Thanks Bob

[drbrumley]

:up:

Cool, I just encourage you not to lose focus on what are the most important issues.

Let's preach the gospel and changes some hearts, that's the best way to bring about change.

It just so happens we have a man running for president who believes that wholeheartedly. He preaches the Word of God openly in politics! That is the #1 reason I support Keyes. I have NEVER heard Ron Paul or any other politician say anything close to the things that Keyes says.

I know a man who stands for truth and righteousness probably won't get elected. But that won't stop me for voting for him.

Will Keyes abolish the FED? NO!

Will Keyes do away with the alphabet soup depts in government? NO!

Will Keyes bring us back to our foundation as a nation? NO!

So his only issue is abortion. I agree with him. And I agree with Ron Paul. Just Paul needs to modify that bill.

 

[Granite]

D2I, or Kevin for that matter, if either of you have something to say to me, have the manners to do so directly. Thanks.

Both of you are missing the point: your situational ethics justify the expansion of federal power because you happen to want a quick solution to a significant problem. And neither of you care or appear to give a hoot in hell, simply because you think greater federal authority will permanently solve this problem. This is the most short sighted wishful thinking I've seen in a while.

 

[Nick M]

Um, the way it was supposed to be. Thats a good start

So the founding father's copy and modification of a reprenentative republic is the ideal government, endorsed by God?

I don't object to living here provided the government is honest, protects our liberties God gave us and all would be good

.

Everybody on the right wants that.

But when I am a slave, as I do now, when they take my money, take my guns, have to see a police state everywhere, then there is a problem. That it shouldn't have to be. (Not an exhaustive list)

And legislatures gave that too you. Just like the collectives of Karl Marx.

But I am thankful to God. That despite the wickedness around me, I have my family and friends. And His protection.

Dividing up power between a legislature and and executive does not stop the expansion of government. In fact, it has little bearing one way or the other. However history has shown the collective in modern history to be the most enslaving. The necessary and proper clause gives Congress almost unlimited authority in that regard.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

You have nothing of value to add to this thread because you're just stirring the pot and trying to cause division over non-essentials.

I addressed the topic way back on page 24 when you said Bob had not lied and others pointed out some of his false statements about Ron Paul. I pointed out a fact that Bob has stated that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist". That is blatantly false, since you don't want it called a "lie". You can say that he didn't lie, but he has stated a falsehood.

Hypocrite. You're slandering Bob when you call him a liar. You will NEVER be able to prove that Bob is a liar because he is a good and honest man. Take another route in your discussion or just shut up, because I'm tired of my friend being accused.

You didn't like it that you got your hat handed to you, so you came on over here thinking you would make some trouble for Bob.

Slander is an untruthful oral statement (lie) about another person. Bob has stated several of these that others have pointed out and the one I pointed out... Bob Enyart has stated that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist". Those are his exact words and you'll find them on his podcast. That is a lie.

And actually I was invited to join the debate and the only "hat handing" that has been done has been by those promoting Ron Paul. The Ron Paul supporters in this thread have provided facts and sources to every bit of reason and God given common sense that they have politely dished out here. Any thinking person can see this for themselves throughout this thread. You want to whine and snivel about defenders of Paul's pro-life stance but you cannot support your claims, just call names and complain when people do the homework for you and hand feed you source links to check out your misinformation. And everything I have said about Bob has been true and I have not tried to misrepresent him at all. I have even agreed with some of what he has put out (like the Partial Birth Abortion ruling information.)
Don't be so angry, just check out the facts.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Wow, I could have swore I was reading Ron Paul

True, I provided a link where Keyes sounds very much like Ron Paul in much of it, especially when it comes to constitutional issues of the States and individual freedoms. Thanks for pointing this out again.

 

[S†ephen]

You should re-read the quote. He never said he supports state choice. He rejoices in the fact that a state actually got to vote on the issue though. Anyone should!

I know, I understand its context. But it still seems a bit hypocritical. You and Alan support state choice when it's against abortion but as soon as they change it around your all no, no we need it all vested in one man.

a man like Hillary

Did she have a surgery I don't know about. JK :chuckle:

Jesus said:But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27

What happens when those enemies are in office and we can't do anything about it?

We can do something about it when power is vested in small states instead of the Federal branch.

The point is and has been that my vote, my influence, my voice, and my citizenship are HERE. This is where I stand the greatest chance of making something happen, NOT in China. Sure if I believed the Lord wanted me to go to China and fight for the unborn there and preach the Gospel, I would.

Ron Paul doesn't stand a super great chance at the presidency, neither does Alan Keys. It may not be their greatest chance of making something happen but they are trying. Have you even looked in to doing something in China? Until then you are pro choice country by country and your argument against it will be utterly annihilated.

 

[PKevman]

Hey Stephen Dale, Like the new avatar man! :up:

You forgot the karate gear though.

 

[PKevman]

Bob Enyart has stated that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist". Those are his exact words and you'll find them on his podcast. That is a lie.

