Libertarian Candidate Craig Exposes Ron Paul

[Christian Liberty]

Enyart did not support Santorum.

Good for him and fair enough.

Bottom line: you have no argument when you accuse Bob of not advocating a dismantling of the current government and a radical reformation of the government overall.

Yet Enyart opposes people like Ron Paul, who actually want to stop the government from murdering people, because of what he would "allow" the individual sovereign states to do.

But does he advocate, as you do, the forced secession of states that do not criminalize abortion if the federal government recognizes it as murder?

I do know he has advocated a human life amendment. I'm not sure if his stance is exactly the same as mine though. I also know Ron Paul has voted for some Federal anti-abortion laws, such as the PBA ban. Whereas I don't support any Federal anti-abortion laws (Other than via constitutional amendment, under the conditions we've already discussed). But, I don't claim to agree with Ron Paul on every single issue. The details of my stance and his on this issue are probably different.

What do you think he meant?

That Christians who support Ron Paul should repent?

It would have been easier if you had broken the OP up into quote boxes and posted your comments on the outside.

Fair enough.

Except that maybe they recognize that the US government has authority within the US, but not outside it.
Or do you no longer believe that?*

The Federal Government has no authority to make or enforce homicide laws. Only the states have that power. Ron Paul recognizes that, hence the Sanctity of Life Act. Bob Enyart, Alan Keyes, and yourself reject that.

Personally, the state vs Federal divide on this particular issue isn't a make or break issue. As I've said, Ron Paul doesn't totally agree with me, and Rand Paul completely disagrees with me. I don't reject Enyart and Keyes solely because they misinterpret the 14th amendment. I reject Keyes because he's a warmonger and I reject Enyart because (in addition to the fact that he's a heretic, as I've said) he attacks the only Christian, pro-peace candidate from the 2012 election for being "Pro-choice" when that's completely crap.

I don't know a single personhood advocate that doesn't want homicide laws used against abortionists.

Most Republicans would say they support personhood. But they always want to exempt "mothers" from prosecution. The pro-choice crowd rightfully calls them hypocrites.

Also we don't disagree with Paul that the states should take care of the enforcement of said laws.

Then what exactly is your issue?

It is genocidal apathy in regard to abortion, because abortion is not simply a murder every now and then, and certainly not a single murder, but millions of murders a year, with governmental authorization.

I can agree with this stance for someone who is genuinely pro-choice, and especially someone who would actually use government money to pay for abortions. Obama, Romney, and Santorum would all be "Genocidally Apathetic." I can agree with that.

For someone who wants to see abortion banned, but wants to do it in a way that he feels is constitutionally appropriate (Even if you disagree with him) this definitely doesn't apply.

It is as much apathy to genocide as it was when the government stood by and let its citizens kill black people, during and after slavery. And sometimes its not even apathy, such as is the case currently with abortion, it is active support.

Well, unfortunately, before the 13th amendment, that WAS a state issue. But anyone in the state government who didn't fight to see slavery banned was indeed in the category you suggest.

And the only time the woman is not guilty is if she is forced into it by someone else

Obviously she wouldn't be guilty in that case.

and most of the time even when the woman is complicit there are still more murderers than she and the doctor.

Can you explain more? I'm not sure who you are defining as a murderer and why, and I don't know enough about this.

Can you give a detailed explanation as to why this amendment is not valid?

I don't know enough about this, but basically, it was essentially forced on the CSA at gunpoint. They were forced to ratify it to be restored into the Union (And they weren't allowed to leave, the murderous Lincoln saw to that). If that doesn't scream "Invalid cheating" I don't know what does.

Do you really think you needed to point that out?

Did Enyart really need to pretend that Ron said something like that?

lain:

We can debate this one in another thread, but open theism denies God's omniscience, and also by necessity, much as Arminianism does, rejects the absolute effectiveness of Christ's atonement on the cross. As such, it does not accurately reflect the gospel, and as such it is heresy.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yet Enyart opposes people like Ron Paul, who actually want to stop the government from murdering people, because of what he would "allow" the individual sovereign states to do.

Does Paul argue that the individual states have the right to not criminalize abortion while remaining part of the Union?

