party became more and more violent, more in favor of statism and more opposed to constitutional law, I had to either violate my own beliefs and hold a double standard, or leave the party.

I chose to leave the party.

I submit that the Ron Paul, Libertarian TYPE of government is NOT the answer that our country needs right now.

That is an honest answer that I can respect. There are no ridiculous lies about Paul being "pro abortion," no holding Paul to one standard while holding Keyes to another... just the simple preference that you do not like what he stands for.

I do believe that sound money, a foreign policy of non-interventionism, greater freedom for US citizens, less war, smaller government and constitutional law are what our country needs, but if you do not, I understand.

 

[Granite]

Root it out! Stamp it out! Use every last bit of influence and pressure that we can to make sure we are heard that it's time for the murder of innocent babies to come to an end!

I meant personally, what do you do?

For that matter what are you doing on behalf of Keyes's "campaign"?

 

[PKevman]

I understand that they're dead either way and that your unwavering position on saving both lives has changed.

You're starting to get emotional and insulting again and its clear nothing said here will make any difference, so enjoy your morning and have a great Thanksgiving with your family.

And you have a great Thanksgiving as well buddy. But I wasn't being insulting. I was merely pointing out a fact. On the topic of Keyes and abortion you and Stephen Dale are both being very dense and arguing something that doesn't exist. Our position hasn't changed on saving the life of both the mother and the child in the least. If either of you had fully read the posts I've made, PLUS the one I linked and even pasted that was made by Turbo you would have understood that and not been making these bad arguments for so many posts.

I think it is emotional and insulting to accuse me of ever wavering on "Do not murder" because I certainly never have at any point in this thread. I keep bringing us BACK to that point. So you know I love ya brother, but please don't lecture me about being rude and insulting when you've done your own fair share of insulting in this thread whether you realize it or not. I have repeatedly attacked the ideas and the positions and not YOU.

 

[PKevman]

So you do value saving the mother over the child? This of course hurts your abortion argument terribly.

I never wavered on saving BOTH. You have bent around what Dr. Keyes said, and I am wondering if it is intentional or just blind insistence on clinging to a bad argument?

I never made any exceptions or excuses for abortion. I was hesitant for a while to fully support Dr. Keyes due to the positions he once took politically back in the 1990's. But I have found that he repented of those positions and no longer holds them. I guess you would want to put a man back under the burden of things he has repented for? What sense does that make in light of Christian love and forgivenness?

 

[S†ephen]

I never wavered on saving BOTH. You have bent around what Dr. Keyes said, and I am wondering if it is intentional or just blind insistence on clinging to a bad argument?

I never made any exceptions or excuses for abortion. I was hesitant for a while to fully support Dr. Keyes due to the positions he once took politically back in the 1990's. But I have found that he repented of those positions and no longer holds them. I guess you would want to put a man back under the burden of things he has repented for? What sense does that make in light of Christian love and forgivenness?

I'm not saying he's for abortion Mr. K. I'm not.

I'm saying his statement supports saving the mother over the child, you still haven't touched on this.

 

[PKevman]

I'm not saying he's for abortion Mr. K. I'm not.

I'm saying his statement supports saving the mother over the child, you still haven't touched on this.

I don't think he necessarily even meant that, and he certainly didn't say to kill the child. He simply said that if the child dies while you are attempting to save the mother it sometimes happens as an unintended consequence. He never said the point was to kill the child. But if you had read the wonderful info that Turbo brought up INCLUDING his own personal experience, you would have understood that point. Don't you understand that there are sometimes situations where the mother has to be saved in order to have even a chance to save both?

Here is the answer to your problem:

It is possible and sometimes necessary to be trying to save the mother first and still be trying to save both patients!

I illustrated this when I said that if you were trying to save a woman who was falling off of a cliff and you could NOT reach the child, but the mother had the grip on her child, which are you going to try to save? If you try to save the child first you would lose them both. If you pull up the mother and her grip on her child remains true, then you save them both. You didn't set out to kill either one.

If this is not clear enough then I honestly don't know what else to say.

 

[sopwith21]

Jared Massey and his pregnant wife are assaulted and tased by a "straw man."

Driver Tased For Asking Officer Why He Was Stopped
Man who refused to sign speeding ticket because he did not understand what it was is tased and arrested by officer who then refused to read him his rights


Steve Watson
Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007



A man was tased and arrested on a Utah highway after being stopped by an officer and refusing to sign a speeding ticket because he did not understand what offence he had committed or why he had been pulled over.

The encounter, captured on the police car camera on September 14th and released this week, is the latest in a long string of incidents involving the unacceptable use of Tasers by officers on citizens whom the evidence reveals are in no way threatening, acting unlawfully or resisting co-operation.

The video shows the Utah Highway Patrolman pull over Jared Massey and his pregnant wife who also had their baby with them in the car and ask for Mr Massey's license.

Mr Massey tells the officer he does not understand why he has been stopped or what he is being charged with, at which point the officer orders Massey to get out of the car. The officer then puts down his clipboard and immediately takes out his Taser and points it at Mr Massey without any provocation whatsoever, yelling "Turn around and put your hands behind your back" as Massey attempts to point out the speed limit sign and engage the officer in conversation.