Is it in fact a lie? I'd be interested to hear why Bob thinks Paul is a secular humanist. Bob would be pretty careful about attaching that label to someone for no reason.

 

[S†ephen]

Hey Stephen Dale, Like the new avatar man! :up:

You forgot the karate gear though.

HI YA

everybody was kung fu fighting....

 

[PKevman]

I know, I understand its context. But it still seems a bit hypocritical. You and Alan support state choice when it's against abortion but as soon as they change it around your all no, no we need it all vested in one man.

Let's see if we can find some common ground:

Compared to what we have now, I'd love to see the states take a vote before the people and overturn abortion in as many states as would do it.

BUT I don't think that what we have NOW should be the standard. Again, the standard should be no murder, anywhere, no exceptions, PERIOD.

Did she have a surgery I don't know about. JK :chuckle:

Yes Bill is attached to her rear end, so now's she's Billary. :ha: :rotfl: :banana:

:mock: the Clintons
:mock: Hillary

What happens when those enemies are in office and we can't do anything about it?

We stand up and tell them they are doing wrong, and do everything within our power and influence to bring about change. I know you and I aren't far off with what we want to acheive, I just think we have different ideas about how to acheive it.

We can do something about it when power is vested in small states instead of the Federal branch.

Possibly, but possibly not. The model of government is what is wrong, so it will turn out wrong no matter how small or large the population. The people are wicked, and majority rule will not lead to truth and righteousness.

Ron Paul doesn't stand a super great chance at the presidency, neither does Alan Keys.

Agreed.

It may not be their greatest chance of making something happen but they are trying. Have you even looked in to doing something in China? Until then you are pro choice country by country and your argument against it will be utterly annihilated.

Not so fast my young Padowin learner. You cannot declare victory when you've been defeated in principle and have had no real answer for the objection raised against your position.

I'll say again: Do you and I have the same voice, vote, and influence in China that we do here in America?

Secondly, why don't you walk down the street and purchase your groceries at that store in Shanghaii? Cannot see as that question was EVER answered.

 

[drbrumley]

Copy of Post 840

I don't know PK, but you making the bizzare argument that, having just fought a revolution against a highly centralized tyranny, the founders at the constitutional convention supposedly embraced the same kind of tyranny in the form of a highly centralized or national government.

Seems really odd my friend!

 

[PKevman]

HI YA

everybody was kung fu fighting....

I just talked to your aunt on the phone.

 

[PKevman]

Copy of Post 840

I don't know PK, but you making the bizzare argument that, having just fought a revolution against a highly centralized tyranny, the founders at the constitutional convention supposedly embraced the same kind of tyranny in the form of a highly centralized or national government.

Seems really odd my friend!

At what point do you think the government became corrupted against what you feel it shoudl be?

Do you think the definition of a state was much different in 1828 than it is today?

 

[S†ephen]

Let's see if we can find some common ground

No need to find it. We already have it. Which is a major reason I joined this forum.

Compared to what we have now, I'd love to see the states take a vote before the people and overturn abortion in as many states as would do it.

But then you're pro abortion state by state.

We stand up and tell them they are doing wrong, and do everything within our power and influence to bring about change. I know you and I aren't far off with what we want to acheive, I just think we have different ideas about how to acheive it.

But if we can create a system that makes change easier... why wouldn't we do it?

Possibly, but possibly not. The model of government is what is wrong, so it will turn out wrong no matter how small or large the population. The people are wicked, and majority rule will not lead to truth and righteousness.

Well, the people are the ones voting for the president. So that's bound to come out wrong too. Maybe if we put it at state level we can achieve what we want much easier.

 

[S†ephen]

I just talked to your aunt on the phone.

Great lady idn't she?

 

[PKevman]

Great lady idn't she?

Yup. She said she's coming Saturday too.

 

[S†ephen]

Yup. She said she's coming Saturday too.

she'll put yer b**t in the dust.

JK

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[PKevman]

But then you're pro abortion state by state.

And that is why I said the standard we have now is not a good one to go by. The standard SHOULD be no murder, no place, at no time.

 

[S†ephen]

And that is why I said the standard we have now is not a good one to go by. The standard SHOULD be no murder, no place, at no time.

I know. And I agree.

but your statement still makes you pro abortion state by state.

 

[drbrumley]

At what point do you think the government became corrupted against what you feel it should be?

As all governments, they are all corruptible. The Alien and Sedition Act was the beginning, finally they were defeated, and rightfully so....but the idea of a a national power took root and culminated in the Civil War.

Do you think the definition of a state was much different in 1828 than it is today?

A definition of a state is not based on a majority opinion. England, prior to our founding was a state. Just as is Iraq and Iran are states. That has always been the proper definition. It hasn't been till recently a definition of a state has been refitted to mean of the United States (meaning a weaker vessel). That was never to happen in this country, but alas, it did. :sigh: