toldailytopic: What do you think of the Tea Party movement?

[WizardofOz]

I'd be comfortable if the words "IS REQUIRED" replaced the words "has the authority".

Because since states only have the authority to enforce laws against homicide they let murder happen legally all the time. :hammer:

But the question is: how would Ron Paul, the 1988 Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party and someone who "remains a lifetime member" of the pro-abortion party feel about it?

In his own words.....(already posted in this thread, but you must have missed it)

It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“

Thoughts?

How much more pro-life can a person get?

 

[Merry meat]

The tea party is the liberal party's early Christmas present.

 

[WizardofOz]

If we are to ignore the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution in regards to their prohibition of the legalization of murder, how about the taking of an innocent person's liberty?

:liberals: How are the 5th and 14th Amendment being ignored again?

The federal government is already depriving individuals of "life, liberty, or property". How anyone can be pro-life and be a federalist is beyond me. Quite a track record. It would be better if even a town or city could collectively vote to outlaw abortion on a local level.

You want all or nothing. It will continue to be nothing. States outlawing abortion would be a great thing. And with the Sanctity of Life Act, it would happen nationwide. It's such a great 1-2 strategy.

Is slavery likewise a "states rights issue?" Who here would like to take the Stephen Douglas position on slavery, wherein every state can decide for itself to what extent the state gov't will protect the "right" of people to own other human beings?

Yeah, that's not happening. It's silly to bring it up.

 

[Granite]

What are the right things? The right people?

They don't go after central banking, or the oligarchs, or the establishment. They got bogged down in this birther nonsense and don't amount to much except noise. It's frustrating to see all that energy and anger expended on something like this.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

How much more pro-life can a person get?

Let's look at the words of Ron Paul again and see where his fatal flaw lies.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul
"It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."

This nutcase Libertarian isn't concerned about the laws of God (in this case "thou shalt not murder"), he's concernced about "civil liberties".

Here's a guy that doesn't even acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, and you're going to trust him with legislation dealing with the God-given rights of the unborn?

As shown in his legislation, Paul believes that man can give and take away rights based on majority rule at the State level; he fails to acknowledge that man's rights are given to us by God.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

 

[Skavau]

This nutcase Libertarian isn't concerned about the laws of God (in this case "thou shalt not murder"), he's concernced about "civil liberties".

The 'laws of God' are pragmatically meaningless in a society where people of different belief systems and non-belief systems coinhabit. You might believe in a God that proposes, imposes (or tries to) and embodies objective morality - but I do not. I do however, care about civil liberties and this consideration and care concerning them that I have is relatable to everyone. It allows me to understand and empathize with the plight of those living under fascist and totalitarian rule. You have no such mechanism, as the life of the individual means nothing to you and the liberty of everyone is, by your own concession scrappable if you believe it contravenes the mandate of God. This is disgraceful in much more ways than one.

Here's a guy that doesn't even acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, and you're going to trust him with legislation dealing with the God-given rights of the unborn?

I'd be much more inclined to trust someone who disregarded the entire concept of 'sin' than I would anyone who labelled anything a sin. His consideration, by the way for the unborn by your own quote is vested in civil rights - an issue that is much more connectable and coherent to everyone than a decree by a hypothetical being.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

Nonsense. You don't care about who's happy or not. You've admitted it several times.

 

[Granite]

Let's look at the words of Ron Paul again and see where his fatal flaw lies.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul
"It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."

This nutcase Libertarian isn't concerned about the laws of God (in this case "thou shalt not murder"), he's concernced about "civil liberties".

Here's a guy that doesn't even acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, and you're going to trust him with legislation dealing with the God-given rights of the unborn?

As shown in his legislation, Paul believes that man can give and take away rights based on majority rule at the State level; he fails to acknowledge that man's rights are given to us by God.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

As a cop I don't expect you to care or have much respect for civil liberties.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

With no due respect whatsoever Skavau; you're an atheist from a foreign country that doesn't know a thing about the founding of our nation and the people who established it; nor do you care if this country rots in the Hell that you say doesn't exist.

Perhaps Ron Paul could be PM of England?

 

[Granite]

With no due respect whatsoever Skavau; you're an atheist from a foreign country that doesn't know a thing about the founding of our nation and the people who established it; nor do you care if this country rots in the Hell that you say doesn't exist.

Perhaps Ron Paul could be PM of England?

:rotfl:

Right. Because only Americans can understand America.