A shocked Massey asks "what the hell is wrong with you?" and backs away, turning around as the officer had demanded, at which point the officer unleashes 50,000 volts from the Taser into Massey's body, sending him screaming to the ground instantly and causing his wife to jump out of the car and yell hysterically for help.

Watch the video:

Lying face down on the ground a shell shocked, Mr Massey says "officer I don't know what you are doing, I don't know why you are doing what you are doing" to which the officer replies "I am placing you under arrest because you did not obey my instruction."

Mr Massey then once again asks the officer several times why he was stopped and what he is being charged with. He then asks for his rights to be read and points out that the officer cannot arrest him without doing this. Instead of reading Massey his rights the officer then addresses another patrolman who arrives on the scene sardonically commenting "Ohhh he took a ride with the Taser" to which the other officer answers "painful isn't it".

The icing on the cake comes at the end of the video when the officer lies to his own colleague about the encounter, clearly stating that he verbally warned Massey he was going to tase him, as is the law, when there was no warning whatsoever.

Mr Massey is planning to file a lawsuit against the Utah Highway Patrol. He says he was already slowing down as he approached the 40 mile per hour sign in the construction zone outside of vernal. All charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped.

In the last year over 300 people have died in admitted cases in the US alone from being tased. In the last week alone we have posted three separate stories of Taser deaths. Every week we post stories of incidents, which often feature old women, children and disabled people as the victims. The weapons are even being used in schools.

The police are now trained that "pain compliance," a euphemism for torture, is acceptable in apprehending anyone even if that person poses no physical danger. If you electrify any person, they suffer extreme pain and stand a high chance of being killed.

Despite this, idiotic media hacks such as Fox News host Brian Kilmead are happy to promote police state tactics, selling the idea that protestors or people that merely question authority in any way are threatening and should be tased or "beaten to a pulp".

This phenomenon is out of control, how many more acts of wanton police brutality, torture and death by means of tasering are we to endure?

Taser use is being abused by police all over the country and beyond as cops are trained that torture is a perfectly acceptable response to somebody who acts out of the ordinary, asks the wrong question or refuses to show their papers.​

 

[drbrumley]

:sigh: This is getting old quickly

 

[sopwith21]

you and Stephen Dale are both being very dense

Address the topic. Stephen Dale and I are not the topic. The topic is the topic.

 

[sopwith21]

If this is not clear enough then I honestly don't know what else to say.

The point remains that you have misrepresented Ron Paul's beliefs in order to condemn him. You adjusted your statements on abortion to continue your support of Keyes. You have ignored, denied or remained willingly ignorant of the deaths of untold innocent people in order to support a war without taking responsibility for its results. You have accused tens of thousands of victims of a cruel and wicked government of fighting a "straw man."

You have claimed that you have the ability to act without permission in areas where you actually only act at the leisure of your betters. You have claimed that the administration never accused Iraq of having nukes, and when it was proven that they did, you quietly let the matter drop and haven't made good on your promise to research it for yourself. You have claimed that Iraq refused weapons inspections when in fact they permitted over 750 of them, and you have not followed up on your promise to investigate that, either.

I will not call you stupid, dense, moronic or thickheaded for holding holding these positions. However, there can be no real debate under such conditions. You must come to truth when you are ready and there's nothing I can do to push you there. It has to happen in its own time. Best of luck.

 

[PKevman]

The point remains that you have misrepresented Ron Paul's beliefs in order to condemn him.

WHERE? I spoke directly about What Paul himself said. He excuses abortion in some instances.

You adjusted your statements on abortion to continue your support of Keyes.

That is an outright LIE! Please show WHERE and WHEN I "adjusted" my statements on abortion to "Continue" my support of Keyes! That is shameful and I won't let you get away with it. If you want to discuss something with me, DON'T LIE ABOUT WHAT I've said. Anyone could read through this thread and see the truth! I have repeatedly said the same thing, that there should NEVER at ANY TIME be an exception allowed for murdering the child. I challenge you to show the exact statement where I adjusted this view. You have attempted to say I've adjusted my view, but no matter how many times you shout a lie it never becomes true. You should be totally ashamed of yourself.

You can get down on Lighthouse and others for being insulting, but I'd rather someone call me a name then to LIE! I highly suggest you get a new argument because this one is lame and is only getting worse for you. I've never at any moment been willing to compromise on murder or to support a candidate who would compromise on murder. If you have the exact quote and post where I was willing to support or compromise on murder then please show it, or apologize for your false accusation. You started this thread accusing my friend Bob Enyart of lying. Now you yourself are the one who has lied.
I'm ashamed to have invited you to come on TOL because of your behavior. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have misquoted me, lied about me, and misrepresented me, and I won't stand for it.

You have ignored, denied or remained willingly ignorant of the deaths of untold innocent people in order to support a war without taking responsibility for its results. You have accused tens of thousands of victims of a cruel and wicked government of fighting a "straw man."

Wrong again. I was more than willing to stipulate the the government does wicked things. But as you yourself readily admitted this debate is not about the wicked government but rather the wicked TYPE of government and your desire to see the TYPE of government we have changed. I happen to see through all of the things you are saying. It is not relevant to the discussion if the things indeed happened or didn't happen because I'm not arguing that the government is NOT wicked. Get a clue, buy a clue, or find a clue! I've not accused anyone of anything. You take an extreme position when you say that we are not free to act or do anything without permission. I take exception to THAT position.

You have claimed that you have the ability to act without permission in areas where you actually only act at the leisure of your betters.

Blah blah blah. I do things, and YOU do things every single day that you don't have to get permission for. It's a lame-duck argument. I guarantee that MOST people would disagree with your assertion that we are not free to do anything without permission in this country.

You have claimed that the administration never accused Iraq of having nukes, and when it was proven that they did, you quietly let the matter drop and haven't made good on your promise to research it for yourself.

No the matter never "quietly dropped" because you keep demanding a timetable for when I will complete reading that long document that you just gave me a few days ago. I had certainly never heard that Bush said they had nukes, only WMD's. I admitted that, but I guess admitting something with you does no good. How sad for you that you are taking what could have been a good and beneficial discussion for us both and turning it into an opportunity to puff up yourself. I'm more than willing to review the information, and to consider the sources of that information as well. That takes time. I refused to set a "timetable" on it per your demands to do so, because I don't think you were right in demanding that timetable.

You have claimed that Iraq refused weapons inspections when in fact they permitted over 750 of them, and you have not followed up on your promise to investigate that, either.

I have seen numerous pieces of evidence that showed that they refused weapons inspections including videos of Hussein himself thumbing his nose at the world and at the USA. I'm more than willing to examine evidence, but you have to realize that I have a life and don't believe that this particular topic is of grave concern to the overall issue at hand. Hussein was a wicked man and the world is a better place with him removed from the picture. Period.

I will not call you stupid, dense, moronic or thickheaded for holding holding these positions.

Why not? You have made up at least whole portions of the supposed positions. Why not go for the gold?

However, there can be no real debate under such conditions.

That's the understatement of the day. It is impossible to debate someone when they repeatedly misrepresent your positions and then demand you to debate their misrepresentations.

You must come to truth when you are ready and there's nothing I can do to push you there. It has to happen in its own time. Best of luck.

Truth is found in the Word of God. God's Word is the source of objective truth. I've found the truth. It's found in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ! Politics is a subject that is interesting at times to talk about, but all of the answers to what's wrong with the world and with our government can be found in the Word of God. The government is wicked and people are wicked because all have sinned and disobeyed a holy and righteous God. You sinned against me in this very post by lying about my positions on abortion and the life of the mother. You sinned against Bob Enyart when you came on this board calling him a liar. I'm sure you won't ever see it that way, but I know I have done everything I could as a friend and as a brother to rationally attempt to discuss this with you. I have a feeling if it goes any further we may both say things we'll later regret.

I'm going to get back to having Thanksgiving with my family.

 

[drbrumley]

Journey: Hi. My name is Journey. I'm from Texas. And this question is for all (inaudible) pro-life candidates.

In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it's illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.

(Applause)

But for the ...

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: Pardon me?

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.

But so I think it certainly is a crime. But I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist.

Cooper: So you're saying a doctor should be punished.

What sort of punishment should they get?

Paul: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not in the state -- I'm not running for governor. And I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all 50 states the same way. So, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide that.

 

[Turbo]

Journey: Hi. My name is Journey. I'm from Texas. And this question is for all (inaudible) pro-life candidates.

In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it's illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.

(Applause)

But for the ...

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: Pardon me?

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.

But so I think it certainly is a crime. But I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist.

Cooper: So you're saying a doctor should be punished.

What sort of punishment should they get?

Paul: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not in the state -- I'm not running for governor. And I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all 50 states the same way. So, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide that.

Do you agree with him?

 

[Granite]

I do.

 

[Turbo]

drbrumley,

Do you agree with him?

 

[drbrumley]

drbrumley,

In some answers I agree, some I don't. I agree the abortionist should be punished. I don't agree the mother to be should get off. And it seems that is what he is saying. As for the states taking responsibility to punish, I do agree.

 

[PKevman]

I think those quotes from Ron Paul are lamentable and sad, and further show why he should not be president.

 

[S†ephen]

I think those quotes from Ron Paul are lamentable and sad, and further show why he should not be president.

You think that:

But so I think it certainly is a crime. But I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist.

is sad?

I don't follow.

 

[S†ephen]

Um, what exactly will Alan Keyes do when he gets into office?

I mean we've pretty much trashed every direct quote and voting record from Ron Paul, so I'm curious... what has Alan said he will do?

Y'know, what law has he said he'll pass, that sorta stuff.

 

[PKevman]

You think that:



is sad?

I don't follow.

No it's more this whole mindset:

You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it's illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.