PKevman
New member
Too bad it was only true in Granite's mind.
Thanks Bob
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
- Status
Too bad it was only true in Granite's mind.
:yawn:
Either you're being lazy or you might actually be getting around to an actual response...
G'night in either case. Some of us need beauty sleep.
PKevman
New member
Sure he should use whatever influence, authority, and leverage that he has to change the system.
Why do you think replacing what you believe to be a wicked system with a more wicked system would lead to an improvement?
PKevman
New member
:yawn:
Either you're being lazy or you might actually be getting around to an actual response...
G'night in either case. Some of us need beauty sleep.
This was kind of a funny dig. I'll give ya points for it.
PKevman
New member
Okey dokey then. Good night Granite. :chuckle:
S†ephen
New member
Worse?
What could possibly be worse than what we have now? We have thousands of baby's dying every day and we can't do anything about it and you say Ron Paul is worse?
I'm so confoosed
PKevman
New member
Worse?
What could possibly be worse than what we have now? We have thousands of baby's dying every day and we can't do anything about it and you say Ron Paul is worse?
I'm so confoosed
That's because you're attempting to attack symptoms instead of the cause of the problems. :think:
Like it or not, government is not the source of everything evil. Any government can be corrupted if the people are wicked.
S†ephen
New member
Is government a symptom or a source?
But only a few governments can be fixed if a few people want to do right. The system you and Alan are proposing isn't one of them.
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Worse?
What could possibly be worse than what we have now? We have thousands of baby's dying every day and we can't do anything about it and you say Ron Paul is worse?
I'm so confoosed
Ron Paul is an idiot.
He is pro-choice by state and wants to legalize all drugs.
S†ephen
New member
Ron Paul is an idiot.
He is pro-choice by state and wants to legalize all drugs.
Right now we have pharmaceuticals that we know are harming people and are still legal and we have no law against abortion at all.
Post an intelligent comment please.
PKevman
New member
S†ephen;1611973 said:
His comment was intelligent. It is yours I'm trying to make sense of... You say we have no law against abortion at all, and yet you support a candidate who will not pass a law against abortion at all. What sense does that make?
The answer to this whole equation is not dividing up the United States into 50 "Semi-countries" if you will and then allowing them each to decide on whether or not aboriton should be legal. This is a losing strategy dreamed up by losing Libertarians who have never won a thing when it comes to elections. And thank God for that!
There is one answer
As you say there is no law against abortion. The answer is to make ONE law against abortion: for every state, every territory, and any other patch of land that wants to call itself part of the United States of America: DO NOT MURDER needs to be a binding law everywhere. No exceptions. No exceptions for age, sex, convenience of mother, shame of father, no exceptions of any type.
Take the stand! Murder will no longer be tolerated anywhere! That's the battle we fight. Ron Paul is not the answer because he will NOT take that stand.
PKevman
New member
I agree except I would put the word "Murder" in the place of "Agression".
S†ephen
New member
It makes sense because passing a law against abortion straight from the President's desk is unconstitutional. We have had this Federal led system for years and all it has gotten us is total legality for abortion.
It's time to get back to what the country was founded on. The man who will do this is Ron Paul.
How do you know it is a losing strategy? You've never seen it tried before.
Or Homosexuals. Right?
Yes, he will. He will follow Constitutional bounds to accomplish it. Alan Keys will use a wicked evil system to accomplish his ends. He is the one who will not take the stand.
PKevman
New member
I get that from the people who spout off about how the United States were never supposed to be United States. I think your definition of states rights is somewhat different from the other views I've seen. Why don't you educate us all on exactly what your particular views are since we're missing the boat according to you?
Do you think that the murder of innocent babies in the womb should be up to each individual state to decide or not? Aren't you the one who is repeatedly speaking against having a centralized form of government in favor of 50 sovereign states?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Spout off? You have yet to prove it wasn't the case.:help:
Or even if it is proper.
PKevman
New member
Stephen said:
I could care less about whether you think it's unconstitutional. It's what's right. One law, for the entire nation. That's the only standard acceptable. I could care less if it comes from the President, or congress, or anywhere else, I want one law. No murder.
Let me ask you this. Which is a more important document:
A. The Bible
B. The US Constitution
A follow up question. Who's opininon would you find to be more important if they had opposing views:
A. The Founding fathers
B. God the Heavenly Father
Stephen said:
Maybe we'll have slavery and Civil Wars again too, nothing like repeating history and ignoring its lessons.
Stephen said:
That's like saying: "How do you know jumping off of a cliff will hurt, you've never tried it before."
No, but I know that making everything legal and eliminating police departments is not the answer. If you remove what little semblance of law and order we do have in this country you wouldn't have a country to live in for very long. Wickedness runs rampant already. And you want to embolden and allow criminals to do their thing unchecked?
Stephen said:
Completely off-topic, and we've already been down this road. I've explained the position I hold to you, why do you insist on continuing to misconstrue it over and over again. I'll say it again: It isn't murder for the government to put to death capital criminals. You keep ignoring that in favor of an argument that you like. Your dad even agrees that there should be some instances where people should be put to death.
I'd sure like to know what your answer to this question is:
Was God wrong in calling for the death penalty for homosexuals? Did He know what He was doing? Bypassing for the moment whether you think it should be a capital crime today, was God WRONG in calling for the death penalty for homosexuals and was it murder for the government of that day to enforce the capital crimes that God said should be enforced? Please answer this question or do not EVER bring up the topic of death penalty for homosexuals again with me.
Thanks.
Stephen said:
The system is mostly amoral. Yeah there are some immoral things done within it, such as taking the money of one individual to give to another (welfare and public schools are prime examples). But a God-fearing leader or leaders could take the current system and make a complete and total change. I agree that the system is not the greatest and needs to be overhauled, but it's still better than the Libertarian Ron Paul type of government in my opinion. Take it or leave, but that's my song Sam, and I'm stickin' to it.
- Status