I do know he has advocated a human life amendment. I'm not sure if his stance is exactly the same as mine though. I also know Ron Paul has voted for some Federal anti-abortion laws, such as the PBA ban. Whereas I don't support any Federal anti-abortion laws (Other than via constitutional amendment, under the conditions we've already discussed). But, I don't claim to agree with Ron Paul on every single issue. The details of my stance and his on this issue are probably different.

Exactly.

That Christians who support Ron Paul should repent?

Let me clarify; what do you think he meant when he used the word "repent"? What do you think he was implying about those Christians?

The Federal Government has no authority to make or enforce homicide laws. Only the states have that power. Ron Paul recognizes that, hence the Sanctity of Life Act. Bob Enyart, Alan Keyes, and yourself reject that.

According to the current USC you may well be correct.

However, the argument here is that the current USC is wrong for that. At least insofar as the power of the federal government regarding the legislation of the criminalization of murder. But I do agree that enforcement should be in the hands of the locals, as do Bob and, I'm sure, Alan Keyes.

Personally, the state vs Federal divide on this particular issue isn't a make or break issue. As I've said, Ron Paul doesn't totally agree with me, and Rand Paul completely disagrees with me. I don't reject Enyart and Keyes solely because they misinterpret the 14th amendment. I reject Keyes because he's a warmonger and I reject Enyart because (in addition to the fact that he's a heretic, as I've said) he attacks the only Christian, pro-peace candidate from the 2012 election for being "Pro-choice" when that's completely crap.

Does Paul believe or not that the individual states should have a choice and that they can remain part of the Union if they choose to not criminalize abortion?

Most Republicans would say they support personhood. But they always want to exempt "mothers" from prosecution. The pro-choice crowd rightfully calls them hypocrites.

I agree that they are hypocrites, and so does Bob.

Then what exactly is your issue?

The states should not be allowed to not criminalize abortion.

I can agree with this stance for someone who is genuinely pro-choice, and especially someone who would actually use government money to pay for abortions. Obama, Romney, and Santorum would all be "Genocidally Apathetic." I can agree with that.

For someone who wants to see abortion banned, but wants to do it in a way that he feels is constitutionally appropriate (Even if you disagree with him) this definitely doesn't apply.

Bob was saying it would be apathy on the part of the government to allow states to not criminalize abortion.

Well, unfortunately, before the 13th amendment, that WAS a state issue. But anyone in the state government who didn't fight to see slavery banned was indeed in the category you suggest.

As you used the term "unfortunately" in the way you did I assume you believe that it should not be a state issue?

And what of the federal government? If they let it happen were they not apathetic to it?

Obviously she wouldn't be guilty in that case.

:thumb:

Can you explain more? I'm not sure who you are defining as a murderer and why, and I don't know enough about this.

Those who take her to the mill, for instance. The father of the child who agrees with her getting an abortion. Or in the case of the woman forced into it the one who is forcing her.

I don't know enough about this, but basically, it was essentially forced on the CSA at gunpoint. They were forced to ratify it to be restored into the Union (And they weren't allowed to leave, the murderous Lincoln saw to that). If that doesn't scream "Invalid cheating" I don't know what does.

How does that invalidate the text itself?

Did Enyart really need to pretend that Ron said something like that?

Anyone with half a brain recognizes it's not an actual quote. Enyart was implying that Paul's stance logically leads to that conclusion.

Now, if you want to argue that truth serum [which doesn't actually exist] would lead to Paul recognizing his error rather than furthering it to its logical conclusion, then go ahead.

We can debate this one in another thread, but open theism denies God's omniscience, and also by necessity, much as Arminianism does, rejects the absolute effectiveness of Christ's atonement on the cross. As such, it does not accurately reflect the gospel, and as such it is heresy.

I'll see you there.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Let me clarify; what do you think he meant when he used the word "repent"? What do you think he was implying about those Christians?

I'll let you answer this one since I don't know what you're getting at.

As for the question about the 13th amendment, my stance on slavery would have been the same as my stance on abortion is now. No state should have been allowed to legalize it while remaining in the Union, but that would require a constitutional amendment.

Those who take her to the mill, for instance. The father of the child who agrees with her getting an abortion. Or in the case of the woman forced into it the one who is forcing her.

