Thanks Bob

[drbrumley]

Yes, he does. He is very much a statist and would not hesitate to employ government violence in a holy crusade to achieve what he believes are God's purposes (an army of Christians roar in applause). Alan Keyes is not a victory for human liberty or limited government.

Nevertheless, he would be world's better than Giuliani or Romney. If he truly has a better chance at winning than Paul, I'll still switch.

I wouldn't switch. Any man who said we need to pay blacks for the sins of people who died long ago is a baffoon and ought not get elected for Dog catcher.

 

[S†ephen]

I wouldn't switch. Any man who said we need to pay blacks for the sins of people who died long ago is a baffoon and ought not get elected for Dog catcher.

nice.:banana:

 

[drbrumley]

Probably just what we need.

I hope you don't say that with glee. Cause if that happens, Lord I don't even want to think of that.

 

[S†ephen]

I hope you don't say that with glee. Cause if that happens, Lord I don't even want to think of that.

No not with glee. I totally agree with you on this. But with seriousness. I would rather have a revolution in which I would support and fight than continue my life in quite consent to evil.

 

[sopwith21]

I wouldn't switch. Any man who said we need to pay blacks for the sins of people who died long ago is a baffoon and ought not get elected for Dog catcher.

No argument there. Still, he remains a better choice than Giuliani or Romney... but then, so is your average large mouth bass.

 

[S†ephen]

Wow thanks Stephen Dale. You have just given me the clear evidence I need to NEVER support Ron Paul. I am not sure you really understand the information contained within those statements and how they prove Ron Paul is not totally pro-life. He would not even condemn partial birth abortion fully, making an exception EVEN for that wicked practice Wow, how dispicable Ron Paul is. So it's ok when the mother's life is in danger to go in and murder the partially born baby?

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

 

[sopwith21]

There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred. - Ron Paul

Excellent post - one of hundreds available from Ron Paul saying the same thing.

However, anyone who wanted the truth knew long ago that Ron Paul opposes euthanasia. Anyone who wanted the truth knew long ago that Ron Paul firmly opposes abortion. Anyone who wanted the truth knew long ago that insistence on federal quick-fixes is precisely why we have national abortion on demand today and have miserably failed to stop it for 35 years.

The question is not what truth is... we all already know that. The question is whether the American church has the will to accept it, act on it, and quit stabbing in the back the very man who will support our agenda.

As long as men like Bob Enyart are in the pulpit, I'm not taking any bets. 35 years from now our impotent churches will still be decrying the evils of national abortion, maliciously attacking anyone who doesn't oppose it in the precise manner that they demand, and trashing the reputations of the only people who could help them stop it.

Christians who think that God will ignore this need to re-read their bible.

 

[PKevman]

No. You would reject it because it does not support your position. If you cannot refute the information you will question the source. If the source is solid you will dismiss it as an isolated incident.

So in other words you refuse to give up your source for these wild claims of casualities in the war in Iraq, and for the supposed 30,000 deaths we have never heard of that occur each year, that only you have heard of.

Gotcha.

So as was already pointed out several times now, don't make the wild claims if you aren't ready to back them up. It's poor debate tactics. I could give you tons of stuff that I CLAIM is true and show you no sources and give no evidence for the claims I make, and where would we get?

So communication goes out the window. I take your continued refusal as an indication that the sources are in no way objective or unbiased.

I asked very simply for the sources of your information because I am more than willing to verify the information to see if it's valid. Instead you keep dancing around and accusing me of any number of inane things.

No one can convince you of anything, Kevin. The only one who can change your mind is you. I am simply telling you that there is much, much more to the story than what you know. The rest is up to you

This is particularly untrue in all respects. God has changed my mind about stuff lots of times. So have good friends and mentors who have shown me how positions I held for years were wrong. If you don't want to share the sources of your wild claims, then fine, but don't falsely accuse me in the process of being close minded for asking for them, because that is a very irresponsible way to debate or discuss anything. Not to mention immature. I expect better from you, I really do.

 

[PKevman]

Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

Next time do the research yourself, think before you post such blatant stupidity, and apologize publicly for it.

What evidence do you have that these 12 states will unquestionably make abortion illegal if Ron Paul is elected to President?

 

[elected4ever]

What evidence do you have that these 12 states will unquestionably make abortion illegal if Ron Paul is elected to President?

Had you rather have 50 states forced to make abortion legal?

 

[PKevman]

No there has only been hypothetical fear mongering along the lines of "what if a state legalizes abortion?" which I and others have pointed out is irrelevant in our 100% legalized federal mandate that we currently accept. How dare we propose that States actually be allowed to consider outlawing abortion.
Yet somehow it makes sense to some to keep this power in the federal government's hands.

NO. It makes sense to have ONE national law on this subject: DO NOT MURDER!

That has been the consistent proposition I have put forth throughout this thread.

You claimed that you are all for it, and to sign you up. But you aren't willing to back the one candidate who has made it plain that abolishing abortion nationwide is one of his highest and most important goals as president.

Instead you back a whack-job that wants to allow every state the individual right to choose whether "Do not murder" is binding for them or not.

No there has only been hypothetical fear mongering along the lines of "what if a state legalizes abortion?"

Abortion is legal NOW, so we never said, "What if a state legalizes abortion". That would be like saying, "What if that guy with Black shoes puts on Black shoes"!

We said "What would RON PAUL DO if a state refused to ban abortion." We're still waiting for the clear answer.

 

[PKevman]

Had you rather have 50 states forced to make abortion legal?

No we would rather have "Do not murder" be the law for every state and every territory that wants to be a part of the United States of America.

That is the unwavering, unbending position.

 

[PKevman]

Had you rather have 50 states forced to make abortion legal?

And my question is a fair one. Stephen Dale claims that if Ron Paul is elected it would lead to the 12 states he mentioned outlawing abortion. I'm asking for what evidence there is that these 12 states would even do so. Instead of being in this thread just to bicker with me, why not read what is said?

 

[PKevman]

Oh they know. Pastor and the rest of them don't like the Constitution. It is garbage. That's why Keyes is attractive to them. To do away with it in principle. Keyes thinks we belong in the Middle East. Keyes thinks we should give Isreal billions of dollars. Keyes believes regime change at our whim is a good thing. Keyes believes we as a government should pay (reparations) blacks for our misdeeds of the past. The only reason Keyes does not like the UN right now is because we don't run the show. But you can bet your bottom dollar he likes the fact we are the world's policeman. Keyes no doubt is a one worlder, just he has a different perspective as to how the world should be run. And who should run it.

I believe the Bible is infinitely superior to the constitution of the United States. But that doesn't mean that I don't "Like the constitution". But where the Constitution and the Bible differ, I'm gonna go with the Bible. Won't you?

 

[PKevman]

Had you rather have 50 states forced to make abortion legal?

Good grief, I just cannot get over this. Abortion is already legal.

 

[PKevman]

Because his answer was he would rather blow his vote than vote Ron Paul and at least do something about abortion. In other words he would let all the children in the 12 states listed die before he would vote for Ron Paul. That blatant support of murder is unchristian in every sense. We may not get all 50 at once but we have to at least start somewhere.

The best place to "start" would be with the candidate who is ready and willing to make it illegal everywhere in the USA.

 

[PKevman]

Without a complete investigation of the travel plans of females crossing state lines, how will you know who to prosecute? Or do you support check points at every border to examine the ID of females to see how old they are? And if they are minors, you'd have to have instant pregnancy tests for each female at each checkpoint, and if a minor female does turn up pregnant, then you have to prove "intent" (i.e., you have to read minds) to demonstrate their criminality.

The law is ridiculous, unenforceable and an encroachment upon freedom. If we're going to outlaw abortion, then let's outlaw abortion... not create layer upon layer of redundant, unnecessary, liberty-destroying bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing.

I agree, let's outlaw abortion completely by supporting, voting for, and electing candidates who will do just that.

As far as the law being ridiculous, unenforceable, yada yada....it's quite simple. Minors should not be allowed to cross state lines away from their parents knowledge and have abortions. It's a law that is dealing with the here and now of abortion being legal. To strike even that law down shows a lot about Ron Paul's position. Think about this: When RON PAUL voted down that bill, did he have a prayer of a chance of changing the political structure in the way that you hope he will as president? NO! He was realistically years away from even becoming president, assuming he would win. This makes his voting down that bill extremely suspicious in my opinion.

You can degrade me for disagreeing with you all you like, but that is the my opinion of Ron Paul and I haven't seen jack to make me change that opinion.

 

[elected4ever]

And my question is a fair one. Stephen Dale claims that if Ron Paul is elected it would lead to the 12 states he mentioned outlawing abortion. I'm asking for what evidence there is that these 12 states would even do so. Instead of being in this thread just to bicker with me, why not read what is said?

I have read everything that has been posted. I like you would like to outlaw abortion outright. It is the getting from here to there that seems to be the hangup. Unlike murder, abortion is a protection of law for the woman and is not classified as murder. It should be but it is not. We have to deal with what is and not what what we would like it to be. How does supporting a solution that only gets us most of the way to our goal make you or anyone else a supporter of murder? It is not that we will quit the struggle and continue to fight the good fight. It is because we do not support murder that we are here in the first place.

 

[PKevman]

When Alan Keyes wins more straw polls than Ron Paul, raises more campaign money than Ron Paul and passes Ron Paul in the general polls, I'll switch.

So it's more about winning than doing the right thing? :think:

 

[PKevman]

I have read everything that has been posted. I like you would like to outlaw abortion outright. It is the getting from here to there that seems to be the hangup. Unlike murder, abortion is a protection of law for the woman and is not classified as murder. It should be but it is not. We have to deal with what is and not what what we would like it to be. How does supporting a solution that only gets us most of the way to our goal make you or anyone else a supporter of murder? It is not that we will quit the struggle and continue to fight the good fight. It is because we do not support murder that we are here in the first place.

Right, and if you understood Dr. Keyes' position on this issue, you would support him based upon what you have just said above.