 

[Skavau]

With no due respect whatsoever Skavau; you're an atheist from a foreign country that doesn't know a thing about the founding of our nation and the people who established it

I'm from the nation of the United States closest allies. I also know that the United States is a secular nation and one of the most multicultural nations on the planet. I also have spoken and am in contact with many Americans that live in the USA and have no desire to be ruled under a quasi-democratic theocracy.

nor do you care if this country rots in the Hell that you say doesn't exist.

How would you pretend to know this?

 

[aSeattleConserv]

As a cop I don't expect you to care or have much respect for civil liberties.

This goes back to the "Seattle Fascist" thread where I stated that the word "liberty" has different meaning for different people.

For example, the atheist ACLU seems to think that having sex in a public restroom toilet stall is "liberty"; while I believe that the 12 year old boy in the next stall over has the "liberty" to enter a public restroom and use it what it was intended for (disposing body waste).

"In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."'
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/16/national/main3719987.shtml

I guess I'm just an old fashioned hillybill from a trailer park.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

I'm from the nation of the United States closest allies.

You're also from a nation that a group of men and women no longer wanted to be a part of (hence a revolution took place).

I also know that the United States is a secular nation and one of the most multicultural nations on the planet.

So I'm told by daily by atheists that have no knowledge of the founding of our country (or won't admit it).

Here's a (1,067 page) book that you can read to educate yourself about the Founders of our Christian nation.
http://www.americanvision.com/christianlifecharacter.aspx

I also have spoken and am in contact with many Americans that live in the USA and have no desire to be ruled under a quasi-democratic theocracy.

The next time you talk to the pro-baby killing, pro-sodomite, Marxist Muslim currently occupying the White House, tell him to ask for his food stamp distributing job on the south side of Chicago back, he'll be needing employment in 2012.

 

[Granite]

This goes back to the "Seattle Fascist" thread where I stated that the word "liberty" has different meaning for different people.

It sure does. Then again, I don't support the idea of people having sex in bathrooms, either (although you sure seem to get a kick out of dwelling on sleazy subjects like this). Soooo...yeah.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned hillybill from a trailer park.

Judging by the way you sometimes spell and write I'd say that's a safe bet.

 

[Skavau]

You're also from a nation that a group of men and women no longer wanted to be a part of (hence a revolution took place).

What does this have to do with anything?

So I'm told by daily by atheists that have no knowledge of the founding of our country (or won't admit it).

Presuming that it is true that the USA was intended to be a Christian Theocracy - so what? The United Kingdom did not use to be democratic at all, with many ridiculous elections (where most couldn't actually vote) in the 19th century (even up into the 20th).

Before that of course, the chasm of power wasn't even pretending to be remotely democratic. So ignoring things like the Treaty Of Tripoli and First Amendment to the Constitution, why does it matter to anyone now that the USA might have been Christian-orientated at the time of its founders? The USA also endorsed slavery and racism at the same time as well.

I don't know, I'll guess I'll never understand the adulation to the doctrine of the founding fathers. It would be like me adoring the Royal Family just because of traditions sake (I hope for the disbandment of the Royal Family, nevermind how awesome the Duke Of Edinburgh is). The literalism involved and the desire to follow it to the letter mirrors religious literalism (which, funnily enough - most of those who reference it are literalists).

The next time you talk to the pro-baby killing, pro-sodomite, Marxist Muslim currently occupying the White House, tell him to ask for his food stamp distributing job on the south side of Chicago back, he'll be needing employment in 2012.

A 'Marxist Muslim' is a hilarious contradiction. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

[WizardofOz]

Let's look at the words of Ron Paul again and see where his fatal flaw lies.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul
"It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."

This nutcase Libertarian isn't concerned about the laws of God (in this case "thou shalt not murder"), he's concernced about "civil liberties".

:doh: He's not a preacher, he's a congressman. "Civil liberties" are relevant to the conversation and to his efforts, "laws of God" are not.

Our laws have never been based on the "laws of God". You're from America, right?

Here's a guy that doesn't even acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, and you're going to trust him with legislation dealing with the God-given rights of the unborn?

What does abortion have to do with homosexuality? Try to stay on topic.

As shown in his legislation, Paul believes that man can give and take away rights based on majority rule at the State level

Lie. And, what rights are you referring to? The right to choice is the status quo, remember?

Say hello to reality. Abortion is legal nationwide thanks to the federal government.

Yes or no: would you support efforts in the state of Washington to outlaw abortion?

