Thanks Bob

[S†ephen]

If you saw your neighbor repeatedly beating his 2 year old child with a club, would you be RIGHT to use FORCE to stop him from doing so? Please answer the question without regard to the political issues.

Of Course.

I say this with absolutely no regard to political issues.

 

[PKevman]

Because you and have not anything close to that to each other.



Lighthouse and Bob are the two that first lowered themselves to a name calling standard. I'd assumed you and I would stay above that.

I surely didn't call any names. But I'm still concerned about those anti-government positions. They are what is driving this entire debate. :sigh:

 

[sopwith21]

What proof again do you have that I won't "believe what anyone tells me"?
That's a dumb thing to say, and I'm calling you on it, because it is not a true statement.

Unfortunately it is, and yes, I'm saying it again. You asked for specific quotes from Ron Paul saying that he would support a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion and that he was pro-life. Both were supplied in bucketloads, yet you refuse to believe it and continually claim, "Well, we don't really know what he would do." Yes, you do know and you were given the very evidence that you demanded yet you stubbornly rejected it. There is no point in presenting evidence to you and that became clear very early in this discussion.

Some folks only believe through personal experience. That's not an accusation and there's nothing wrong with it. You are one of those people, and that's okay. But don't continually ask people to do all the work and bring you mountains of the very evidence that you demand only to have it rejected by the person who refused to do it for themselves. You must find truth on your own.

Thanks for the further information. See that wasn't hard.

Apparently it was because you refused to do it.

 

[sopwith21]

But you would rather continue to disparage him by saying he was lying than by admitting that your views could be what is in fact wrong.

Ron Paul is not pro abortion. Bob Enyart said that he is. That is a lie.

 

[PKevman]

Of Course.

I say this with absolutely no regard to political issues.

GREAT! So you see it is not wrong to use force to stop someone from doing something wrong, right?

Ok let me add another part to the equation, again MINUSE the political considerations.

A man rapes and murders a woman. He gets put into jail for 20 years. (I believe that would be a SERIOUSLY lighter sentence than is warranted, but that's not the point).

This rapist and murderer is mowing his lawn when he sees his next door neighbor beating and killing his kid. Is he right to use force to stop his neighbor from beating and killing his 2 year old kid? Even though he's a rapist and a murderer?

 

[PKevman]

Apparently it was because you refused to do it.

Or maybe because with the myriads of opinions and views out there, it helps to know what the exact position being forwarded is based upon, so that the position can be reviewed rightly.

 

[sopwith21]

Continuing to make statements like this are what is wrong. Bob is a friend and a brother, and when you insult him, you insult me.

This is not about insults and its not about you. Bob Enyart said that Ron Paul was pro abortion. That is an untruthful statement. That's what this is about. Do not support lies. If you are a friend of Bob's you have a higher responsibility. If you are any kind of friend to him at all you will not support a lie.

 

[Lighthouse]

You've had all day, so I assume you've already answered most of these questions through your own diligent research and genuine concern over this issue. But rather than nit pick over the precise number of states (it's 17) perhaps we could focus on the greater point that even if we could only save the babies on one state it would be better than what we're doing now.

This bill will not save one single child from being aborted, anymore that the PBA bill did.

You mean the ones who would have abortion either way? Its not like we have a lot to lose here, you know.

Are you serious?!

Ron Paul proposes that we then take up the far more realistic and manageable task of attacking abortion state by state until it is eradicated, at a lower level of government where local churches and individual Christians can exert more influence and pressure.

And we'll have a 17-state head start.

Prove it.

A personal insult from Lighthouse? Boy... we didn't see that one coming.

:baby:

Yes. What have they done to us to justify an act of aggression?

They're killing innocent children, by the millions each year. We went after Saddam for killing innocents, why not Canada?

The bill says it will allow states to ban or restrict abortion. And you said:

Once again, consistency would be nice. Either that or some good wholesome research. (drum roll)

How in the world did what I say contradict what the bill says?

I'm not ignoring that fact son. Keep up a little. And don't involve yourself in things that you haven't fully researched yet. Helps you look less stupid, um, never mind.

Who are you callin' "son," kid?

The purpose of the bill isn't to make a giant federal law to ban abortion, it's to allow the states to ban abortion which (as we both know) they can't do right now.