I'm not sure how merely driving the woman to the mill or agreeing with someone getting an abortion is murderous in and of itself. I could argue that actually (and knowingly) contributing financially to the murder could give you the same responsibility as someone who pays a hitman. But I don't know how simply driving her there or agreeing morally with the action (reprehensible though I admit that is) is actually murderous.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'll let you answer this one since I don't know what you're getting at.

Do you think Bob was implying those Christians lost their salvation and therefore needed to repent to return to it, or do you think he was simply saying it was a sin to support Ron Paul because of his stance regarding the choice of the states.

As for the question about the 13th amendment, my stance on slavery would have been the same as my stance on abortion is now. No state should have been allowed to legalize it while remaining in the Union, but that would require a constitutional amendment.

OK

I'm not sure how merely driving the woman to the mill or agreeing with someone getting an abortion is murderous in and of itself. I could argue that actually (and knowingly) contributing financially to the murder could give you the same responsibility as someone who pays a hitman. But I don't know how simply driving her there or agreeing morally with the action (reprehensible though I admit that is) is actually murderous.

How are they not accomplices? And how is any guilt removed from the father who agrees to it?

 

[Jefferson]

I don't know how simply driving her there or agreeing morally with the action (reprehensible though I admit that is) is actually murderous.

The person who drives the get-away car in a bank robbery where someone is shot and killed is complicit.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think Bob was implying those Christians lost their salvation and therefore needed to repent to return to it, or do you think he was simply saying it was a sin to support Ron Paul because of his stance regarding the choice of the states.

I think he believes its a sin. I never read anything into it about losing their salvation.

I believe Enyart is wrong when he says that that's a sin.

How are they not accomplices?

They might be,but that doesn't mean they actually committed murder.

And how is any guilt removed from the father who agrees to it?

He's certainly morally guilty, but I'm not sure how he could be legally, unless he pressured her into it.

The person who drives the get-away car in a bank robbery where someone is shot and killed is complicit.

Yes, but not a murderer.

 

[Lighthouse]

The person who drives the get-away car in a bank robbery where someone is shot and killed is complicit.

Even if no one is shot or killed they're still complicit in the bank robbery.

I think he believes its a sin. I never read anything into it about losing their salvation.

OK.

I believe Enyart is wrong when he says that that's a sin.

But if he truly believes that Ron Paul is pro-choice by state then it makes sense he would believe it a sin to support the man, correct?

They might be,but that doesn't mean they actually committed murder.

Is the driver complicit in the bank robbery?

He's certainly morally guilty, but I'm not sure how he could be legally, unless he pressured her into it.

How is he not legally guilty if he's complicit?

Yes, but not a murderer.

Legally he is.

 

[Christian Liberty]

But if he truly believes that Ron Paul is pro-choice by state then it makes sense he would believe it a sin to support the man, correct?

I'm not sure. Its difficult to assess something like this Biblically since elections didn't exist when the book was written. But that doesn't mean its impossible. If you have any scriptures for me, I'd be willing to look into whatever you have.

I supported Gary Johnson in 2012. I couldn't have voted at the time, and I was a little more enthusiastic about him in November of 2012 than I am now (My political philosophy developed more in that time, and I learned more regarding just how liberal Johnson was) but if we still had the same choices in 2012, assuming I wasn't in a state where Ron Paul write-ins were counted, I'd probably still vote for him.

Unlike Ron Paul, who supports personhood laws and actually does want to prosecute abortionists, it actually is accurate to call Gary Johnson "Pro-choice, state by state." He opposes Roe v Wade, which, for a Federal politician, is pretty much good enough as far as it goes, since the President cannot change state level abortion laws anyway. I had some other issues with Johnson as well as that one. I'd much rather a different LP candidate, heck, I'd have strongly preferred the 2008 Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin (Who has the same view as Rand Paul on this issue, for the record, and is also quite socially conservative, albeit not nearly to the same extent that you are, and he's also a states rights kind of guy in general) over Gary Johnson.

I was a little more naive with regards to the merits of the Libertarian Party back in 2012 than I am now. I don't think I really convinced anyone, but I tried to convince people to vote for Johnson in 2012. Since most of those people were Romney supporters anyway, I don't really feel bad about it. While I'd probably still place Gary Johnson on the "Pro-choice" side of the spectrum, he was far less so than Romney or Obama, as well as being worlds better on basically any issue.