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

Until unborn babies are considered "men", your platitude is irrelevant.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Decisions, decisions. Which post should I answer, an atheist who gets his morals from Playboy magazine, (check this article about your "god" Hugh Hefner Fido: http://club.myce.com/f1/ex-playmate-reveals-playboy-mansion-secrets-104920/ ; an atheist from a country where they make homosexual rock stars "Sirs" and have Sharia Law courts, or the "Other" guy?

You win Wiz.

:doh: He's not a preacher, he's a congressman. "Civil liberties" are relevant to the conversation and to his efforts, "laws of God" are not.

Ron "I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party" is supposed to be Constitutionally savvy. Does he not know that our rights (i.e. civil liberties) come from God, NOT man?

Our laws have never been based on the "laws of God". You're from America, right?

No, I'm from Seattle, WA (the Soviet Politburo at one time wanted to relocate to Seattle, but discovered that they weren't THAT radical).

Even atheists acknowledge at least 3 of the Ten Commandments as American law (murder, adultery, stealing); the Founding Fathers went with all ten.
http://vftonline.org/TenC 4 USA/UShistory/1st.htm

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=87

What does abortion have to do with homosexuality? Try to stay on topic.

Tell that to Planned Parenthood (moral relativism has no boundaries).
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans/homophobia-bullying-25086.htm

Say hello to reality. Abortion is legal nationwide thanks to the federal government.

No, murdering the innocent unborn is legal because a bunch of atheists went "judge shopping" and found the right combination to rule against the laws of God.

Yes or no: would you support efforts in the state of Washington to outlaw abortion?

Yes with an *.

* How about we make murder illegal in the other 49 States while we're at it?

Until unborn babies are considered "men", your platitude is irrelevant.

Had the Founding Fathers known that in a 37 year period 50 million American's would be murdered in the womb, 99% of the time done out of convenience, they would have written: "All human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,..."

 

[WizardofOz]

Decisions, decisions. Which post should I answer, an atheist who gets his morals from Playboy magazine, (check this article about your "god" Hugh Hefner Fido: http://club.myce.com/f1/ex-playmate-reveals-playboy-mansion-secrets-104920/ ; an atheist from a country where they make homosexual rock stars "Sirs" and have Sharia Law courts, or the "Other" guy?

You win Wiz.

:yawn:
Get over yourself.

Ron "I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party" is supposed to be Constitutionally savvy. Does he not know that our rights (i.e. civil liberties) come from God, NOT man?

Thanks for taking the bait. I wanted to be sure that you had no idea what you were talking about.

Go to 2:36 in

Who gives rights?

Or just watch one of his short campaign commercials.

What, given rights? Did he say God?

Of course he believes rights are God given. Stop embarrassing yourself through your continued arrogant ignorance.

Even atheists acknowledge at least 3 of the Ten Commandments as American law (murder, adultery, stealing); the Founding Fathers went with all ten.
http://vftonline.org/TenC 4 USA/UShistory/1st.htm

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=87

Thanks for the spam links. I'll get right on reading those. Incapable of creating your own argument? You are on of the laziest cut and paste posters I've encountered in a while.

Saudi Arabia has laws against murder, adultery and stealing. Wow.

Funny that your second link cites a lot of state law. :think: Ironic, isn't it?

Tell that to Planned Parenthood (moral relativism has no boundaries).
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans/homophobia-bullying-25086.htm

Off topic link dropping. You're not even trying.

No, murdering the innocent unborn is legal because a bunch of atheists went "judge shopping" and found the right combination to rule against the laws of God.

:rotfl: Republicans seated most of those justices. "Right combination"? You are "right" even if you didn't intend to be.

Yes with an *.

* How about we make murder illegal in the other 49 States while we're at it?

You only reside in one state. Your "yes" was all I needed to properly point out your hypocrisy.

Had the Founding Fathers known that in a 37 year period 50 million American's would be murdered in the womb, 99% of the time done out of convenience, they would have written: "All human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,..."

Conjecture, would-a, could-a, should-a.

37 years and yet you think the federal government is somehow your ally. Strange.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

:yawn:
Get over yourself.

Impressive videos of Ron "I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party" Paul reading about "God-given rights".

Since we're on the topic of Ron Paul and his belief in "God-given rights", which "god" is Ron Paul talking about that "gives us rights" to do the following:

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

I'm of course speaking of the Libertarian Party platform, the same Party that Paul ran for President on in 1988, and as mentioned before, "remains a lifetime member of".

I wonder if Ron Paul sits down with "devout atheist" Walter Block and has meaningful discussions about "God-given rights" with him?

"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul recently chose Loyola economics professor and long-time friend Walter Block as his scholar-adviser for his campaign.

Block has been friends with Paul since 1967. Over the years, Block and Paul have been involved in many programs together, and have given speeches together. When Paul asked Block to be his economics adviser, he accepted without hesitation."
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/26982

Or how about during Paul's 2007 interview with John Lofton on The American View where the following dialogue occurred:

"Is homosexuality a sin? Paul says he’s “not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916

YES or NO: Do you think Paul was referring to Scripture when he gave his opinion on a behavior that Scripture says is an "abomination" and "detestable"; and something the Founding Fathers described as a "disgrace to humanity"?
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-fathers-and-homosexuality.html

How about when Ron Paul voted with 4 other Republicans to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell", wanting to allow homosexuals to openingly serve in the military? I'm sure it had nothing to do with his Libertarian philosophy, but more in the mindset of "How would God vote in this case?"

Or how about Ron Paul being a "big fan of" atheist/adulterer/PRO ABORTIONIST Ayn Rand? ("Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.").
http://www.lisagraas.com/2010/03/atlas-shrugged-ayn-rand-and-ron-paul.html

It's too bad that Ayn Rand isn't around today; she and Ron Paul could sit down (with devout atheist Walter Block) and all talk about "God-given rights".

While Ron Paul probably does care about the unborn (due to him being a Doctor of obstetrics/gynecology) it's obvious that he doesn't believe in the absolute laws of God. His "god" is Libertarianism and the moral relativism that goes along with it.

 

[WizardofOz]

Impressive videos of Ron "I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party" Paul reading about "God-given rights".

While Ron Paul probably does care about the unborn

That's two points I've proved you wrong on. It was pulling teeth, I must admit, but I'm satisfied.

Your mudslinging amounts to fallacious reasoning (guilt by association and no true-Scotsman). He'll never be "Christian" enough for you due to his ties to the Libertarian Party (IE the party of satan).

Paul is also a member of the Republican Party. He certainly sees eye to eye with party brass on most issues, right?

Answer me just one question; who did you vote for in the last presidential election? You alluded to past support for the Constitutional Party.

Chances are it's the Constitution Party (again) for me.

Are you solely a mudslinger or can you actually defend "your guy"?

This should be good.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

That's two points I've proved you wrong on. It was pulling teeth, I must admit, but I'm satisfied.

Good, now light up a cigarette. (I was being sarrrrrrrrcastic on the first point).

If "proving me wrong" means that I admitted that Ron "I am a big fan of adulterer/atheist/PRO ABORTIONIST Ayn Rand" Paul cares about the murder of the innocent unborn, so be it. However, Paul doesn't care about them for the right reason: that being "thou shalt not murder". Paul only cares about them because he's delivered several thousand in his lifetime. As shown, Ron Paul is not a man of God, he's a hypocrite that should be in an insane asylum, not in public office.

Your mudslinging amounts to fallacious reasoning (guilt by association and no true-Scotsman). He'll never be "Christian" enough for you due to his ties to the Libertarian Party (IE the party of satan).

Didn't your momma ever tell you "You are who you associate with"?
Paul is ashamed to be seen with Christians and ashamed of the Christian religion. If he wasn't, he wouldn't make an asinine statement like this on national television: (originally said by the atheist/communist sympathizer Sinclair Lewis):

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_patrio.html

Paul is also a member of the Republican Party. He certainly sees eye to eye with party brass on most issues, right?

He sees "eye to eye with them on earmarks" (as shown in this article by Joseph Farah at WND, he want's his share of the pie).

In addition, the fool (and I mean FOOL) thinks that if we just leave radical Jihadists alone, they'll be content with forcing Islam on the rest of the world, not the US.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59380

Answer me just one question; who did you vote for in the last presidential election? You alluded to past support for the Constitutional Party.

The last time I checked it was a "secret ballot" (I'll give you a clue, I DIDN'T vote for the pro-baby killing, pro-sodomite Muslim Marxist).

I'm very much impressed with the Constitution Party platform. Whether or not one person (or 1,000) from that party embraced Ron "I don't see it (homosexuality) as being a sin in such simplistic terms" Paul, as shown, the drooling idiot shouldn't be anywhere around a Party that proudly speaks about Jesus Christ and the laws of God.