And most of them aren't gonna, unless we make them.

:baby:

You're callin' me a whiner?

 

[PKevman]

Unfortunately it is, and yes, I'm saying it again.

And that despite the fact that in this very thread I have openly and recently admitted to having some doubts about Keyes due to some of the positions it takes. The evidence doesn't match your accusation against me.

 

[Lighthouse]

Actually, that was me. And I didn't call him a liar; I observed that he spoke a lie in reference to his specific accusations against Ron Paul and libertarians.

Whether or not Bob Enyart is a consistent, pathological liar I do not know. I suppose one could accurately call Enyart a "liar" in the sense of "how many banks do you have to rob before you're a bank robber?" But that really wasn't the point. I still hold out hope that overall, Enyart has some integrity and honesty. The person is far less important than the fact that the lie has been spread and it needs to be corrected, apologies need to be issued, and restitution needs to be made for the damage he has done.

drbrumley has shown you that Bob wasn't lying. In fact, that's what doc started this thread for. Or was your ego blocking your view of those posts?

 

[PKevman]

Ron Paul is not pro abortion. Bob Enyart said that he is. That is a lie.

Bob said and has said that Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state. You should make some effort to understand that position before you repeatedly accuse him of lying.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you don't agree with Lighthouse's debate style, you should just say that.

Just imagine if you hadn't asked me to tone it down.:think:

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse and Bob are the two that first lowered themselves to a name calling standard. I'd assumed you and I would stay above that.

Really? When did Bob call anyone in this thread names? For that matter what have I called you, or your dad, other than "ignorant?"

 

[PKevman]

This is not about insults and its not about you.

And my response was to your son saying he felt insulted by what I had said. What I showed was that the things you are saying about Bob is what is an insult. If you don't hold anti-government views or believe the government spies on your emails and listens to your phone conversations, then say so, and I'll retract that statement. I don't think to say you believe the USA is an imperialistic country bent on controlling the world and that the government spies on your emails and listens to your phone conversations is to be making a false statement about you in the least. Do you agree or not? My point was I believe pigs would fly before you would admit that those views might be wrong. But I would honestly hope I'm wrong.

Bob Enyart said that Ron Paul was pro abortion.

He said Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state. You know that is what he said because you responded to it.

That is an untruthful statement. That's what this is about. Do not support lies.

And my point has been that if YOU are right and BOB is wrong, Bob isn't lying anymore than you are. He just has a different view than you and believes he is right. That's a big difference from knowingly setting out to deceive someone. I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're knowingly trying to deceive anyone. Because I know you are an honest guy. I know Bob's an honest guy too. So stop saying the man is lying and give him a chance by hearing him out. Otherwise you've elevated your political views above that of a relationship with a fellow Brother in Christ, and that is a much graver error than being wrong about something!

If you are a friend of Bob's you have a higher responsibility. If you are any kind of friend to him at all you will not support a lie.

If I believed Bob was lying, I would be sure to say that to him. I would care enough about him to point that out. But I don't think he is in any way lying. I think you should stop accusing him of it.

 

[PKevman]

Just imagine if you hadn't asked me to tone it down.:think:

I didn't want what you were saying to be rejected before it was considered. People sometimes lose what someone is saying when they focus on the way they are saying it.

 

[Lighthouse]

I didn't want what you were saying to be rejected before it was considered. People sometimes lose what someone is saying when they focus on the way they are saying it.

I know. But he's rejecting it anyway.

 

[PKevman]

I know. But he's rejecting it anyway.

In some ways, but Stephen did agree that it's right to use force to stop a man from beating his two year old child to death with a club, and we aren't debating Godless atheists here with no regard to right or wrong.

 

[Granite]

:yawn:

When did this thread turn into a love fest?

 

[PKevman]

:yawn:

When did this thread turn into a love fest?

??? Why would you have a problem with Christian brothers and sisters reasoning together?

 

[Granite]

??? Why would you have a problem with Christian brothers and sisters reasoning together?

Since when do you people reason with each other? Usually you rip one another to shreds. Like you care about reason, Kev. "Truthsmacking" has zero to do with reason and you know it.

Spare me with this sanctimonious "reasoning together" crap.

This thread's a waste of space on your part, anyway. Support yet another globalist. Knock yourself out. Your taste in politicians is as numb as anything else.