Here's how I'd rationalize a vote like that, I guess. A vote for Romney would have made life worse for a lot of people if Romney won. A vote for Obama would have made life worse for a lot of people if he won.

While Johnson wasn't exactly great on all the issues, and was actually pretty bad on some of them, he was significantly better than the status quo on basically every single one (Admittedly, this is my viewpoint, based on my politics, I understand that you may disagree with me here.) The only case I can think of where Gov. Johnson would have made things worse was with regards to same-sex marriage, but at the end of the day, I honestly don't care. One side of that debate wants to license same sex marriage, the other wants to outlaw them. Both are fundamentally statist positions. I do care that Johnson lacked Federalist conviction on this issue, as well as some other issues, but he did meet all of my litmus tests, namely being in favor of an anti-war position, opposition to the Federal Reserve, pro-gun, and opposition to Roe v Wade.

If I had been old enough to cast that vote, and if I had voted for Johnson, would that have been a sinful vote? I'm open to that possibility, but I'd need you to prove it to me scripturally. Which is incredibly difficult to do seeing as there were no elections during Biblical times.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Is the driver complicit in the bank robbery?

Yes, but I'd prioritize retribution against the actual robbers first. But if the driver was the only one who could pay restitution, I'd go after him. In fact, I'd probably go after him anyway, but not for armed robbery per say.

Legally he is.

Whether I agree with that or not would have to be case by case. (I just realized that you might have been referring to the actual laws. In this discussion I've been discussing what I believe the laws should be, not what they actually are.)

That said, at least you found some examples that made sense. I've literally heard people tell me that everyone, or everyone who doesn't vote for the "more anti-abortion candidate" (Regardless of whether they're 100% pro-life or not, or any other issue that might affect ones vote) is responsible for every abortion that takes place. One of my relatives who is actually a pastor (Not my father) tried to tell me that. I kinda mentally rolled my eyes on that one.

We may not always agree, but thanks for at least actually being intelligent

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm not sure. Its difficult to assess something like this Biblically since elections didn't exist when the book was written. But that doesn't mean its impossible. If you have any scriptures for me, I'd be willing to look into whatever you have.

I'm not sure I have any Scriptures, but supporting him is necessarily supporting his policies, and thus if any of his policies are sinful then supporting him is sinful.

I supported Gary Johnson in 2012. I couldn't have voted at the time, and I was a little more enthusiastic about him in November of 2012 than I am now (My political philosophy developed more in that time, and I learned more regarding just how liberal Johnson was) but if we still had the same choices in 2012, assuming I wasn't in a state where Ron Paul write-ins were counted, I'd probably still vote for him.

Being unaware of the truth when a politician lies about their own policies alleviates you, but Ron Paul supporters knew exactly what his policy was in this regard.

Unlike Ron Paul, who supports personhood laws and actually does want to prosecute abortionists, it actually is accurate to call Gary Johnson "Pro-choice, state by state." He opposes Roe v Wade, which, for a Federal politician, is pretty much good enough as far as it goes, since the President cannot change state level abortion laws anyway. I had some other issues with Johnson as well as that one. I'd much rather a different LP candidate, heck, I'd have strongly preferred the 2008 Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin (Who has the same view as Rand Paul on this issue, for the record, and is also quite socially conservative, albeit not nearly to the same extent that you are, and he's also a states rights kind of guy in general) over Gary Johnson.

Does Ron Paul need to fix the SoLA to more clearly present his views in that regard? Yes or no?

I was a little more naive with regards to the merits of the Libertarian Party back in 2012 than I am now. I don't think I really convinced anyone, but I tried to convince people to vote for Johnson in 2012. Since most of those people were Romney supporters anyway, I don't really feel bad about it. While I'd probably still place Gary Johnson on the "Pro-choice" side of the spectrum, he was far less so than Romney or Obama, as well as being worlds better on basically any issue.

Do you know what the lesser of two evils is?

Here's how I'd rationalize a vote like that, I guess. A vote for Romney would have made life worse for a lot of people if Romney won. A vote for Obama would have made life worse for a lot of people if he won.

Life was going to be worse for us if either won, regardless of who we voted for ourselves. But in the end at least we could say we didn't vote for them if/when they did win. What you want to base your vote upon as a Christian is whether or not their principles and policies are Godly.

While Johnson wasn't exactly great on all the issues, and was actually pretty bad on some of them, he was significantly better than the status quo on basically every single one (Admittedly, this is my viewpoint, based on my politics, I understand that you may disagree with me here.) The only case I can think of where Gov. Johnson would have made things worse was with regards to same-sex marriage, but at the end of the day, I honestly don't care. One side of that debate wants to license same sex marriage, the other wants to outlaw them. Both are fundamentally statist positions. I do care that Johnson lacked Federalist conviction on this issue, as well as some other issues, but he did meet all of my litmus tests, namely being in favor of an anti-war position, opposition to the Federal Reserve, pro-gun, and opposition to Roe v Wade.

Again, the lesser of two evils...

If I had been old enough to cast that vote, and if I had voted for Johnson, would that have been a sinful vote? I'm open to that possibility, but I'd need you to prove it to me scripturally. Which is incredibly difficult to do seeing as there were no elections during Biblical times.

If you were ignorant of his sinful positions then I could say it would not have been. However, if you did know then you knowingly supported them.

I don't see how the lack of elections in the Bible has anything to do with this.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure I have any Scriptures, but supporting him is necessarily supporting his policies, and thus if any of his policies are sinful then supporting him is sinful.

So you couldn't vote for anyone who had an erroneous view on any policy? Or do you believe that there are some erroneous policies which are not sinful?

Being unaware of the truth when a politician lies about their own policies alleviates you, but Ron Paul supporters knew exactly what his policy was in this regard.

Gary Johnson never lied about his own policies. Despite being more than pro-life enough to qualify as "Pro-life" by the liberal standards of this country, he admitted, honestly, that at the end of the day he was pro-choice. I don't see why it matters though, since he came to the correct stance anyway, namely, that Roe v Wade should be repealed.

Does Ron Paul need to fix the SoLA to more clearly present his views in that regard? Yes or no?

That might be helpful. But I'd vote for it as written.

Do you know what the lesser of two evils is?

I see a difference between voting for evil, and voting for an imperfect candidate.

Life was going to be worse for us if either won, regardless of who we voted for ourselves. But in the end at least we could say we didn't vote for them if/when they did win. What you want to base your vote upon as a Christian is whether or not their principles and policies are Godly.

We'd probably disagree on exactly what Godly policies are. I also don't completely agree with that litmus test. I'd vote for or against a candidate based on whether they supported freedom or not. Of course, as with all things, I weight some issues more heavily than others.

Again, the lesser of two evils...

Not really, I believe Gary was wrong on a lot of things but I don't believe he was knowingly evil like Romney or Obama.

If you were ignorant of his sinful positions then I could say it would not have been. However, if you did know then you knowingly supported them.

I think I knew what his stance was.

I don't see how the lack of elections in the Bible has anything to do with this.

It doesn't really tell us just how much compromise with regards to voting is acceptable.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, but I'd prioritize retribution against the actual robbers first. But if the driver was the only one who could pay restitution, I'd go after him. In fact, I'd probably go after him anyway, but not for armed robbery per say.

*per se

Why not go after him for armed robbery?

Whether I agree with that or not would have to be case by case. (I just realized that you might have been referring to the actual laws. In this discussion I've been discussing what I believe the laws should be, not what they actually are.)

I was actually referring to what the laws currently are.

That said, at least you found some examples that made sense. I've literally heard people tell me that everyone, or everyone who doesn't vote for the "more anti-abortion candidate" (Regardless of whether they're 100% pro-life or not, or any other issue that might affect ones vote) is responsible for every abortion that takes place. One of my relatives who is actually a pastor (Not my father) tried to tell me that. I kinda mentally rolled my eyes on that one.

If more anti-abortion doesn't mean completely anti-abortion then a Christian shouldn't vote for them.

And if that means not voting for anyone because the one who is completely anti-abortion is wrong on other important issues, so be it.

We may not always agree, but thanks for at least actually being intelligent

I can't help it, I was born this way.

 

[Lighthouse]

So you couldn't vote for anyone who had an erroneous view on any policy? Or do you believe that there are some erroneous policies which are not sinful?

The latter. Especially when I could be the one in error.

Gary Johnson never lied about his own policies. Despite being more than pro-life enough to qualify as "Pro-life" by the liberal standards of this country, he admitted, honestly, that at the end of the day he was pro-choice. I don't see why it matters though, since he came to the correct stance anyway, namely, that Roe v Wade should be repealed.

You could possibly make the argument that the policies he would enact, or at least try to, are what matters rather than his personal stance.

I mean, that's the argument we make whenever a politician claims to be personally pro-life.

That might be helpful. But I'd vote for it as written.

So you understand our issue?

I see a difference between voting for evil, and voting for an imperfect candidate.

So do I.

We'd probably disagree on exactly what Godly policies are.

Possibly.

I also don't completely agree with that litmus test. I'd vote for or against a candidate based on whether they supported freedom or not. Of course, as with all things, I weight some issues more heavily than others.

There is no such thing as voting against.

Not really, I believe Gary was wrong on a lot of things but I don't believe he was knowingly evil like Romney or Obama.

That's possible. I never heard of him much.

I think I knew what his stance was.

Have you repented?

It doesn't really tell us just how much compromise with regards to voting is acceptable.

None. How is that not logically inferred?

 

[Christian Liberty]

*per se

Why not go after him for armed robbery?

Because he didn't actually commit armed robbery?

I was actually referring to what the laws currently are.

OK.

If more anti-abortion doesn't mean completely anti-abortion then a Christian shouldn't vote for them.

I don't necessarily agree with this.

And if that means not voting for anyone because the one who is completely anti-abortion is wrong on other important issues, so be it.

Most of them are.

I can't help it, I was born this way.

You were intelligent when you were born?

The latter. Especially when I could be the one in error.

The thing is, I view most erroneous policies as being NAP violations. As a theonomist, you should probably view most erroneous policies as unbiblical (I, too, view most such policies as being unbiblical, virtually any coercive action by The State is a violation of "Thou shall not steal", which certainly includes kidnapping on top of the theft of money, and they usually violate "Thou shall not murder" as well.)

You could possibly make the argument that the policies he would enact, or at least try to, are what matters rather than his personal stance.

There's honestly nothing more he could have done than to oppose Roe v Wade anyway. IIRC Johnson said he would have appointed Napolitano (That's Judge Andrew Napolitano, not the evil Janet, for the record) as a SCOTUS justice, and Napolitano is pro-life.

I mean, that's the argument we make whenever a politician claims to be personally pro-life.

True.

So you understand our issue?

I don't completely agree with you, but the discussions I've had with you and some others have showed me that Ron Paul's stance is not 100% consistent. Voting for the PBA ban, for instance, was inconsistent with his 10th amendment principles. I've heard somewhere that he may actually have admitted to this, but I'm not sure.

There is no such thing as voting against.

True.

That's possible. I never heard of him much.

He's naive on a lot of issues, but I really do believe he means well. Although Rand Paul is far smarter.

Have you repented?

No. I don't think I was wrong.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because he didn't actually commit armed robbery?

But he was complicit in the armed robbery.

I don't necessarily agree with this.

Why not?

Most of them are.

Possibly, but I didn't compromise my morals by voting for them.

You were intelligent when you were born?

Yup.

The thing is, I view most erroneous policies as being NAP violations. As a theonomist, you should probably view most erroneous policies as unbiblical (I, too, view most such policies as being unbiblical, virtually any coercive action by The State is a violation of "Thou shall not steal", which certainly includes kidnapping on top of the theft of money, and they usually violate "Thou shall not murder" as well.)

And sometimes they're just something with which I disagree for a completely different reason and the Bible is silent on the matter, because it's not a big deal. Of course, if that's the case then I can possibly let such slide when I go to the polls.

There's honestly nothing more he could have done than to oppose Roe v Wade anyway.

Possibly. What kind of power does the President have on hos own regarding such things?

IIRC Johnson said he would have appointed Napolitano (That's Judge Andrew Napolitano, not the evil Janet, for the record) as a SCOTUS justice, and Napolitano is pro-life.

By record?

I don't completely agree with you, but the discussions I've had with you and some others have showed me that Ron Paul's stance is not 100% consistent. Voting for the PBA ban, for instance, was inconsistent with his 10th amendment principles. I've heard somewhere that he may actually have admitted to this, but I'm not sure.

OK

He's naive on a lot of issues, but I really do believe he means well. Although Rand Paul is far smarter.

OK

No. I don't think I was wrong.

:think: