PDA

View Full Version : Why not Ron Paul?



misfit815
Dec 4th 2007, 03:36 PM
First of all, allow me to issue a few disclaimers:

- I am a baptized Christian and a member at an independent evangelical Christian church.
- I am not a Republican, nor a member of any other political party.
- I have never contributed financially to any political campaign, though I may do so on 12/16/2007, as part of Tea Party 07 (http://www.teaparty07.com/).
- I am an American citizen and a registered voter, and have participated in every even-year election since 1994.

Now, with that out of the way, I am genuinely wondering why mainstream Christianity is not in support of Rep. Paul for President. It hasn't made the headlines that some other Christian-related political news has, but seems to be an unexplained byline in a lot of mainstream media stories. In opposition to this I offer the following facts:

- Rep. Paul is a Baptist (http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=15).
- He and wife celebrated their golden anniversary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Family) on February 1st.
- He is clearly a "pro-life" candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Pro-life_legislation).
- Although he is in favor of stem cell research, Rep. Paul opposes federal legislation that would support it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Stem-cell_research_regulation).
- Unlike some other candidates, he has shown fiscal responsibility (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp).
- He has voted repeatedly against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation _legislation) legislation that favors same-sex relationships.


So... why do I continue to see news like this:

- A July 2007 Gallup poll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Polling) contrasting support of Paul with church attendance.
- Pat Robertson's endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/us/politics/08repubs.html?em&ex=1194670800&en=ee52492c90825ef2&ei=5087%0A) of Rudy Giuliani.
- Bob Jones III's endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/us/politics/08repubs.html?em&ex=1194670800&en=ee52492c90825ef2&ei=5087%0A) of Mitt Romney.
- Meanwhile, endorsements for Rep. Paul from groups like white supremacists (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=404) and a brothel owner (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312872,00.html) are making headlines (because, you know, that's what Fox considers news).

Why aren't Christians getting behind this guy? Yeah, I'm obviously in support of him, but it's an honest question, and I'm open to honest answers. It's something I'm genuinely wondering about.

J

Ayala
Dec 4th 2007, 03:50 PM
I'm not against Ron. He's definitely more ideal to me than alot of the other candidates. I simply stand behind Huckabee because his positions most closely resemble my own. If Ron Paul won the primaries, I would definitely vote for him though.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 4th 2007, 03:57 PM
Ron Paul seems to be the Internet poster boy. I agree with much of what he says but when it comes to foreign policy well I do not totally agree. I too would support him if he gets nominated.

Matthew 12:21
Dec 4th 2007, 04:32 PM
I've often wondered the same thing misfit. Proud Ron Paul supporter here. :saint:

Welcome to the forums, by the way! Glad to have you here.

Huck
Dec 4th 2007, 04:32 PM
Ron Paul is a total bonehead on terrorism. On everything else he gets an A-plus though. Its sad, if Bush somehow gets our troops out of Iraq before the primaries I'd vote for him.

diffangle
Dec 4th 2007, 04:41 PM
He's got my vote. :)

Follow_Me_Infantry
Dec 4th 2007, 05:46 PM
I am voting for Ron Paul. He's the best candidate in some time.

I haven't heard any Christian groups denying him, he has full NRA support, and he sticks to his issues.

HisBlood
Dec 4th 2007, 09:14 PM
I won't vote for him in the primaries because he has such bad ideas about terrorism and the war. He's great in every other area (at least on paper), but he fails miserably in this one.

Matthew 12:21
Dec 4th 2007, 09:16 PM
I won't vote for him in the primaries because he has such bad ideas about terrorism and the war. He's great in every other area (at least on paper), but he fails miserably in this one.

How so? You said something similar in a different Ron Paul thread I believe, and I was wondering what you meant by it?

chivalrous
Dec 4th 2007, 10:24 PM
Ron Paul has my vote too.

HisBlood
Dec 5th 2007, 01:06 AM
How so? You said something similar in a different Ron Paul thread I believe, and I was wondering what you meant by it?

Did you ask me that in the other thread? I'm sorry if I didn't answer you. I had forgotten I posted about this in a different thread.

Without getting into a political and policy debate, I personally don't like his policy of pulling out of Iraq and becoming essentially isolationists. I don't think now is quite the time to be changing our minds.

Matthew 12:21
Dec 5th 2007, 01:42 AM
Did you ask me that in the other thread? I'm sorry if I didn't answer you. I had forgotten I posted about this in a different thread.

Without getting into a political and policy debate, I personally don't like his policy of pulling out of Iraq and becoming essentially isolationists. I don't think now is quite the time to be changing our minds.

Oh, no worries! I didn't ask you before. I just thought to ask now. :lol:
I understand your viewpoint. He's actually been asked about that alot in interviews and debates. His response is that he isn't an isolationist, but he believes that we shouldn't be involved in "entangling alliances" and that we shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. That's the Constitutional position.

:D

HisBlood
Dec 5th 2007, 02:41 AM
Oh, no worries! I didn't ask you before. I just thought to ask now. :lol:
I understand your viewpoint. He's actually been asked about that alot in interviews and debates. His response is that he isn't an isolationist, but he believes that we shouldn't be involved in "entangling alliances" and that we shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. That's the Constitutional position.

:D

Eh, still don't agree with it. :cool:

Fenris
Dec 5th 2007, 02:18 PM
He's kooky.
9/11 'truthers', conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and assorted other strange groups like him. That fact alone makes me quite nervous.

chivalrous
Dec 5th 2007, 02:25 PM
No they are kooky.

Dr. Ron Paul is not.
He has delivered many babies.
He has written many books.

diffangle
Dec 5th 2007, 02:31 PM
He's kooky.
9/11 'truthers', conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and assorted other strange groups like him. That fact alone makes me quite nervous.
How is he kooky?

Fenris
Dec 5th 2007, 03:14 PM
He has odd followers. I'm not saying he endorses their views, but he doesn't speak out against them either.

diffangle
Dec 5th 2007, 03:27 PM
He has odd followers. I'm not saying he endorses their views, but he doesn't speak out against them either.
Yeah and Bush's grandpappy helped finance Hitler. At least Paul isn't supporting his followers.

Fenris
Dec 5th 2007, 03:34 PM
I don't hold a person responsible for what their grandfather may have done. On the other hand, when a white supremacist group gives money to a candidate that gets my attention.

Matthew 12:21
Dec 5th 2007, 11:53 PM
I don't hold a person responsible for what their grandfather may have done. On the other hand, when a white supremacist group gives money to a candidate that gets my attention.

They donate to him because he will protect their right of free speech. That doesn't make what they say "right", and it also doesn't mean that we should toss out freedom of speech because certain people use it to spread hate.

matthew94
Dec 6th 2007, 05:37 AM
I support Ron Paul.

I also agree with his view of non-interventionists (he's not an isolationist). On domestic policy, he is just about perfect. The only problem is that he's so idealistic on small government that I doubt congress would support him on anything.

Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 01:34 PM
They donate to him because he will protect their right of free speech. That doesn't make what they say "right", and it also doesn't mean that we should toss out freedom of speech because certain people use it to spread hate.Is there a candidate running that doesn't support their right to free speech?

Why do they donate to him and not the others?

diffangle
Dec 6th 2007, 02:14 PM
Is there a candidate running that doesn't support their right to free speech?

Why do they donate to him and not the others?
I guess that depends on what the other canidates think about things like the unpatriotic Patriot Act, Hate speech laws, and such which are chipping away at our liberty's. Paul is oppossed to those things.

Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 02:36 PM
I guess that depends on what the other canidates think about things like the unpatriotic Patriot Act, Hate speech laws, and such which are chipping away at our liberty's. Paul is oppossed to those things.There are no hate speech laws. Every Democrat running is opposed to the Patriot Act.

diffangle
Dec 6th 2007, 02:57 PM
There are no hate speech laws.
Hate speech laws are rearing their ugly head in this country, sadly we're probably not too far from it being a Federal law... "they're" working on it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54260

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6458/CFI/family/index.htm

http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/hatelaw.asp



Every Democrat running is opposed to the Patriot Act.

As every Republican canidate should be. ;)

Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 03:05 PM
Hate speech laws are rearing their ugly head in this country, sadly we're probably not too far from it being a Federal law... "they're" working on it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54260

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6458/CFI/family/index.htm

http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/hatelaw.asp
We have a little thing called the 'First Ammendement' here. It means we are allowed to say unpopular or even offensive things.




As every Republican canidate should be. ;)Having had a front-row seat on 9/11, I have to state that anything that makes another such event more difficult to pull off is a good thing.

diffangle
Dec 6th 2007, 03:18 PM
We have a little thing called the 'First Ammendement' here. It means we are allowed to say unpopular or even offensive things.

Did you check out any of the links I provided?



Having had a front-row seat on 9/11, I have to state that anything that makes another such event more difficult to pull off is a good thing.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 03:21 PM
Did you check out any of the links I provided?Yes, and I don't see it happening.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin FranklinUh huh. And tell me, what 'essential liberty' have you given up?

diffangle
Dec 6th 2007, 04:07 PM
[quote=Fenris;1462991]Yes, and I don't see it happening.
I wonder if other countries like Canada or the UK didn't see it happening either. Considering things like the Patriot Act, Arnold signing the bill in Cali, the Philly event, and the push from people like Ted Kennedy to pass the bill (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702)through, sadly I believe it's more of a reality than you might think.


Uh huh. And tell me, what 'essential liberty' have you given up?
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf

Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 04:31 PM
[quote]
I wonder if other countries like Canada or the UK didn't see it happening either. Those countries do not have legal protection to free speech like we do.



http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdfIt's one thing to claim that such rights are being violated, and quite another to prove it. Since we do not have any individuals successfully arguing a case before the Supreme Court about 'rights lost under the Patriot Act', there do not in fact appear to be any such rights lost.

diffangle
Dec 6th 2007, 04:53 PM
[quote=diffangle;1463054]Those countries do not have legal protection to free speech like we do.
Fen, it's already happening in this country.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702


However, WND columnist Janet Folger (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56701) wrote the idea of arresting people for stating their religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong is no longer something that "may" happen in the future.

"Here's the Cliff Notes of what so called 'hate crime' legislation has already done IN AMERICA," she wrote. "This is no longer up for debate. Here are the facts."

Madison, Wisconsin. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a "hate crime" for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousand dollars in legal fees later, [he] was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.
St. Petersburg, Florida. Five Christians including two pastors were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated "free speech zone."
Elmira, New York. The Elmira police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started.
Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16 year old girls are facing felony "hate crime" charges for the content of their flyers.Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.

It's one thing to claim that such rights are being violated, and quite another to prove it. Since we do not have any individuals successfully arguing a case before the Supreme Court about 'rights lost under the Patriot Act', there do not in fact appear to be any such rights lost.

Hitler didn't rise to power over night, it's awefully eerie how his Enabling Act was much like our Patriot Act.

Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 05:24 PM
Fen, it's already happening in this country.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702)

OK, let's dissect this:
The Kennedy plan, which earlier was introduced as separate legislation, would classify gender and sexual orientation as specially protected classes of people under federal law.
Under current federal law, specifically Title VII of the civil rights act of 1967, race, religion, gender, and ethnicity are already protected classes. Kennedy wants to add sexual orientation to that list.

Opponents say it would require law enforcement personnel to become "thought police" to determine whether a crime already addressed by existing law could be prosecuted under an enhanced standard of "hate crime."

Opponents of the bill may say whatever they like. That does not make it so. Since at this point in time crimes committed against the groups I listed above does not turn cops into 'thought police', I do not see why adding a new category will.



Madison, Wisconsin. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a "hate crime" for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousand dollars in legal fees later, [he] was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.He was eventually charged with harassment for accosting someone with a pro-gay bumper sticker on their car. Who was being intolerant again?

St. Petersburg, Florida. Five Christians including two pastors were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated "free speech zone."I have seen this happen at rallies. If the police give you a fenced area to remain in, please remain there. For the sake of public order if nothing else.
Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16 year old girls are facing felony "hate crime" charges for the content of their flyers.Philadelphia,http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Crystal.Lake.anti.2.337026.html

"Crystal Lake South juniors Ryan Diamond and Crystal Erdman said the fliers stemmed from a recent dispute between one of the girls who was arrested and one of the boys who was pictured." and "This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state Legislature was directing the law against," Bianchi said. "This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity."

So they had a fight and decided to get even. No high moral cause, just revenge.

Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.I found the actual indictment online:

The charges filed against Petitioners arose out of their alleged actions in the nature of “fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, making unreasonable noise with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ,by protesting a gay/lesbian block party, using bullhorns, and yelling offensive messages, thereby obstructing traffic."

Do you seriously want action like that to be legal?


Hitler didn't rise to power over night, it's awefully eerie how his Enabling Act was much like our Patriot Act.Sigh. Why do you have to go down this road? The enabling act was nothing like the patriot act.
Was Bush forced to run for reelection in 2004? Will he no longer be president after our next election?

Fenris
Dec 6th 2007, 05:30 PM
I can't find any information at all about the Elmira incident.:confused

diffangle
Dec 7th 2007, 05:41 PM
Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America...

http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

Steve M
Dec 7th 2007, 05:49 PM
All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

Oh, gosh....

Well, there you have it. If those folks there are concerned....

Actually, if you want to see something mainstream on this, Slate magazine (yes, I am a reader, as a matter of fact! They report on Hollywood in exactly the ironic detached way I love) had this to say;

http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/

Please note this paragraph;

"I am not yet willing to panic about Harman's "thought crimes" bill, because as drafted, it does no more than explore whether those thought crimes are a problem. It doesn't create new crimes, although that is presumably the next step. I don't much care for the idea of roving commissions with subpoena power skipping around the country trying to stamp out "radical" ideas on the Internet. But as expensive threats to free speech go, I'll take a time-limited commission over a bill that criminalizes speech. Maybe I'm being shortsighted, but then the Democrats in Congress have taught me to keep my expectations very low. Today, therefore, I am profoundly grateful that instead of criminalizing protected speech outright, Democrats merely form a commission that will do a study, which will in turn christen a Drive-Thru Center for Excellence, where they will someday consider criminalizing protected free speech."

Fenris
Dec 7th 2007, 07:07 PM
Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America...

http://www.newstarget.com/022308.htmlC'mon, this is more anti-establishment hysteria.


The bill states:

‘...ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs...
That is pretty much the definition of terrorism. The next line is the whopper:


Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:

• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agencyNo, force means the use of violence. All his definitions here are rights under the first ammendement. If anyone tries to prohibit them based on some bill they're going to end up on the receiving end of a lawsuit.



The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties.I keep hearing this but the reality if the situation simply does not bear this out.

Steve M
Dec 7th 2007, 07:23 PM
I keep hearing this but the reality if the situation simply does not bear this out.

Too true. The most this bill would do is form a committee to talk about... gasp! TALK ABOUT! Terrorism.

Semi-tortured
Dec 11th 2007, 10:37 PM
Ron Paul FTW! :pp

Matthew 12:21
Dec 12th 2007, 04:15 AM
Ron Paul Tea Party '07 takes place this Sunday, December 16th, on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. We're trying to raise 10 million dollars for Ron Paul in honor of the occasion.

The Ron Paul blimp will also be in the air by then. :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCWhn2o0RIY

Cool huh?

GraceAbounds
Dec 13th 2007, 05:47 AM
I don't agree with Ron Paul's stance on the war in Iraq or his stance on health care. Other than those two items I think he is right on target with so many of the other issues. Unfortunately for Ron, Iraq and health care are big issues with me and he probably won't get my vote. Who knows? It is still early.

misfit815
Jan 16th 2008, 08:29 PM
Wow... I finally hit the 50-post mark, and can finally see what my question wrought, and I'm impressed.

People don't like him because of his position on Iraq? I'm dumbfounded. I would love to have someone who takes this position justify it to me, because I just don't get it.

He won't speak out against some of the kooky people following him? That's not him... and I'd suggest that it isn't Christian, either. Have you seen a negative ad from his campaign? Have you seen him on FactCheck.org? The man's a living testimony to Mom's old adage, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." And as far as him keeping the money from some of those kooks? Well, better than the pandering you get from the other candidates. "I'd rather use that money to support what I stand for than give it back to them and let them use it to support what they stand for," is pretty much what he said about it.

And health care? Believe it or not, the free market *does* work. It's protectionism and catering to special interests and all that which has us in the health care bind that we're in now. The problem is that the economy is the #1 issue for most voters, while most voters don't know the first thing about the economy. And the result (well, one of many) is that we have lousy health care.

So, help me out here. What's really wrong with him?

J

teddyv
Jan 16th 2008, 08:59 PM
...snip...He won't speak out against some of the kooky people following him? That's not him... and I'd suggest that it isn't Christian, either. Have you seen a negative ad from his campaign? Have you seen him on FactCheck.org? The man's a living testimony to Mom's old adage, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." And as far as him keeping the money from some of those kooks? Well, better than the pandering you get from the other candidates. "I'd rather use that money to support what I stand for than give it back to them and let them use it to support what they stand for," is pretty much what he said about it.

That's an nice sentiment, but in politics perception is everything. Accepting money from white supremacists could be considered tacit support of them by some, even though I'm sure he doesn't agree at all. He should just return the money with a "thanks, but no thanks".

Fenris
Jan 16th 2008, 09:17 PM
Ron just ain't happening, guys.

BlessedMan
Jan 16th 2008, 11:13 PM
Ron Paul lacks credentials mostly. If he wants to lead let him do it the right way, become a Republican first. Stop knocking yur head against a wall kid, it is giving me a headache.

diffangle
Jan 16th 2008, 11:16 PM
Ron just ain't happening, guys.
He's happening on my ballot. ;) :D

diffangle
Jan 16th 2008, 11:19 PM
Ron Paul lacks credentials mostly. If he wants to lead let him do it the right way, become a Republican first. Stop knocking yur head against a wall kid, it is giving me a headache.
He stands for old fashioned Republican values... none of this neo-
con "Republican values" that the other's stand for... he's more Republican than they are.

theabaud
Jan 16th 2008, 11:42 PM
He stands for old fashioned Republican values... none of this neo-
con "Republican values" that the other's stand for... he's more Republican than they are.
IMO, this is not true. Ron Paul's core values are basically the same as every other Republican, but the rest of the party is living in a reality where there are democrats. Our stance does not exist in a vaccuum and we can' just turn back the clock on 50 years of social reforms that have bitten us in the rear overnight and you can't abandon your allies in the field.

Christsfreeservant
Jan 17th 2008, 01:19 PM
Ron Paul has my vote too.

Count me in! Actually, in my quiet times with God these past few years, the Lord has been giving me a lot of insight about our government that I did not previously have, and I've been seeing the USA government, I believe, through God's eyes, as best as anyone can possibly see through God's eyes, that is. And, when I watched the republican candidate debate a week ago or so and I listened to what Ron Paul was saying, it sounded a whole lot like what God was saying, too. I believe Ron Paul has the heart of God on many issues facing not only our nation, but our world today.

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 01:34 PM
He's happening on my ballot. ;) :DThat's good, I encourage you to participate in the electoral process. Don't expect him to get elected though.

I notice you said that "He stands for old fashioned Republican values". He's not for a muscular foreign policy, you know. He thinks if we ignore our enemies, they'll go away. I got the impression that you wanted to take the fight to them.

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 02:01 PM
That's good, I encourage you to participate in the electoral process. Don't expect him to get elected though.

I notice you said that "He stands for old fashioned Republican values". He's not for a muscular foreign policy, you know. He thinks if we ignore our enemies, they'll go away. I got the impression that you wanted to take the fight to them.


Non-intervention is not isolationism. He's promoting respect for other nations' borders, which is an extremely healthy foreign policy - the Golden Rule. We currently have a military budget that exceeds that of all other nations *combined* and it's not doing us any good, because we're perceived globally as a bully.

And as far as not expecting him to get elected... right now, he's got more of a chance than either Giuliani or Thompson (I'm going by raw vote counts so far here). Was it that long ago that either of them was considered a contender? Heck, by some in the MSM, they still are - at Paul's expense.

Y'know, all other things aside, I'd vote for the guy at this point simply to give the established political and media bosses a big 'up yours'. It's in the interest of established power structures to make increasingly insignificant changes to how things are, but it's in the interest of the country's long-term health to give it a good, healthy jolt now and then. That's what Paul represents to some people; a good slap on Washington and Wall Street's backside to show them that keeping the masses docile and complacent doesn't work forever.

J

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 02:14 PM
Non-intervention is not isolationism. He's promoting respect for other nations' borders, which is an extremely healthy foreign policy - the Golden Rule.Why? Other nations don't respect ours. We are dealing with an enemy that is exporting their ideology all over the world. If we don't do the same, we will lose.



We currently have a military budget that exceeds that of all other nations *combined* and it's not doing us any good, because we're perceived globally as a bully.
We are the most low-key superpower the world has ever seen. We give money and protection to many nations that hate us.

Muslims hate us for being too godless and Europeans hate us for being too religious. Whatever they hate, that's what we are. Since I consider our nation more benevolent than theirs, I'm not really inclined to care what they think of us.


And as far as not expecting him to get elected... right now, he's got more of a chance than either Giuliani or Thompson (I'm going by raw vote counts so far here). Was it that long ago that either of them was considered a contender? Heck, by some in the MSM, they still are - at Paul's expense.That may well be. But McCain or Romney trounce him easily.


Y'know, all other things aside, I'd vote for the guy at this point simply to give the established political and media bosses a big 'up yours'. It's in the interest of established power structures to make increasingly insignificant changes to how things are, but it's in the interest of the country's long-term health to give it a good, healthy jolt now and then. That's what Paul represents to some people; a good slap on Washington and Wall Street's backside to show them that keeping the masses docile and complacent doesn't work forever.I don't entirely disagree with you here. If Paul's foreign policy were more in line with mine, and if he were (less face it) a little less kooky, I might consider him myself for the very reasons you just listed. But as things stand they're insurmountable obstacles for me. And most other voters, apparently.

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 02:43 PM
Muslims hate us for being too godless and Europeans hate us for being too religious. Whatever they hate, that's what we are. Since I consider our nation more benevolent than theirs, I'm not really inclined to care what they think of us.

Actually, it's the crazies at the top of the food chain that hate us for being too godless. Then, when we invade their country, try to force our values down their throat, and torture and incarcerate their people, those crazies use that as fodder to gain recruits. Those people at the lower levels (those that aren't swayed by the virgins-at-death argument, anyway, which is another societal problem entirely), are going to join their cause for that reason - because we're over there. The CIA's term for this is "blowback".

So if we want others to respect our borders, we need to respect theirs. Additionally, that kind of foreign policy has all sorts of other benefits... fewer KIA's, *much* lower defense budget, more resources to be used internally, better morale in the military... Nevermind the fact that the President is not allowed to go to war without a declaration from Congress...

This is fun. Please respond, Fenris.

J

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 02:54 PM
Actually, it's the crazies at the top of the food chain that hate us for being too godless. No, the crazies at all levels of the food chain hate us. :lol:


Then, when we invade their country, try to force our values down their throat, and torture and incarcerate their people, those crazies use that as fodder to gain recruits. Those people at the lower levels (those that aren't swayed by the virgins-at-death argument, anyway, which is another societal problem entirely), are going to join their cause for that reason - because we're over there. The CIA's term for this is "blowback".The blowback will occur whether we invade or not. They hate us for who we are, not what we do. It's funny that terrorist groups claim to hate us for enslaving Muslims, when Muslim leaders do far worse to their own people. Why doesn't Osama hate Saddam for murdering a million Muslims?


So if we want others to respect our borders, we need to respect theirs.They don't respect our borders and nothing we do will change that.


Additionally, that kind of foreign policy has all sorts of other benefits... fewer KIA's, *much* lower defense budget, more resources to be used internally, better morale in the military...And it will be perceived by our enemies that we are running in fear. There's an old arab saying: "A falling camel attracts many knives." Try not to be the falling camel.;)


Nevermind the fact that the President is not allowed to go to war without a declaration from Congress...Which they gave.

diffangle
Jan 17th 2008, 03:18 PM
That's good, I encourage you to participate in the electoral process. Don't expect him to get elected though.

I notice you said that "He stands for old fashioned Republican values". He's not for a muscular foreign policy, you know. He thinks if we ignore our enemies, they'll go away. I got the impression that you wanted to take the fight to them.
As Misfit explained, non-intervention is not isolationism. Are you aware that he supported going into Afghanistan? Just not Iraq who didn't do anything to us and did not have wmd's... yeah he's pretty kooky. :rolleyes:

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 03:23 PM
First, I apologize about the declaration of war thing. I believe that 107-243 violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution because it places the ability to declare war in the hands of the President (despite the language in Section 3c.) And I believe that the decision in Doe v. Bush didn't adequately address that issue. Nonetheless, it's law until struck down. Point for you.

Second, as far as blowback is concerned, I suggest you familiarize yourself with this article (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson). We built up a massive military-industrial complex to win the Cold War, and then used every justification we could to maintain it once the Wall came down. That imperial mentality has swelled the ranks of those who want to bring us down. As I've heard Paul ask, how would you feel if China put soldiers on our soil to protect its interests?

J

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 03:24 PM
As Misfit explained, non-intervention is not isolationism. Are you aware that he supported going into Afghanistan? Pretty much everyone supported that. It's not a factor.


Just not Iraq who didn't do anything to us and did not have wmd's...
I saw Iraq as necessary.

In the post- 9/11 world, Saddam playing games with the UN weapons inspectors was no longer amusing, it was terrifying. You see, Osama did more than knock down two buildings and kill 3000 people. He showed the world what is possible. He demonstrated what a few people could do. His actions put all sorts of foolish ideas into the heads of antisocial dictators, men who hate us and all that we stand for, who must have been reasoning, "If 19 guys could do that much damage to the US, imagine what I could do with an entire country behind me."

And after all that, Saddam acted guilty on the WMD charge. He built them in the past and he used them in the past. And he acted like he was hiding something. He had to go.

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 03:26 PM
Second, as far as blowback is concerned, I suggest you familiarize yourself with this article (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson). We built up a massive military-industrial complex to win the Cold War, and then used every justification we could to maintain it once the Wall came down. That imperial mentality has swelled the ranks of those who want to bring us down. As I've heard Paul ask, how would you feel if China put soldiers on our soil to protect its interests?

JUm, what 'imperial mentality'?

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 03:32 PM
I saw Iraq as necessary.

I would wager that you believe that the end justifies the means. If that is the case, then I'd like to start a new discussion in a more theological-oriented forum. If it's not the case, then could you enlighten me? Your part in our discussion so far seems to support that belief.

By the way, this may sound like flame-bait, but I assure you that it's not. I believe that this philosophical question is the chasm between a large number of those who support Ron Paul and those who do have examined him, yet do not support him. I'd like to explore that theory a bit.

J

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 03:39 PM
Um, what 'imperial mentality'?

Oh, nothing, really. Just this:

www.ramstein.af.mil www.98asg.wuerzburg.army.mil www.98asg.wuerzburg.army.mil www.98asg.wuerzburg.army.mil/417/417.htm www.ansbach.army. mil/ www.armygermany.com www.asuswa.com/ www.atsugi.navy.mil/ www.aviano.af.mil/ www.bamberg.army.mil www.baumholder.army.mil www.buchanan.army.mil www.cfas.navy.mil www.cnauk.navy.mil www.gtmo.net www.hqusareur.army.mil www.incirlik.af.mil www.iwakuni.usmc.mil www.kadena.af.mil www.kunsan.af.mil/ www.lajes.af.mil/default.htm www.lakenheath.af.mil/ www.livorno.army.mil/ www.mcbbutler.usmc.mil www.mildenhall.af.mil www.mildenhall.af.mil/ www.misawa.af.mil www.moronaf.mil www.naples.navy.mil www.naples.navy.mil www.naples.navy.mil/gaetansa www.nctsdg.navy.mil www.nctsfe.navy.mil www.nctsguam.navy.mil www.nctskef.navy.mil/nas/ www.nctspr.navy.mil www.nsgass.navy.mil www.osan.af.mil/ www.rota.navy.mil www.sanvito.af.mil www.schweinfurt.army mil www.setaf.army.mil www.sicily.navy.mil/ncts/index.htm www.spangdahlem.af.mil www.thule.af.mil/ www.usfk.mil www.usfk.mil www.vilseck.army.mil www.yokota.af.mil www.zama.army.mil

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 03:44 PM
I would wager that you believe that the end justifies the means. If that is the case, then I'd like to start a new discussion in a more theological-oriented forum. If it's not the case, then could you enlighten me? Your part in our discussion so far seems to support that belief.
The end justifies the means? Hmm. No, I think that we have to pursue a just end through just means. I felt that removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do and using military force was the right (and only!) way to do it.

I don't have unrestricted posting access here because I am not Christian. So if you want to move the discussion to another forum, be aware I can only post here and in 'Controversial issues'.




By the way, this may sound like flame-bait, but I assure you that it's not. I believe that this philosophical question is the chasm between a large number of those who support Ron Paul and those who do have examined him, yet do not support him. I'd like to explore that theory a bit.

J
Feel free to expound upon it.

diffangle
Jan 17th 2008, 03:44 PM
Pretty much everyone supported that. It's not a factor.


Ron Paul doesn't go by what "everyone" supports if he thinks it's wrong and/or un-Constitutional... but my point is that he's not this isolationist that the media tries to make him out to be. He's for justified war.

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 03:46 PM
Oh, nothing, really. Just this:
Our army is deployed around the world because these nations want it there. If they asked for us to leave, we would do so tomorrow.

Be honest. This country is the least imperial superpower in the history of the world. If you think that's not so, go read some 19th century history. Then come back and we'll talk.

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 03:47 PM
Ron Paul doesn't go by what "everyone" supports if he thinks it's wrong and/or un-Constitutional... but my point is that he's not this isolationist that the media tries to make him out to be. He's for justified war.So am I. I just find more wars justified than he does. :lol:

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 04:00 PM
Feel free to expound upon it.

Very well. Let's call Bob the "end justifies the means" person, and Tom the "end does *not* justify the means* person. Let me offer a few examples:

1. Saddam Hussein was guilty of a considerable number of atrocities. I don't think this is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not we, as a nation, had a right to invade his country to depose him. We had reasons for doing so, such as the WMD, but these proved to be insignificant, or even non-existent. Bob would dismiss this as inconsequential. In the end, Hussein was removed from power. Tom would argue that the President did not have the right to invade, because Congress gave him carte blanche based on faulty intel, regardless of how nasty Hussein was.

2. The U.S. has engaged in the torture of suspected terrorists. If the intel gained from this torture is useful, then Bob would probably go along with it. To Tom, however, no amount of information would justify waterboarding someone.

3. The U.S. is detaining POW's at Guantanamo indefinitely, without identifying them as either POW's or criminals (instead, calling them 'detainees'), both of which would entitle them to due process and inhibit our ability to continue holding them. Again, if this contributes to our safety by preventing any of them from continuing acts of terrorism against us, Bob sees it as fitting. Tom, on the other hand, would not stand for the violation of their rights of due process.

If you are of Bob's mindset, then I would find it difficult to justify to you Tom's positions, which should align fairly well with those of Dr. Paul. Conversely, if you believe that the end does *not* justify the means, then the actions of our country in the war on terrorism should revolt you.

Ironically, I'm reassured to hear that you don't identify yourself as a Christian, and it relates to my request to move this to another forum. I firmly believe that anyone who professes to be a Christian would not be able to also, well... to be Bob.

Which is why I started this thread in the first place. While Huckabee is getting the bulk of the "Christian conservative" vote, I believe that his policies fit Bob's personality better. And, being both a Christian and obviously a Tom, I wondered why Christians aren't heading en masse for Paul's camp.

Clear as mud?

J

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 04:21 PM
J, just because one supports waterboarding of terrorists or invading what is perceived as a dangerous regime, does not mean that they believe the end justifies the means. For example, let's pretend that we knew with 100% certainty that Osama was in Islamabad, although his exact location is unknown. If I truly believed that 'the end justifies the means', then a nuke on that city would solve the problem nicely: Osama will be killed. But killing millions of civilians to get at one combatant is not a just method.

In each of your above examples I believe that what was done/is being done IS just.

So it's not as clear cut as you draw it.

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 04:37 PM
Good point. I'll admit that it's a sliding scale. I would assume, then, that you're closer to one end of the scale, and I am closer to the other.

Question: How many innocents would there need to be in the town for you to bomb it?

J

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 05:34 PM
Question: How many innocents would there need to be in the town for you to bomb it?

J
What are you looking for, an exact number? :lol: I don't know.

If used for a good purpose, even violence can be holy.

misfit815
Jan 17th 2008, 05:44 PM
What are you looking for, an exact number? :lol: I don't know.

If used for a good purpose, even violence can be holy.


Actually, I was. If 1,000,000 is unacceptable, what about 100,000? Or 1,000? Or 1? Where is the line drawn? And why is it drawn there?

Now that I've given it more thought, I think I should rescind an earlier statement. I believe that the end does not justify the means, regardless of the situation. Once again, I would consider that a Christian perspective, and would welcome any challenges to that. I would also consider it the perspective of Dr. Paul, based on his strict adherence to the Constitution as our source of law, among other evidence.

J

Fenris
Jan 17th 2008, 05:53 PM
Actually, I was. If 1,000,000 is unacceptable, what about 100,000? Or 1,000? Or 1? Where is the line drawn? And why is it drawn there?Read Genesis. Specifically, chapter 18. God and Abraham debate about whether God could spare Sodom if it had a suitable number of good people in it. Abraham stops asking at ten. He acknowledges that sometimes the good will be punished with the bad.

On a more pragmatic note, refusing to attack a military objective because of civilian casualties would mean that evil would run amok. I don't think that's an acceptable outcome.


Now that I've given it more thought, I think I should rescind an earlier statement. I believe that the end does not justify the means, regardless of the situation. Once again, I would consider that a Christian perspective, and would welcome any challenges to that.
OK, here's a scenario: You're some person of power in the government. A terrorist is captured, and he is aware of an imminent terrorist attack that will kill millions of civilians. Do you torture him to get the information to stop it?

Or more personally: A criminal has kidnapped a loved one of yours and buried them alive. He refuses to tell you where. Your loved one will soon die due to lack of oxygen. Do you torture him to get the information? Or allow your loved one to die?



I would also consider it the perspective of Dr. Paul, based on his strict adherence to the Constitution as our source of law, among other evidence.

J

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

StevenC
Jan 18th 2008, 03:19 AM
He's kooky.
9/11 'truthers', conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and assorted other strange groups like him. That fact alone makes me quite nervous.

That's just what they want you to think.....



:lol:

StevenC
Jan 18th 2008, 03:24 AM
Abraham stops asking at ten. He acknowledges that sometimes the good will be punished with the bad.

Perhaps Abraham just trusted God to deliver those few who were righteous. After all God delivered Lot. Lot obeyed when he was told to flee and not look back.

-Steven

th1bill
Jan 18th 2008, 06:06 AM
First of all, allow me to issue a few disclaimers:

- I am a baptized Christian and a member at an independent evangelical Christian church.
- I am not a Republican, nor a member of any other political party.
- I have never contributed financially to any political campaign, though I may do so on 12/16/2007, as part of Tea Party 07 (http://www.teaparty07.com/).
- I am an American citizen and a registered voter, and have participated in every even-year election since 1994.

Now, with that out of the way, I am genuinely wondering why mainstream Christianity is not in support of Rep. Paul for President. It hasn't made the headlines that some other Christian-related political news has, but seems to be an unexplained byline in a lot of mainstream media stories. In opposition to this I offer the following facts:

- Rep. Paul is a Baptist (http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=15).
- He and wife celebrated their golden anniversary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Family) on February 1st.
- He is clearly a "pro-life" candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Pro-life_legislation).
- Although he is in favor of stem cell research, Rep. Paul opposes federal legislation that would support it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Stem-cell_research_regulation).
- Unlike some other candidates, he has shown fiscal responsibility (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp).
- He has voted repeatedly against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation _legislation) legislation that favors same-sex relationships.


So... why do I continue to see news like this:

- A July 2007 Gallup poll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Polling) contrasting support of Paul with church attendance.
- Pat Robertson's endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/us/politics/08repubs.html?em&ex=1194670800&en=ee52492c90825ef2&ei=5087%0A) of Rudy Giuliani.
- Bob Jones III's endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/us/politics/08repubs.html?em&ex=1194670800&en=ee52492c90825ef2&ei=5087%0A) of Mitt Romney.
- Meanwhile, endorsements for Rep. Paul from groups like white supremacists (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=404) and a brothel owner (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312872,00.html) are making headlines (because, you know, that's what Fox considers news).

Why aren't Christians getting behind this guy? Yeah, I'm obviously in support of him, but it's an honest question, and I'm open to honest answers. It's something I'm genuinely wondering about.

J
.. There are many reasons that I will never vote for this gent. A large one is that he was and in my mind still is a Libertarian. He has only taken on the tag, Republican,. because he knows his association with Ralph Nader will forever drag him through the mud. Then there is that stem cell research item. Understand when considering my respons4e that I am suffering and will die of a disease that the "only good hope" for a cure lies in stem cell research.
.. The subject of Stem Cell Research is a many faceted subject and the terms used must always be defined at every discussion undertaking this issue. When one is in favor of Stem Cell Research, and it is stated in that form, they are in favor of murdering babies! I am not and never will be in favor of exterminating new life to sustain my broken bent and worn out body.
.. I'll not cover the many other issues I have with this candidate but I would like to point out the always important truth about Stem Cell Research. God has never and God will never bless our sin. Murdering infants to harvest their stem cells is sin. Of all the research that is being conducted in this area there are two main streams that have been entered into. There is the Infantile Stem Cell Research that has yeilded nothing but failure after failure. Then there is the Adult Stem Cell Research that has been very rewarding thus far and since they do not murder anyone to harvest these cells, it recieves my complete support.
.. The primary obstacle, as I see it, to Adult Stem Cell Research is persons like Mr. Paul who blindly leap into issues and cause folks to bow their backs. Do you know how hard it is to saddle a horse when it is busy bucking? Ron Paul is guilty of not thinking before leaping, at the very best. I will never vote for a man of this character to be the Supreme Commander of the most powerful armed force in the world. I did not vote for Bill Clinton and I will not vote for Ron Paul, no matter what disguise he is wearing today.

Fenris
Jan 18th 2008, 10:50 AM
Perhaps Abraham just trusted God to deliver those few who were righteous. After all God delivered Lot. Lot obeyed when he was told to flee and not look back.

-StevenPerhaps. Or perhaps Abraham acknowledges that a good person in a bad place gets treated like a bad person. History certainly provides many examples of that...

misfit815
Jan 18th 2008, 01:00 PM
What's Ron Paul got to do with Ralph Nader? And, as far as I can tell, his position on stem cell research is the same as many other social issues; that it's not the jurisdiction of the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Stem-cell_research_regulation). That's not being "for" or "against" it - that's just saying that it ain't Washington's business.

Anyway, there's a huge body of evidence that suggests that the information revealed by torture is unreliable. From what I've read, I'd tell you *I* flew a plane into the WTC after about 30 seconds of waterboarding.

As for Fenris' scenarios, those are evidence of his lack of faith. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac right up until God provided a surrogate. That's a testament to Abraham's faith that God would do what is right. I'd like to think that my faith is that strong, but I know that it's not. Would I condone torture in those instances? I would hope not, but (especially in the case of the loved one) I suspect that the perpetrator would find himself in a very bad situation.

And, no, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It's a restraint on the federal government to protect its citizens, not the other way around.

J

Fenris
Jan 18th 2008, 01:36 PM
Anyway, there's a huge body of evidence that suggests that the information revealed by torture is unreliable. From what I've read, I'd tell you *I* flew a plane into the WTC after about 30 seconds of waterboarding.It's my understanding that the CIA obtained valuable information from top AQ members that saved lives by preventing terrorist attacks.


As for Fenris' scenarios, those are evidence of his lack of faith. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac right up until God provided a surrogate. That's a testament to Abraham's faith that God would do what is right. I'd like to think that my faith is that strong, but I know that it's not. Would I condone torture in those instances? I would hope not, but (especially in the case of the loved one) I suspect that the perpetrator would find himself in a very bad situation.Really? Because I'd carry out the torture myself, and sleep well that night knowing I'd saved lives.

Are you really positing that a bad person's discomfort is more important than an innocent's life? Is that a moral stance?

misfit815
Jan 18th 2008, 02:52 PM
Really? Because I'd carry out the torture myself, and sleep well that night knowing I'd saved lives.

Are you really positing that a bad person's discomfort is more important than an innocent's life? Is that a moral stance?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just trying to follow scripture.

Leviticus 19:17-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:17-18;&version=31;)
Matthew 22:34-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:34-40;&version=31;)
Romans 12:9-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:9-21;&version=31;)
I Peter 3:8-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:8-14;&version=31;)

I'm putting my faith in God to rectify the matter, both in this world and the next, and not trying to do it myself.

J

Fenris
Jan 18th 2008, 03:05 PM
17 " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.


My actions are not motivated by hate or revenge, but practical considerations such as saving innocent lives.

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:34-40;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23908a)] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:34-40;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23910b)] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Someone trying to kill innocents is not 'your neighbor'. he is your enemy.

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

This person isn't persecuting you alone, but others as well; what exactly gives you the right to ignore their suffering?

13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?


Obviously some people will.





I'm putting my faith in God to rectify the matter, both in this world and the next, and not trying to do it myself.In other words, you're going to rely on other people to do things that you will not. And after they do those distasteful things to protect you, you'll condemn them for not being as good as you are.



As I've posted elsewhere on these boards, God did not stop the Holocaust. American GI's did, acting as God's instruments for good. Even violence can be holy, if done for the right purpose.

misfit815
Jan 18th 2008, 03:19 PM
In other words, you're going to rely on other people to do things that you will not. And after they do those distasteful things to protect you, you'll condemn them for not being as good as you are.

I take issue with a lot of the things you said, but feel I must respond to this one. I would *never* hold that position. A soldier who has followed his orders, done his duty, and faced his enemy in battle holds my highest respect. It may or may not mean much to you, but I paid my respects at the Tomb of the Unknown both times I have been to Washington, and I regard it as the single most sacred ground in this country.

But torturing a prisoner is not akin to facing him on the battlefield. I may or may not possess the faith and fortitude to sacrifice my life in order to avoid violating God's commandment to love my neighbor (and, by the way, *every* human being, from conception to death, is my neighbor), but I would never ask another to violate that same commandment so that I may live.

If you torture that prisoner and extract the necessary (and perhaps even accurate) information from him, that is no guarantee that those innocents will live. Only God knows that. Likewise, if I do not torture him, that is no guarantee that those innocents will die. Again, only God knows that. Their fate will come about according to His plan, and I would rather face His judgment knowing that I followed His commandments and left the outcome up to him.

J

Fenris
Jan 18th 2008, 03:24 PM
I take issue with a lot of the things you said, but feel I must respond to this one. I would *never* hold that position. A soldier who has followed his orders, done his duty, and faced his enemy in battle holds my highest respect. It may or may not mean much to you, but I paid my respects at the Tomb of the Unknown both times I have been to Washington, and I regard it as the single most sacred ground in this country.Good, as well you should.


But torturing a prisoner is not akin to facing him on the battlefield. I may or may not possess the faith and fortitude to sacrifice my life in order to avoid violating God's commandment to love my neighbor (and, by the way, *every* human being, from conception to death, is my neighbor), but I would never ask another to violate that same commandment so that I may live.I don't think any commandment is being violated, any more than a soldier shooting is guilty of murder. In any case, you have no right to decide what should or shouldn't be done to save other people's lives. I for one would be angry to know that a terrorist wasn't being tortured when my life was at stake.


If you torture that prisoner and extract the necessary (and perhaps even accurate) information from him, that is no guarantee that those innocents will live. Only God knows that. Likewise, if I do not torture him, that is no guarantee that those innocents will die. Again, only God knows that. Their fate will come about according to His plan, and I would rather face His judgment knowing that I followed His commandments and left the outcome up to him.

JSince he's a bad person, I don't feel bad taking all those chances. He made his choices to try to kill people, now we must do what we have to in order to save people.

Again, God didn't stop the Holocaust, man did.

misfit815
Jan 18th 2008, 03:30 PM
:B:B:B... :giveup:

Fenris, unless you have some dramatic new take, I think we've exhausted the arguments for and against torture. Our most recent posts seem to indicate arguments that are based on opposing beliefs that will not be changing anytime soon. I offer a truce on the matter, accepting that neither of us is going to sway the other at this point.

Now, back to my original post. We've established his foreign policy as a reason that people are not behind Ron Paul (although, I must say, the main argument against that has been put forth by an admitted non-Christian... *cough* Fenris *cough* ;)). What other faults does he possess that keep Christians from supporting him?

J

Fenris
Jan 18th 2008, 03:33 PM
:B:B:B... :giveup:

Fenris, unless you have some dramatic new take, I think we've exhausted the arguments for and against torture. Our most recent posts seem to indicate arguments that are based on opposing beliefs that will not be changing anytime soon. I offer a truce on the matter, accepting that neither of us is going to sway the other at this point.Yeah, perhaps that's for the best.

diffangle
Jan 18th 2008, 04:03 PM
.. There are many reasons that I will never vote for this gent. A large one is that he was and in my mind still is a Libertarian. He has only taken on the tag, Republican,. because he knows his association with Ralph Nader will forever drag him through the mud. Then there is that stem cell research item. Understand when considering my respons4e that I am suffering and will die of a disease that the "only good hope" for a cure lies in stem cell research.
.. The subject of Stem Cell Research is a many faceted subject and the terms used must always be defined at every discussion undertaking this issue. When one is in favor of Stem Cell Research, and it is stated in that form, they are in favor of murdering babies! I am not and never will be in favor of exterminating new life to sustain my broken bent and worn out body.
.. I'll not cover the many other issues I have with this candidate but I would like to point out the always important truth about Stem Cell Research. God has never and God will never bless our sin. Murdering infants to harvest their stem cells is sin. Of all the research that is being conducted in this area there are two main streams that have been entered into. There is the Infantile Stem Cell Research that has yeilded nothing but failure after failure. Then there is the Adult Stem Cell Research that has been very rewarding thus far and since they do not murder anyone to harvest these cells, it recieves my complete support.
.. The primary obstacle, as I see it, to Adult Stem Cell Research is persons like Mr. Paul who blindly leap into issues and cause folks to bow their backs. Do you know how hard it is to saddle a horse when it is busy bucking? Ron Paul is guilty of not thinking before leaping, at the very best. I will never vote for a man of this character to be the Supreme Commander of the most powerful armed force in the world. I did not vote for Bill Clinton and I will not vote for Ron Paul, no matter what disguise he is wearing today.

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD (http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/welcome.htm)


Medical and scientific ethics issues are in the news again, as Congress narrowly passed a bill last week that funds controversial embryonic stem cell research. While I certainly sympathize with those who understandably hope such research will lead to cures for terrible diseases, I object to forcing taxpayers who believe harvesting embryos is immoral to pay for it.


Congressional Republicans, eager to appease pro-life voters while still appearing suitably compassionate, supported a second bill that provides nearly $80 million for umbilical cord stem cell research. But it’s never compassionate to spend other people’s money for political benefit.


The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal government should fund stem cell research at all. Clearly there is no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means individual states and private citizens should decide whether to permit, ban, or fund it. Neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind. This viewpoint is never considered.


Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research.


The debate over stem cell research involves profound moral, religious, and ethical question – questions Congress is particularly ill equipped to resolve. The injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund research some find ethically abhorrent is patently obvious. When we insist on imposing one-size-fits-all social policies determined in Washington, we invariably make millions of Americans very angry. Again, the constitutional approach to resolving social issues involves local, decentralized decision-making. This approach is not perfect, but it is much better than pretending Congress possesses the magical wisdom to serve as the nation’s moral arbiter. Decentralized decisions and privatized funding would eliminate much of the ill will between supporters and opponents of stem cell research.


Government cannot instill morality in the American people. On the contrary, rigid, centralized, government decision-making is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society. The greatest casualty of centralized government decision-making is personal liberty.

th1bill
Jan 18th 2008, 05:45 PM
From http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD (http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/welcome.htm)


Medical and scientific ethics issues are in the news again, as Congress narrowly passed a bill last week that funds controversial embryonic stem cell research. While I certainly sympathize with those who understandably hope such research will lead to cures for terrible diseases, I object to forcing taxpayers who believe harvesting embryos is immoral to pay for it.


Congressional Republicans, eager to appease pro-life voters while still appearing suitably compassionate, supported a second bill that provides nearly $80 million for umbilical cord stem cell research. But it’s never compassionate to spend other people’s money for political benefit.



The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal government should fund stem cell research at all. Clearly there is no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means individual states and private citizens should decide whether to permit, ban, or fund it. Neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind. This viewpoint is never considered.


Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research.


The debate over stem cell research involves profound moral, religious, and ethical question – questions Congress is particularly ill equipped to resolve. The injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund research some find ethically abhorrent is patently obvious. When we insist on imposing one-size-fits-all social policies determined in Washington, we invariably make millions of Americans very angry. Again, the constitutional approach to resolving social issues involves local, decentralized decision-making. This approach is not perfect, but it is much better than pretending Congress possesses the magical wisdom to serve as the nation’s moral arbiter. Decentralized decisions and privatized funding would eliminate much of the ill will between supporters and opponents of stem cell research.


Government cannot instill morality in the American people. On the contrary, rigid, centralized, government decision-making is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society. The greatest casualty of centralized government decision-making is personal liberty.

I admit that I am slow but i seem to have missed your point.

misfit815
Jan 18th 2008, 06:41 PM
I think what he's saying is that, according to Dr. Paul's own words, he makes the case that his own opinion regarding stem cell research is irrelevant, since it's an atrocity for him, as a member of Congress, to force you, a person whose beliefs are decidedly against it, to pay for it.

To directly quote the text...

The injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund research some find ethically abhorrent is patently obvious.

Fenris
Jan 18th 2008, 08:30 PM
By that logic we shouldn't have an army because many in this country disapprove of violence.

misfit815
Jan 18th 2008, 08:42 PM
By that logic we shouldn't have an army because many in this country disapprove of violence.


Except that Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution would seem to contradict that. I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there about stem cell research.

Oh, wait, my mistake. It's in Amendment's IX and X.

:D

J

th1bill
Jan 19th 2008, 12:16 AM
I think what he's saying is that, according to Dr. Paul's own words, he makes the case that his own opinion regarding stem cell research is irrelevant, since it's an atrocity for him, as a member of Congress, to force you, a person whose beliefs are decidedly against it, to pay for it.

To directly quote the text...

The injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund research some find ethically abhorrent is patently obvious.
I fully understand Ron Paul's squirming comments, I just do not see how they reflect on my statement, which was qouted.

Fenris
Jan 20th 2008, 04:42 PM
Except that Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution would seem to contradict that. I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there about stem cell research.

Oh, wait, my mistake. It's in Amendment's IX and X.

:D

JI'm sure a creative judge could 'find' it. Hey, they found the right to abortion in there. :lol:

misfit815
Jan 21st 2008, 02:26 PM
I'm sure a creative judge could 'find' it. Hey, they found the right to abortion in there. :lol:

Actually, the court should have ruled that, because of IX and X, they didn't have jurisdiction over abortion. Instead, we now have a judicial precedent.

And, th1bill, I'm still trying to figure out your comments regarding Paul. You said, "I did not vote for Bill Clinton and I will not vote for Ron Paul, no matter what disguise he is wearing today." What does one have to do with the other? You also said, "He has only taken on the tag, Republican,. because he knows his association with Ralph Nader will forever drag him through the mud." Again, what does one have to do with the other?

And, according to you, "I fully understand Ron Paul's squirming comments, I just do not see how they reflect on my statement, which was qouted." Could you explain to me what you mean by "squirming", and to which of your previous statements you were referring?

I hesitate to leap to conclusions, but it seems as if you might be mistaken regarding Dr. Paul's positions. Perhaps you're confusing "Libertarian" with the prevailing "liberal" philosophy in America? If that is the case, then I assure you that one is quite far from the other.

What stands out to me most, though, is this; "I will never vote for a man of this character..." It makes me wonder if we're talking about the same person. I would venture to say that even Paul's critics, while they may disagree with his political positions, would not find much issue with his character. McCain once told a Paul staffer that, "You're working for the most honest man in Congress." Go to FactCheck.org (http://factcheck.org/) and look for Paul. You won't find him. Look at OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008), and you'll see that he is one of the minority of candidates not carrying any debt. Watch any of the Republican debates, and witness how many times candidates like Romney will cut others off while Paul waits for people to finish, even those who interrupt him. I find the matter of the man's character to be far from a debatable issue.

J

Clavicula_Nox
Jan 21st 2008, 03:33 PM
Ron Paul won the Internet vote...unfortunately, people on the Internet don't vote, they only make videos for Youtube about how deeply concerned they are over major issues.

misfit815
Jan 21st 2008, 03:42 PM
Ron Paul won the Internet vote...unfortunately, people on the Internet don't vote, they only make videos for Youtube about how deeply concerned they are over major issues.

Oh, I vote... :D

In Indiana... :hmm:

Where the primary isn't until May 6th... :B

Why do you think I'm so intent on getting the word out elsewhere? It'll be over by the time I get a say in the matter.

J

teddyv
Jan 21st 2008, 03:46 PM
Ron Paul won the Internet vote...unfortunately, people on the Internet don't vote, they only make videos for Youtube about how deeply concerned they are over major issues.

I nearly got coffee on the monitor with that one.:lol:

diffangle
Jan 21st 2008, 04:05 PM
What stands out to me most, though, is this; "I will never vote for a man of this character..." It makes me wonder if we're talking about the same person. I would venture to say that even Paul's critics, while they may disagree with his political positions, would not find much issue with his character. McCain once told a Paul staffer that, "You're working for the most honest man in Congress." Go to FactCheck.org (http://factcheck.org/) and look for Paul. You won't find him. Look at OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008), and you'll see that he is one of the minority of candidates not carrying any debt. Watch any of the Republican debates, and witness how many times candidates like Romney will cut others off while Paul waits for people to finish, even those who interrupt him. I find the matter of the man's character to be far from a debatable issue.


He's a man of great character...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Quotes_about_Ron_Paul

Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defence. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.
Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan), U.S. President [86] (http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/saying.html)


I strongly support Ron Paul, we very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom.
Milton Friedman (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman), Nobel Prize economist [87] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgF-s1voM_Y)


Rep. Paul has a record of philosophical consistency unmatched in recent congressional history. He seeks to limit government at practically every turn. His refusal to compromise is legendary.
John Brady and Bob McAdam, The Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal) [89] (http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/saying.html)


This courageous and quiet Congressman has made a worldwide name for himself as the defender of liberty in this country… a persistent fighter for the reduction of the power of bureaucrats everywhere… and one politician who cannot be bought by special interests.
Maxwell Newton, New York Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post) [90] (http://www.jarrodhunt.com/10-year-old-video-of-ron-paul-same-message-as-today/)


You’re working for the most honest man in Congress.
John McCain (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_McCain) (to Kent Snyder), 1988 [91] (http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2007-08-01/feature2)


The phrase "honest politician" is an oxymoron; yet in the sense that Paul never, ever votes against his stated principles -- which are libertarian and include the belief that much of our federal government, from the IRS to the Department of Education, and the massive taxes that support it, should be abolished -- the phrase describes him... The same beliefs that cause him to vote against every single appropriations bill in Congress also carry over to his private life. He intends, for example, to refuse his congressional pension. He would not let his children take out federally subsidized education loans. He actually returns money each year from his congressional office -- some $50,000 last year.
Texas Monthly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Monthly), October 2001 [92] (http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7)


Lobbyists don’t even bother going to his office. If their scheme doesn’t fall among the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution, they know perfectly well that there is no chance Ron Paul will support it.
Thomas Woods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods), March 26, 2007 [95] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods63.html)


What's so interesting about Congressman Ron Paul is, you appear to have a consistent principled integrity. Ah, Americans don't usually go for that...
Jon Stewart (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart), June 4, 2007 [104] (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=87974&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fextras%2Findecision2008%2Fvideos% 2Fcandidates%2Findex.jhtml%3FplayVideo%3D87974&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true)


His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich) cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption.
The American Conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative), June 18, 2007 [106] (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_18/cover.html)


He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. [...] Until now, the GOP has been able to contain Paul by pretending he wasn’t there. But the silent treatment can no longer stifle this soft-spoken man. He has been proved right too often.
Joseph Sobran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sobran), June 26, 2007 [109] (http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=787)


Let me tell you Ron, there are a lot of people out there in the Republican primaries, trying to seize the mantle of Ronald Reagan...but when it comes to economic issues, you are the only guy out there that really is delivering the same message that Ronald Reagan delivered for 30 years.
Joe Scarborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Scarborough), August 22, 2007 [115] (http://ronpauldaily.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-on-morning-joe.html) (case in point (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4770988975023965161))


He has the newest and the oldest campaign message there is: freedom matters. It is no surprise to me that the GOP establishment — now one of the most powerful forces against individual freedom in this country — is so panicked by his message. They should be.
Andrew Sullivan (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan), October 26, 2007 [125] (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/the-coming-ron-.html)


...does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise? Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously.
Chuck Baldwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin), November 6, 2007 [130] (http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin412.htm)


Ron Paul is our hero in the Congress.
Larry Parks (http://fame.org/), December 6, 2007 [142] (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mx7zeOFhPlw)

th1bill
Jan 21st 2008, 11:07 PM
What's Ron Paul got to do with Ralph Nader? And, as far as I can tell, his position on stem cell research is the same as many other social issues; that it's not the jurisdiction of the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Stem-cell_research_regulation). That's not being "for" or "against" it - that's just saying that it ain't Washington's business.

Anyway, there's a huge body of evidence that suggests that the information revealed by torture is unreliable. From what I've read, I'd tell you *I* flew a plane into the WTC after about 30 seconds of waterboarding.

As for Fenris' scenarios, those are evidence of his lack of faith. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac right up until God provided a surrogate. That's a testament to Abraham's faith that God would do what is right. I'd like to think that my faith is that strong, but I know that it's not. Would I condone torture in those instances? I would hope not, but (especially in the case of the loved one) I suspect that the perpetrator would find himself in a very bad situation.

And, no, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It's a restraint on the federal government to protect its citizens, not the other way around.

J
I recall that Ron Paul had absolutely no problem supporting Mr. Nader's bid for the White House. Politically, that ties Him to all of Ralph's Drugs for free society notions and the other rather strange social leanings of the gent. And he never, in my knowledge, even bothered to publically disown the ideas. If the bed is full of rotting trash when you crawl into it, you're going to smell trashy when you get out of it.

misfit815
Jan 22nd 2008, 01:22 PM
I recall that Ron Paul had absolutely no problem supporting Mr. Nader's bid for the White House. Politically, that ties Him to all of Ralph's Drugs for free society notions and the other rather strange social leanings of the gent. And he never, in my knowledge, even bothered to publically disown the ideas. If the bed is full of rotting trash when you crawl into it, you're going to smell trashy when you get out of it.

Please cite your source, because I can't find what you're talking about in Google.

I will admit that there are comparisons between the two, because they both represent the possibility of a viable candidate outside of the mainstream two-party system. Yes, Paul is a Republican, but he did run as the Libertarian candidate in a previous election ([1988], wasn't it?). And he is far from the party favorite, even though his principles are right in line with Goldwater-era Republicanism. So, in that respect, they are similar because they are both challenges to entrenched American two-party politics.

But that's where the comparison stops. Nader holds the left-wing opinion that the free market needs to be drastically restrained by socialist policies, while Paul wants to remove the restraints that are in place, because they're preventing the economy from correcting itself. And while I believe Nader would use legislation at the federal level to restrain Christian values from having an effect on policy, Paul would rather see the government acknowledge the authority of the Constitution and quit trying to relegate morality by a secular federal government.

Again, please show me where these two are tied together, because I can't find it.

J

groovemongrel
Jan 22nd 2008, 07:33 PM
Ron Paul for Prez! Here's a good read for ya.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

th1bill
Jan 22nd 2008, 10:23 PM
Please cite your source, because I can't find what you're talking about in Google.

I will admit that there are comparisons between the two, because they both represent the possibility of a viable candidate outside of the mainstream two-party system. Yes, Paul is a Republican, but he did run as the Libertarian candidate in a previous election ([1988], wasn't it?). And he is far from the party favorite, even though his principles are right in line with Goldwater-era Republicanism. So, in that respect, they are similar because they are both challenges to entrenched American two-party politics.

But that's where the comparison stops. Nader holds the left-wing opinion that the free market needs to be drastically restrained by socialist policies, while Paul wants to remove the restraints that are in place, because they're preventing the economy from correcting itself. And while I believe Nader would use legislation at the federal level to restrain Christian values from having an effect on policy, Paul would rather see the government acknowledge the authority of the Constitution and quit trying to relegate morality by a secular federal government.

Again, please show me where these two are tied together, because I can't find it.

J
I did not attempt to cite a source for a reason. I was politically active at that time and I watched the events. You will not do it but to get the proof that I am not going to dig for you'll need to read an awful lot of newspaper articles to put it all together. i just remember the events, I did not record them and it does not matter, he does not have a chance anyway. Far to many old folks like myself remember his lack of a voice in those times and if you look at the article posted he took no position what-so-ever other than to state that he did not intend to take a firm position.

misfit815
Jan 22nd 2008, 10:39 PM
I did not attempt to cite a source for a reason. I was politically active at that time and I watched the events. You will not do it but to get the proof that I am not going to dig for you'll need to read an awful lot of newspaper articles to put it all together. i just remember the events, I did not record them and it does not matter, he does not have a chance anyway. Far to many old folks like myself remember his lack of a voice in those times and if you look at the article posted he took no position what-so-ever other than to state that he did not intend to take a firm position.


So what you're saying is that there's a connection between them that a) I *can't* find, and b) contradicts everything else that I *have* found regarding Dr. Paul, but that you don't have a source to cite. Outstanding.

:giveup:

J

th1bill
Jan 22nd 2008, 11:25 PM
So what you're saying is that there's a connection between them that a) I *can't* find, and b) contradicts everything else that I *have* found regarding Dr. Paul, but that you don't have a source to cite. Outstanding.

:giveup:

J
I usually try to avoid being rude but since you have chosen to go for the jugular, I'll send you a like response, in the PM.

TrustingFollower
Jan 25th 2008, 02:52 AM
Ron Paul for Prez! Here's a good read for ya.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=

groovemongrel, have you seen this sticky post for this forum about link posting (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=112701). Please tell us how this affects your opinion in this election. I would hate to have to delete your post. I find the artical very interesting and would like to know your opinion to accompany it.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 01:46 PM
I recall that Ron Paul had absolutely no problem supporting Mr. Nader's bid for the White House. Politically, that ties Him to all of Ralph's Drugs for free society notions and the other rather strange social leanings of the gent. And he never, in my knowledge, even bothered to publically disown the ideas. If the bed is full of rotting trash when you crawl into it, you're going to smell trashy when you get out of it.He won't because when you cut through the stuff... Ron Paul is a Libertarian. What folks do privately in their home... it's private and no one has any business telling them otherwise. While I am a proponent for less government... I am not a proponent from less law enforcement. I'm quite sure Ron Paul would say that he isn't for many things... but he'll follow up with "but it isn't the governments place to....."

Fact folks... the strip clubs and whore houses in Nevada were all Ron Paul supporters. Fact folks... some of the nastiest attitude from folks on the campaign trail are his supporters. Fact folk... those folks are voting and supporting Ron Paul for a reason. He's libertarian and they love the libertarian creed.

matthew94
Jan 25th 2008, 02:27 PM
I think the Libertarian position is the most Christian version of political policy. We are never told in the New Covenant to legislate morality. We are told to lead by example. And that is exactly Ron Paul's position. It's a cheap shot to slam Paul for the nature of some of his supporters. Liberty gets messy. The only way to prevent messy liberty is to diminish it.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 02:35 PM
It isn't cheap at all I would think. As to legislating morality and us not supposed to do that... who made up that rule?

Fact... if you are here as an alien... an ambassador for Christ... you would think God would want you to cast a vote that by and large either legislated or simply allowed immorality? Or would God want you to "speak for him with your vote (represent)" and vote for the person that legislated morality?

No... I don't see the libertarian party being the closest "Christian" party at all.

How Ron Paul lives life... I don't know him so can't respond to his living by example. But I do have to pause when I see who supports him and then I don't hear him say "whoa down now folks...." I do understand that a candidate really has no control over who votes for them or who supports them. BUT that being said... one needs to take a look at why it is that many of these type groups are supporting Ron Paul. There is a reason they are doing so... why is the question folks need to ask.

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 02:47 PM
Fact folks... the strip clubs and whore houses in Nevada were all Ron Paul supporters. Fact folks... some of the nastiest attitude from folks on the campaign trail are his supporters. Fact folk... those folks are voting and supporting Ron Paul for a reason. He's libertarian and they love the libertarian creed.

But do you really think it's wise to legislate morality? What happens when we tell people, via the government, that you can't do this or that, because these things are sinful? Not only that, but you and I are going to have different interpretations of the Bible, and our churches are going to have different interpretations of the Bible. Is it such a stretch to assume that our government of 3 million people is going to have a hard time reconciling its own interpretation of the Bible? I'm frankly not ready to have Washington determine for me what's in my best interest.

I've often said that free will is God's greatest and most terrible gift. With it, we have strip clubs and whore houses and racists and bigots and hate mongers. But what do we have without it?

As long as free will exists, we're going to have these elements of society. Trying to use the government to stop them is ineffective - even counterproductive - and it violates the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

Our message should not be, "You can't do these things." It should be, "Yes, you can do these things. We're not going to stop you. But we will not - not now, not ever - and here's why you shouldn't..."

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15-16;&version=31;))

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (Revelation 22:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:17;&version=31;))

There's no imposition of our morality on non-believers. There is the obligation - the joyful obligation - to minister to them, and to give them the opportunity to believe, to take the "free gift of the water of life."

You can lead a sinner to the water of life, but you can't make him drink.

J

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 02:53 PM
How Ron Paul lives life... I don't know him so can't respond to his living by example. But I do have to pause when I see who supports him and then I don't hear him say "whoa down now folks...." I do understand that a candidate really has no control over who votes for them or who supports them. BUT that being said... one needs to take a look at why it is that many of these type groups are supporting Ron Paul. There is a reason they are doing so... why is the question folks need to ask.

Actually, this is a great testament to his character. He has routinely said, when asked about returning money to obviously immoral donors, "No, I'm not going to give the money back. I'd rather use it to spread my message of hope, than give it back to them so that they can use it to spread their message of hate." He has been critical of the agendas of his "supporters" when asked, but he has always been careful to not slander those same "supporters" personally. That's a Biblical position, the evidence of which is all over Proverbs.

J

Free Indeed
Jan 25th 2008, 02:58 PM
He won't because when you cut through the stuff... Ron Paul is a Libertarian. What folks do privately in their home... it's private and no one has any business telling them otherwise.

I am by no means a Ron Paul supporter but....

I certainly have to agree with him on this issue. It all boils down to the question, are we a free people, or aren't we? If so, then government has absolutely no right dictating to people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes. If not, then we need to admit to ourselves that we are not free, that we don't *want* to be free, organize a nationwide Gestapo, and give them the keys to everyone's houses.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 02:58 PM
But do you really think it's wise to legislate morality? What happens when we tell people, via the government, that you can't do this or that, because these things are sinful? Not only that, but you and I are going to have different interpretations of the Bible, and our churches are going to have different interpretations of the Bible. Is it such a stretch to assume that our government of 3 million people is going to have a hard time reconciling its own interpretation of the Bible? I'm frankly not ready to have Washington determine for me what's in my best interest.

I've often said that free will is God's greatest and most terrible gift. With it, we have strip clubs and whore houses and racists and bigots and hate mongers. But what do we have without it?

As long as free will exists, we're going to have these elements of society. Trying to use the government to stop them is ineffective - even counterproductive - and it violates the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

Our message should not be, "You can't do these things." It should be, "Yes, you can do these things. We're not going to stop you. But we will not - not now, not ever - and here's why you shouldn't..."

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15-16;&version=31;))

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (Revelation 22:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:17;&version=31;))

There's no imposition of our morality on non-believers. There is the obligation - the joyful obligation - to minister to them, and to give them the opportunity to believe, to take the "free gift of the water of life."

You can lead a sinner to the water of life, but you can't make him drink.

J
So then... you can vote for immorality or at least to ignore it and call yourself an ambassador for Christ? Do you think Christ would say "well... you can't legislate morality so therefore my vote goes to _________" Or would Christ want you to represent Him with your vote to someone that in fact does legislate morality?

We can differ on a lot of things when it comes to interpretation of stuff. But can we really differ on what the Bible calls obvious sin? The libertarian party has no problem with homosexual marriage. That's not to say the individual libertarian person endorses it... but their stand is going to ultimately be "what they do in the privacy of their own home...." Same with drugs that are lesser violence related drugs. They may not endorse the use of those drugs but "what they do in the privacy of their own home...." That's no stand at all really and one is going to have a hard time explaining how they could cast such a vote and call it "done for the glory of God."

I don't care what party a person is either. If that vote can't be cast for the glory of God because of a stand... be it sexual, abortion, not helping folks that need help, taking care of the old folk, etc... then I dare say that there is no way we could call that a viable vote representing God. If we aren't representing God with our vote... we aren't His ambassador nor are we doing ALL things for His glory. I just don't see any way around that point and I do think that's a major problem with a lot of Christian folk. They don't think about the fact that even their vote needs be done for the glory of God.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 02:59 PM
Actually, this is a great testament to his character. He has routinely said, when asked about returning money to obviously immoral donors, "No, I'm not going to give the money back. I'd rather use it to spread my message of hope, than give it back to them so that they can use it to spread their message of hate." He has been critical of the agendas of his "supporters" when asked, but he has always been careful to not slander those same "supporters" personally. That's a Biblical position, the evidence of which is all over Proverbs.

JThat is one odd "testament of character".

As to it being a "biblical position"... good luck there.

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 03:29 PM
That is one odd "testament of character".

As to it being a "biblical position"... good luck there.

From Proverbs:
4:24 - Avoid all perverse talk;stay away from corrupt speech.
9:7-8 - Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don’t bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
10:19 - Too much talk leads to sin. Be sensible and keep your mouth shut.
11:12 - It is foolish to belittle one’s neighbor; a sensible person keeps quiet.
13:3 - Those who control their tongue will have a long life; opening your mouth can ruin everything.
18:21 - The tongue can bring death or life; those who love to talk will reap the consequences.

But the lessons I remember were actually in James 1 and 3, not in Proverbs (my mistake). If you watch Paul's behavior, especially during the debates, you will see that he shows no mercy when questioning policies and practices and ideologies, but that he keeps "a tight rein on his tongue" (James 1:26) and does not slander others. And that's what I was getting at. It is Christian to defend what is right and oppose what is wrong, but "with the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be." (James 3:9-10)

Watch the debates, when he is constantly interrupted, how he reacts. And then watch the interviews of him on YouTube, when he is questioned about donations from immoral people. His opinion of their wrongful ideologies is so matter-of-fact in it's condemnation, that it is clear that he does not support them, yet he will not curse them.

J

diffangle
Jan 25th 2008, 03:37 PM
He won't because when you cut through the stuff... Ron Paul is a Libertarian. What folks do privately in their home... it's private and no one has any business telling them otherwise. While I am a proponent for less government... I am not a proponent from less law enforcement. I'm quite sure Ron Paul would say that he isn't for many things... but he'll follow up with "but it isn't the governments place to....."

Fact folks... the strip clubs and whore houses in Nevada were all Ron Paul supporters. Fact folks... some of the nastiest attitude from folks on the campaign trail are his supporters. Fact folk... those folks are voting and supporting Ron Paul for a reason. He's libertarian and they love the libertarian creed.
Then wouldn't it be fair to say that rapist (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html), murderers, theives, and crime-commiting rock stars support Huckabee?

From http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec10/0,4670,HuckabeeClemencies,00.html



Prosecutors say Huckabee was more inclined to release or reduce the sentences of prisoners if he had direct contact with them or was lobbied by those close to him.

Some inmates who benefited from some sort of personal connection:

_James Maxwell, who killed a pastor of the Church of God in Arkansas. Maxwell worked at the Governor's Mansion when Huckabee announced his intent to reduce his prison sentence.

_Samuel W. Taylor, convicted on a drug charge. A prosecutor said the man had told him Taylor's sister had gone to school with Huckabee. Huckabee said the sister didn't influence the decision. Taylor subsequently was arrested on another drug charge.

_Donald W. Clark, convicted of theft. Huckabee's pastor recommended leniency for Clark, whose stepmother worked on Huckabee's gubernatorial staff.

_Robert A. Arnold Jr., who was convicted of killing his father-in-law. Arnold's father, a former mayor of Hope, Huckabee's hometown, said he was a casual friend of the governor.

_A pastor who promoted Huckabee among blacks urged the governor to grant clemency to John Henry Claiborne, who was sentenced to 100 years for a 1994 armed robbery, according to a 2004 report in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Huckabee made Claiborne eligible for parole after receiving a letter from the Rev. Charles Williams, who told the newspaper he had helped win "many, many" clemencies from Huckabee.

_Denver Witham, convicted of beating a man to death with a lead pipe at bar, had his sentence commuted by Huckabee. The action drew the ire of prosecutors who speculated that Huckabee's act of clemency was related to Witham, who was lead singer in a prison band, being a fellow musician.
Huckabee has repeatedly faced criticism from prosecutors over his clemency policies. And in 2002, Ashley Stevens, the 1984 rape victim, joined Angela McCoy, the daughter of the Rev. Billy Price Bennett who was shot to death in 1979 by James Maxwell, to campaign against Huckabee's re-election.


Less than moral dirt can be brought up about every canidate running... maybe believer's shouldn't vote at all. :hmm:

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 03:48 PM
Less than moral dirt can be brought up about every canidate running... maybe believer's shouldn't vote at all. :hmm:

Actually, that's what has amazed me about Paul. When you dig deep enough the dirt isn't there.

The most damning claims so far have been charges of racism. When you dig deep enough, you find four things:

- Ghostwriters and others are actually responsible for the writings.
- While Paul has disavowed any support for their positions, he won't publicly curse the authors (see my previous comments on this thread regarding what I think about that).
- Well-respected people, including those in the communities targeted by the racist remarks, have spoken out in defense of Paul's character.
- The idea of racism is dependent upon classifying people in groups. Paul's Libertarian ideology rejects that notion, instead treating everyone as individuals.

J

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 03:53 PM
From Proverbs:
4:24 - Avoid all perverse talk;stay away from corrupt speech.
9:7-8 - Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don’t bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
10:19 - Too much talk leads to sin. Be sensible and keep your mouth shut.
11:12 - It is foolish to belittle one’s neighbor; a sensible person keeps quiet.
13:3 - Those who control their tongue will have a long life; opening your mouth can ruin everything.
18:21 - The tongue can bring death or life; those who love to talk will reap the consequences.

But the lessons I remember were actually in James 1 and 3, not in Proverbs (my mistake). If you watch Paul's behavior, especially during the debates, you will see that he shows no mercy when questioning policies and practices and ideologies, but that he keeps "a tight rein on his tongue" (James 1:26) and does not slander others. And that's what I was getting at. It is Christian to defend what is right and oppose what is wrong, but "with the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be." (James 3:9-10)

Watch the debates, when he is constantly interrupted, how he reacts. And then watch the interviews of him on YouTube, when he is questioned about donations from immoral people. His opinion of their wrongful ideologies is so matter-of-fact in it's condemnation, that it is clear that he does not support them, yet he will not curse them.

J
It isn't slander to say that whore houses are immoral. It isn't slander to say that groups like the KKK are immoral. It isn't keeping a "reign on your tongue" when one is silent about that sort of thing. Using James as your "proof text" in this context... alrighty then. :rolleyes:

If he takes from them... and doesn't support what they are and detest what they are... then that in itself is a poor testament period.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 04:00 PM
Then wouldn't it be fair to say that rapist (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html), murderers, theives, and crime-commiting rock stars support Huckabee?

From http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec10/0,4670,HuckabeeClemencies,00.html


Less than moral dirt can be brought up about every canidate running... maybe believer's shouldn't vote at all. :hmm:Um... there ya go! Sure that's fair to say because hey... everything is fair any more!

And for those wondering... that was said in jest.

Imagine the man showing mercy to folks. Some of it bit him in the proverbial fanny but you know what... he showed them mercy. I mean God forbid a Christian governor dare do such a thing! Can't even begin to imagine what he was thinking!

That being said... Huckabee won't be an issue at all here in the next couple of weeks because his campaign is finished short the possibility of him playing the role of "king maker". While I would say that he's the better of the choices out there right now... not sure that he'll be around long enough to be the choice of a lot of folks and I certainly don't see him winning the primary and being the candidate for the Republican Party.

This will be a different year for a lot of folks I figure. If Romney wins the Primary (I figure that he ultimately will) then it is going to get pretty tricky. Many folks will set aside their Christianity to vote for him... I certainly won't be able to do that.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 04:01 PM
And let me add... there is always the write in vote. Write someone you know is godly in for the vote. Folks might say that is wasting a vote... but it isn't if that's what you really believe.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 04:11 PM
And just for those interested... here is the Libertarian Platform to gander at.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Nihil Obstat
Jan 25th 2008, 04:27 PM
It isn't slander to say that whore houses are immoral. It isn't slander to say that groups like the KKK are immoral. It isn't keeping a "reign on your tongue" when one is silent about that sort of thing. Using James as your "proof text" in this context... alrighty then. :rolleyes:

If he takes from them... and doesn't support what they are and detest what they are... then that in itself is a poor testament period.

It wouldn't allow me to give you reps for all your posts in here... great responses!

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 04:28 PM
I'll let Paul defend himself.

YouTube Video 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=l_6ScdW6LRs)
YouTube Video 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c)
YouTube Video 3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=CT8vODRKCRQ)

J

diffangle
Jan 25th 2008, 04:47 PM
Um... there ya go! Sure that's fair to say because hey... everything is fair any more!

And for those wondering... that was said in jest.

Imagine the man showing mercy to folks. Some of it bit him in the proverbial fanny but you know what... he showed them mercy. I mean God forbid a Christian governor dare do such a thing! Can't even begin to imagine what he was thinking!

Ahh, it's called mercy when Huckabee gives freedom to murderers and rapists... but it's called immoral when Paul wants to allow those, who haven't commited crimes, individual freedoms according to our Constitution.

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 04:53 PM
It isn't slander to say that whore houses are immoral. It isn't slander to say that groups like the KKK are immoral. It isn't keeping a "reign on your tongue" when one is silent about that sort of thing. Using James as your "proof text" in this context... alrighty then. :rolleyes:

If he takes from them... and doesn't support what they are and detest what they are... then that in itself is a poor testament period.

By the way, the argument I was making was that it's not Christian to go after the whores and the racists, not their institutions. Yes, there's nothing wrong with proclaiming the truth that prostitution or racism is inherently immoral. But you don't honor God by directly attacking the whore or the racist. They're God's children, made in His image, whether we want to admit it or not, and they need our love, not our attacks.

As far as the donations, watch those YouTube videos. It's a very logical argument, and I would respond the same way. If someone who clearly clings to evil or sinful ideologies gave me money in order to support my beliefs, I'm not going to give it back so that he can support his own sinful goals.

J

th1bill
Jan 25th 2008, 04:59 PM
From Proverbs:
4:24 - Avoid all perverse talk;stay away from corrupt speech.
9:7-8 - Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don’t bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
10:19 - Too much talk leads to sin. Be sensible and keep your mouth shut.
11:12 - It is foolish to belittle one’s neighbor; a sensible person keeps quiet.
13:3 - Those who control their tongue will have a long life; opening your mouth can ruin everything.
18:21 - The tongue can bring death or life; those who love to talk will reap the consequences.

But the lessons I remember were actually in James 1 and 3, not in Proverbs (my mistake). If you watch Paul's behavior, especially during the debates, you will see that he shows no mercy when questioning policies and practices and ideologies, but that he keeps "a tight rein on his tongue" (James 1:26) and does not slander others. And that's what I was getting at. It is Christian to defend what is right and oppose what is wrong, but "with the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be." (James 3:9-10)

Watch the debates, when he is constantly interrupted, how he reacts. And then watch the interviews of him on YouTube, when he is questioned about donations from immoral people. His opinion of their wrongful ideologies is so matter-of-fact in it's condemnation, that it is clear that he does not support them, yet he will not curse them.

J
A verse removed from it's context is the single most dangerous instrument one will ever use to pervert the Word of God.

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 05:09 PM
Ahh, it's called mercy when Huckabee gives freedom to murderers and rapists... but it's called immoral when Paul wants to allow those, who haven't commited crimes, individual freedoms according to our Constitution.

I didn't make that argument. I don't know under what conditions Huckabee pardoned those felons. I would suspect, as a professed Christian, that he believed that they had repented for their sins and were not at risk for perpetuating their same crimes.

But that's irrelevant because they were being pardoned for crimes against the state of Arkansas, which has its own laws regarding murder and rape. The Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over those things. That's what Paul is fighting for - the fact that our government has slowly eroded away our freedoms by illegally transferring power from state and local governments to the federal government.

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-17;&version=31;))

Our Founding Fathers knew that the role of each level of government is to resolve what cannot be resolved by the level below it, and no more. That is the purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments. When you go straight to the federal government with your problems, you are inviting trouble in exactly the same way that you would if you went to the church first, rather than doing as Jesus commanded; to "go and show him his fault, just between the two of you."

Huckabee handled those pardons to the best of his ability, according to the laws by which he had authority. But our federal government does not have the authority to deny racists and whores the freedom to choose their immoral lives. Rather, it is up to us as Christians to minister to those people, and help them leave their lives behind for Jesus.

J

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 05:16 PM
A verse removed from it's context is the single most dangerous instrument one will ever use to pervert the Word of God.

You mean like this one?

"Like a thornbush in a drunkard's hand is a proverb in the mouth of a fool." (Proverbs 26:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=26&verse=9&version=31&context=verse))

The purpose of this forum is to intelligently debate politics, specifically the 2008 elections, in a Christian perspective. This should invariably include deference to scripture.

I'm quite well aware of the potential for misinterpreting scripture, especially when very narrow, specific verses are used to support conclusions. I will never, nor should anyone here, intend to maliciously use scripture to support my position. Where I have incorrectly used scripture, I have done so by my own mistake, and I expect to be corrected by my peers here.

So, with that said, there has been one instance in which someone has suggested that I mis-interpreted passages from James. I actually believe that I did not properly explain my position, but that the scripture still applies.

I welcome anyone to question my use of those passages, or any other, but I ask that you are specific regarding where I went wrong. What verse have I misappropriated, and how did I do so?

J

Fenris
Jan 25th 2008, 05:16 PM
Um, misfit?

Levtiticus 19: 17 "... thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him."

Luke 17:3. "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him..."

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 05:24 PM
Um, misfit?

Levtiticus 19: 17 "... thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him."

Luke 17:3. "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him..."


But does rebuking him consist of speaking ill of him to others? Isn't that what bugs Paul's detractors? That he won't go on CNN and say call the racists and whores what they are? I don't think that's rebuking - I think it's slander.

Now, calling prostitution and racism what it is - that's another matter. But I don't see any evidence to suggest that Paul has avoided that when asked.

J

Fenris
Jan 25th 2008, 05:27 PM
But does rebuking him consist of speaking ill of him to others?
No, but he's doing the exact opposite of rebuking them. He's taking their money and saying they have the right to say whatever they want.

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 05:30 PM
Um, how is that the opposite of rebuking them? He's not condoning their ideologies. He's refusing to give their money back because he'd rather use it than let them use it.

And, barring a fire in a crowded theater, they *do* have the right to say whatever they want. It's that annoying 1st Amendment thing.

J

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 05:36 PM
Ahh, it's called mercy when Huckabee gives freedom to murderers and rapists... but it's called immoral when Paul wants to allow those, who haven't commited crimes, individual freedoms according to our Constitution.Um... racism is illegal. Prostitution (save Nevada) is illegal. Smoking dope... is illegal. They want to rewrite the law to make much of that legal this making it their individual freedom to do those sort of things. Read the platform.

And sure... as a Christian I would find it surprising that you have a problem with mercy? I have no problem with the death penalty myself... but then I don't have a problem with mercy either depending on the circumstance.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 05:39 PM
By the way, the argument I was making was that it's not Christian to go after the whores and the racists, not their institutions. Yes, there's nothing wrong with proclaiming the truth that prostitution or racism is inherently immoral. But you don't honor God by directly attacking the whore or the racist. They're God's children, made in His image, whether we want to admit it or not, and they need our love, not our attacks.

As far as the donations, watch those YouTube videos. It's a very logical argument, and I would respond the same way. If someone who clearly clings to evil or sinful ideologies gave me money in order to support my beliefs, I'm not going to give it back so that he can support his own sinful goals.

JYou call it logical... I call it an excuse to keep the money.

And just to make it clear... surely you don't believe I was advocating "attacking the whore's and racist". That wasn't the point at all. Telling them that it is immoral and you will have no part of it... that is as far from an "attack" as the east is from the west. :rolleyes:

Fenris
Jan 25th 2008, 05:42 PM
Um, how is that the opposite of rebuking them? He's not condoning their ideologies. He's refusing to give their money back because he'd rather use it than let them use it.Why do people give money to politicians?


And, barring a fire in a crowded theater, they *do* have the right to say whatever they want. It's that annoying 1st Amendment thing.

JNo argument.

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 05:45 PM
Um... racism is illegal. Prostitution (save Nevada) is illegal. Smoking dope... is illegal. They want to rewrite the law to make much of that legal this making it their individual freedom to do those sort of things. Read the platform.

And sure... as a Christian I would find it surprising that you have a problem with mercy? I have no problem with the death penalty myself... but then I don't have a problem with mercy either depending on the circumstance.

Racism is an idea. That's not illegal. Hate crimes are illegal because of the crime, not the hate. But both hate crimes and prostitution are under the jurisdiction of the states.

That's the crux of the argument - that those are state-level (or below) issues. Our government has used the interstate commerce clause in Article I, Section 8, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," to usurp power from the individual states in violation of Amendments IX and X.

J

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 05:46 PM
You call it logical... I call it an excuse to keep the money.

And just to make it clear... surely you don't believe I was advocating "attacking the whore's and racist". That wasn't the point at all. Telling them that it is immoral and you will have no part of it... that is as far from an "attack" as the east is from the west. :rolleyes:


Fine. Tell *them* that it is immoral. Don't do it on CNN.

Me, I'll keep their money.

J

diffangle
Jan 25th 2008, 05:52 PM
[quote=ProjectPeter;1513427]Um... racism is illegal.
Ron Paul is not racist. If racism doesn't affect someone getting a job or not and racism doesn't cause bodily harm to someone, then it's not illegal. The government will never be able to fully control man's inner being/thoughts.


Prostitution (save Nevada) is illegal.
Okay so in your post I responded to, the only thing you mentioned was the folks in Nevada who support him... so we've established that those folks have legal rights to do what they do.



Smoking dope... is illegal. They want to rewrite the law to make much of that legal this making it their individual freedom to do those sort of things. Read the platform.

Ron Paul is a Dr. and underststands the benefits of using it for medicinal purposes(cancer, glaucoma, aids, etc.). Plus, pot is natural(and less dangerous) verses alcohol or any of the other man-manipulated drugs out there in the pharmaceutical world.



And sure... as a Christian I would find it surprising that you have a problem with mercy? I have no problem with the death penalty myself... but then I don't have a problem with mercy either depending on the circumstance.

I don't have a problem with mercy but I also believe in justice.

matthew94
Jan 25th 2008, 05:56 PM
I stand firm on the position that the libertarian position on social policy is a solid and Christian position to take politically. This campaign is a great example of the contrast that exists b/w many Christians on this issue. Gov. Huckabee thinks we should legislate morality because, in his view, the 'church' and 'america' aren't really that different. We are a 'Christian nation'. Congressman Paul, on the other hand, thinks we should not legislate morality because in his view the 'church' is to lead by example, not by force of law. We aren't a 'Christian nation' so much as we are Christians who live in a nation.

The church needs to apply Paul's teaching: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." Our job is to judge sin in the church. We need to stop trying to spread CHRISTIAN PRACTICE through FEDERAL LAW. We spread Christianity by good works and example, not by force (military or legal).

By attempting to constantly legislate christianity, we build further barriers b/w people and Jesus Christ. Some may see it as a bad thing that Ron Paul has some wicked supporters. I see it as a good thing. Those people will recognize that some Christians don't try to stuff religion down their throats. I think it eliminates some walls b/w those people and Christ. Eventually their sin will bring them to rock bottom. We have to trust the Lord for that, not the law. God wants to save them, but it will be via relationship, not legalities. It'll be through people, not politics.

I think this is a major flaw in the evangelical church today

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 05:58 PM
Ron Paul is a Dr. and underststands the benefits of using it for medicinal purposes(cancer, glaucoma, aids, etc.). Plus, pot is natural(and less dangerous) verses alcohol or any of the other man-manipulated drugs out there in the pharmaceutical world.

Actually, according to his speeches, to him it's more a matter of dealing with a messed up judicial system. The "war on drugs" is an abject failure, paid for by politicians pandering to a general public that responds favorably to them being "tough on crime." His opinion is to quit funding it and (as with so many other things) turn the responsibility back over to the states where it belongs.

J

diffangle
Jan 25th 2008, 06:13 PM
I stand firm on the position that the libertarian position on social policy is a solid and Christian position to take politically. This campaign is a great example of the contrast that exists b/w many Christians on this issue. Gov. Huckabee thinks we should legislate morality because, in his view, the 'church' and 'america' aren't really that different. We are a 'Christian nation'. Congressman Paul, on the other hand, thinks we should not legislate morality because in his view the 'church' is to lead by example, not by force of law. We aren't a 'Christian nation' so much as we are Christians who live in a nation.

The church needs to apply Paul's teaching: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." Our job is to judge sin in the church. We need to stop trying to spread CHRISTIAN PRACTICE through FEDERAL LAW. We spread Christianity by good works and example, not by force (military or legal).

By attempting to constantly legislate christianity, we build further barriers b/w people and Jesus Christ. Some may see it as a bad thing that Ron Paul has some wicked supporters. I see it as a good thing. Those people will recognize that some Christians don't try to stuff religion down their throats. I think it eliminates some walls b/w those people and Christ. Eventually their sin will bring them to rock bottom. We have to trust the Lord for that, not the law. God wants to save them, but it will be via relationship, not legalities. It'll be through people, not politics.

I think this is a major flaw in the evangelical church today
Can't rep you again or I would... great post, great Scripture. :)

th1bill
Jan 25th 2008, 08:49 PM
Um, how is that the opposite of rebuking them? He's not condoning their ideologies. He's refusing to give their money back because he'd rather use it than let them use it.

And, barring a fire in a crowded theater, they *do* have the right to say whatever they want. It's that annoying 1st Amendment thing.

J
Misfit,
.. You have the right to say anything you wish but saying it does not ever make it true. And the followers of God are about truth.

misfit815
Jan 25th 2008, 09:23 PM
Misfit,
.. You have the right to say anything you wish but saying it does not ever make it true. And the followers of God are about truth.


I agree wholeheartedly, which is I why I absolutely *adore* FactCheck.org...

Myrtle Beach Blarney (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/myrtle_beach_blarney.html)
McCain's Misleading Mailer (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_misleading_mailer.html)
Bogus Claims in Boca (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/bogus_claims_in_boca.html)
One-Two Punch for GOP (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/one-two_punch_for_gop.html)
N.H. Debate: The GOP Field (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html)
Huckabee's Attack Ad Runs After All (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_attack_ad_runs_after_all.html)
Romney's Ridiculous Hyperbole
(http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/romneys_ridiculous_hyperbole.html)Huckabee Cut Crime and Taxes? (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabee_cut_crime_and_taxes.html)

And that's just the Republicans in January. Well, not *all* of the Republicans. :hmm:

J

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 10:15 PM
[quote]
Ron Paul is not racist. If racism doesn't affect someone getting a job or not and racism doesn't cause bodily harm to someone, then it's not illegal. The government will never be able to fully control man's inner being/thoughts.Um... I didn't say he was a racist.


Okay so in your post I responded to, the only thing you mentioned was the folks in Nevada who support him... so we've established that those folks have legal rights to do what they do.It isn't just Nevada... if you are around a major city when he's there... go visit with the supporters. Quite the lot of folk.



Ron Paul is a Dr. and underststands the benefits of using it for medicinal purposes(cancer, glaucoma, aids, etc.). Plus, pot is natural(and less dangerous) verses alcohol or any of the other man-manipulated drugs out there in the pharmaceutical world.Most the people rooting for it Dif... they don't have cancer, glaucoma, aids or anything else of that nature. Come on now... :lol: Again... check out the Libertarian platform. It doesn't differentiate between use of dope for disease and or simple enjoyment.



I don't have a problem with mercy but I also believe in justice.As do I... but then judgment without mercy? That certainly is an odd Christian stance.

ProjectPeter
Jan 25th 2008, 10:23 PM
I stand firm on the position that the libertarian position on social policy is a solid and Christian position to take politically. This campaign is a great example of the contrast that exists b/w many Christians on this issue. Gov. Huckabee thinks we should legislate morality because, in his view, the 'church' and 'america' aren't really that different. We are a 'Christian nation'. Congressman Paul, on the other hand, thinks we should not legislate morality because in his view the 'church' is to lead by example, not by force of law. We aren't a 'Christian nation' so much as we are Christians who live in a nation.

The church needs to apply Paul's teaching: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." Our job is to judge sin in the church. We need to stop trying to spread CHRISTIAN PRACTICE through FEDERAL LAW. We spread Christianity by good works and example, not by force (military or legal).

By attempting to constantly legislate christianity, we build further barriers b/w people and Jesus Christ. Some may see it as a bad thing that Ron Paul has some wicked supporters. I see it as a good thing. Those people will recognize that some Christians don't try to stuff religion down their throats. I think it eliminates some walls b/w those people and Christ. Eventually their sin will bring them to rock bottom. We have to trust the Lord for that, not the law. God wants to save them, but it will be via relationship, not legalities. It'll be through people, not politics.

I think this is a major flaw in the evangelical church todayWhere do you read where we shouldn't "legislate" morality? I know the words aren't going to read like that... but just show me that principle somewhere in the Bible?

And again... are we truly ambassador's for Christ? If so... would you think God would say "you go and support the folks that believe that homosexuality is fine if that's what floats their boat... and oh yeah... that whole abortion thing is fine as long as that person has rights as an individual." That isn't being extreme because while Ron Paul is not for abortion (if I recall)... he does believe it isn't his choice to make. And homosexuality is not his bag of tea but hey... it's all good as long as it isn't messing with someone else's right!

I'd have a hard time thinking anyone is going to be able to support any such thing as that Scripturally.

diffangle
Jan 25th 2008, 11:37 PM
Um... I didn't say he was a racist.

That's good, your comment("racism is illegal") didn't specify whether you were talking about him or a minority of his supporters so I wanted to clarify that for others that are reading along. ;) But let's admit that for those that like to point out that a racist gave him a contribution are insinuating that he must then be a racist.



It isn't just Nevada... if you are around a major city when he's there... go visit with the supporters. Quite the lot of folk.

I know of a Man who used to get judged by the company He kept... they were quit the lot(prostitutes, tax-gatherers, etc.) :D



Most the people rooting for it Dif... they don't have cancer, glaucoma, aids or anything else of that nature. Come on now... :lol: Again... check out the Libertarian platform. It doesn't differentiate between use of dope for disease and or simple enjoyment.

Do you have any statistics of the amount of crimes and deaths that have occured as a result of being stoned verses the amount due to the use of alcohol or prescription drugs? :P



As do I... but then judgment without mercy? That certainly is an odd Christian stance.

Exd 21:12 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Exd&c=21&v=12&version=KJV#12)He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.



[quote=ProjectPeter;1513754]Where do you read where we shouldn't "legislate" morality? I know the words aren't going to read like that... but just show me that principle somewhere in the Bible?

And again... are we truly ambassador's for Christ? If so... would you think God would say "you go and support the folks that believe that homosexuality is fine if that's what floats their boat... and oh yeah... that whole abortion thing is fine as long as that person has rights as an individual." That isn't being extreme because while Ron Paul is not for abortion (if I recall)... he does believe it isn't his choice to make.

By Ron Paul

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.



And homosexuality is not his bag of tea but hey... it's all good as long as it isn't messing with someone else's right!

I'd have a hard time thinking anyone is going to be able to support any such thing as that Scripturally.

1Cr 5:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=5&verse=12&version=kjv#12)For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

1Cr 5:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=5&verse=13&version=kjv#13)But them that are without God judgeth.

ProjectPeter
Jan 26th 2008, 12:14 AM
That's good, your comment("racism is illegal") didn't specify whether you were talking about him or a minority of his supporters so I wanted to clarify that for others that are reading along. ;) But let's admit that for those that like to point out that a racist gave him a contribution are insinuating that he must then be a racist.My point early on and still is the same. One need ask why it is that he's supported largely by these kind of people. Nothing more... nothing less.



I know of a Man who used to get judged by the company He kept... they were quit the lot(prostitutes, tax-gatherers, etc.) :DIf Ron Paul was preaching the gospel to them then I would be one of his biggest supporters. Rest assured that Jesus wasn't telling them... "what you do is your own business." Trying to make that sort of connection between Ron Paul and Christ... quite a stretch!


Do you have any statistics of the amount of crimes and deaths that have occured as a result of being stoned verses the amount due to the use of alcohol or prescription drugs? :PAny death is enough be it 1 or be it 10000000.


Exd 21:12 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Exd&c=21&v=12&version=KJV#12)He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

You know... it's really sad to see this sort of thing but just so we can do the Scripture tit for tat...

2 Samuel 12:9 `Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.
10 `Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.´
11 "Thus says the LORD, `Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 `Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.´"
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."


By Ron Paul

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life. I know he's against abortion and likely the biggest reason Ron Paul isn't an actual Libertarian Candidate. That would be a direct conflict with their Party Platform. I applaud him for that. Will he push that legislation... or will he continue with the "let the states decide" or "it's their decision and right to decide"... that's something I just don't know.





1Cr 5:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=5&verse=12&version=kjv#12)For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

1Cr 5:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=5&verse=13&version=kjv#13)But them that are without God judgeth.Homosexual's will be what they are and do what they do. As a Christian VOTER... you really think that voting for a pro-homosexual issue would be a vote for God and for God's glory? Do you really believe that?

diffangle
Jan 26th 2008, 12:20 AM
Actually, according to his speeches, to him it's more a matter of dealing with a messed up judicial system. The "war on drugs" is an abject failure, paid for by politicians pandering to a general public that responds favorably to them being "tough on crime." His opinion is to quit funding it and (as with so many other things) turn the responsibility back over to the states where it belongs.

J
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Paul sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:

Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:

the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;
an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician's prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use; or
a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable State law.
Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use.

ProjectPeter
Jan 26th 2008, 12:29 AM
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Paul sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:

Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:

the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;
an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician's prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use; or
a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable State law.
Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use.
I have no problem at all with folks using that stuff for medicinal purposes at all. If it works to take away pain from them then that's cool. But that ain't what Libertarian folk stand for ONLY. They go much further than that. They have it clearly laid out in their Platform. If Ron Paul wants to denounce that platform and go with the Republican platform then cool. He won't though because he doesn't agree now with much of it. ;)

diffangle
Jan 26th 2008, 12:53 AM
[quote=ProjectPeter;1513859]My point early on and still is the same. One need ask why it is that he's supported largely by these kind of people. Nothing more... nothing less.

He's supported by many good Christian folk too;). Christians for Ron Paul... http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/

What do you think the likely-hood is that some of Huckabees(or any other canidiate) supporters have skeletons in their closet(pornography, prostitutes/john's/pimps, drug users, alcoholics, etc)?



If Ron Paul was preaching the gospel to them then I would be one of his biggest supporters. Rest assured that Jesus wasn't telling them... "what you do is your own business." Trying to make that sort of connection between Ron Paul and Christ... quite a stretch!

My point was that I'm not going to judge Ron Paul as a fan of prostitution just b/c some prostitutes support him.... just as Yahushua wasn't a fan of prostitution even tho He hung around them.


Any death is enough be it 1 or be it 10000000.
Do you know of 1? Since alcohol and prescription drugs harm and kill thousands of people all the time, do you think they should be made illegal?



You know... it's really sad to see this sort of thing but just so we can do the Scripture tit for tat...

I'm not sure what you find sad... was it the Scripture I quoted?



2 Samuel 12:9 `Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.
10 `Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.´
11 "Thus says the LORD, `Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 `Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.´"
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."

Was any justice given here?



I know he's against abortion and likely the biggest reason Ron Paul isn't an actual Libertarian Candidate. That would be a direct conflict with their Party Platform. I applaud him for that. Will he push that legislation... or will he continue with the "let the states decide" or "it's their decision and right to decide"... that's something I just don't know.


In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.




Homosexual's will be what they are and do what they do. As a Christian VOTER... you really think that voting for a pro-homosexual issue would be a vote for God and for God's glory? Do you really believe that?

What specific Homosexual issue? I know he's oppossed to same sex marriage and voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. Other than that I don't see how we Christians are going to police what two grown men/women do behind closed doors. :dunno:

th1bill
Jan 26th 2008, 01:00 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised by the turn this conversation has taken. My reference to his ties to the party he actually represents met with some rather strong comments and not all of them on the board. Being an former user and a bleeding heart liberal that God has reformed I just have such huge problems with a man that slides from one guise, after he sees it will never work, into another. I was always doomed as liberal because I just never could get past the idea that we should never look into the actions and only consider the rhetoric. Today, young folks consider me to be an old fuddy-duddy but then I thought my dad was once upon a time.

PP, thanks for putting this conversation into perspective, I certainly failed.

ProjectPeter
Jan 26th 2008, 01:44 PM
He's supported by many good Christian folk too;). Christians for Ron Paul... http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/

What do you think the likely-hood is that some of Huckabees(or any other canidiate) supporters have skeletons in their closet(pornography, prostitutes/john's/pimps, drug users, alcoholics, etc)? And again... we're not talking skeletons in closets. We're talking people that are openly supportive of these things. I'm sure most every candidate has folks who hide stuff... there is no comparison here though... come on.


My point was that I'm not going to judge Ron Paul as a fan of prostitution just b/c some prostitutes support him.... just as Yahushua wasn't a fan of prostitution even tho He hung around them.Christ spoke against such with words such as "you're forgiven, go, sin no more." Ron Paul's ideology is that it's a personal freedom. Again... an apple and squash sort of difference here.


Do you know of 1? Since alcohol and prescription drugs harm and kill thousands of people all the time, do you think they should be made illegal?Sure I know of more than one. I was a cop years back and seen the damage that even pot can do when a bonehead gets too much of it in his system. Then there are many other drugs such as ecstasy and whatnot ... huge problems and yes... folks die, get raped, injured, etc... it's a problem.

Prescription drugs made illegal? That would be a stretch although they need to bust the folks that are using them illegally. It wouldn't totally ruin my life if they outlawed booze. But even here you're trying to compare an apple with a squash because of the simple fact that one is legal when taken legally. The others are not.



I'm not sure what you find sad... was it the Scripture I quoted?[quote]What you did was used one Scripture to make your point and I know you know the Scriptures on mercy... yet you intentionally ignored those in favor of your point.

[quote]Was any justice given here?Sure... and those guys pardoned didn't serve any prison time at all? They were convicted and Huckabee was there with the order to release them with no time served? Come on... you know it don't work like that.


What specific Homosexual issue? I know he's oppossed to same sex marriage and voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. Other than that I don't see how we Christians are going to police what two grown men/women do behind closed doors. :dunno:They can police what is seen in the streets every "gay pride day" right? They can police what they do see... right? If they have evidence... then like with every other crime... they could police it... right?

misfit815
Jan 26th 2008, 01:54 PM
There is a very critical point here that some of us are trying to make, and others of us are trying to deny.

The supporters of Paul believe in not forcing people to avoid sin, and then ministering to them, and trying to lead them away from that sin.

His detractors believe that we should prevent them from sinning in the first place.

Isn't that what's at stake?

So forget the specifics; drugs, abortion, marriage, homosexuality, etc. Let's face what's really at stake here. Do you focus on the sin and force the sinner to avoid it, or do you focus on the sinner and convince them to avoid it?

J

ProjectPeter
Jan 26th 2008, 02:31 PM
There is a very critical point here that some of us are trying to make, and others of us are trying to deny.

The supporters of Paul believe in not forcing people to avoid sin, and then ministering to them, and trying to lead them away from that sin.

His detractors believe that we should prevent them from sinning in the first place.

Isn't that what's at stake?

So forget the specifics; drugs, abortion, marriage, homosexuality, etc. Let's face what's really at stake here. Do you focus on the sin and force the sinner to avoid it, or do you focus on the sinner and convince them to avoid it?

J
Actually you are missing my point because it ain't at all about forcing folks to not sin. That can't be done.

My point is that AS A CHRISTIAN... our vote isn't OUR vote. It is voting for God if you truly are an Ambassador for Christ. That is who we are to represent in everything we do and that includes voting sure enough. There are issues with the Libertarian platform that I can guarantee you that God would not "vote" for. Ron Paul, is a Libertarian save a few issues. If those issues are issues that he stands against totally then fine. If not then not fine.

His stand on abortion I think is pretty clear. If his idea there though is to "let the states decide" then that's a weak stand. Mind you it is better than "have at it." But still a weak stand. If he would fight, like he has apparently done, to end it then cool on that.

The issue of homosexuality... there's a problem. The issue of drugs... there's a problem. His stand on supporting Israel... in my book is a huge problem as well. So these are issues that one has to ponder because I sort of figure that God has spoken clear on them (save the drugs although he speaks of being a drunkard and I figure that covers all of the ground be it booze, drugs of any sort... etc).

If you choose to ignore that you are an ambassador for Christ and figure you are going to vote the way you feel and like regardless... that's your call. I'd not be talking to you anyway when I type. ;)

th1bill
Jan 26th 2008, 05:12 PM
Actually you are missing my point because it ain't at all about forcing folks to not sin. That can't be done.

My point is that AS A CHRISTIAN... our vote isn't OUR vote. It is voting for God if you truly are an Ambassador for Christ. That is who we are to represent in everything we do and that includes voting sure enough. There are issues with the Libertarian platform that I can guarantee you that God would not "vote" for. Ron Paul, is a Libertarian save a few issues. If those issues are issues that he stands against totally then fine. If not then not fine.

His stand on abortion I think is pretty clear. If his idea there though is to "let the states decide" then that's a weak stand. Mind you it is better than "have at it." But still a weak stand. If he would fight, like he has apparently done, to end it then cool on that.

The issue of homosexuality... there's a problem. The issue of drugs... there's a problem. His stand on supporting Israel... in my book is a huge problem as well. So these are issues that one has to ponder because I sort of figure that God has spoken clear on them (save the drugs although he speaks of being a drunkard and I figure that covers all of the ground be it booze, drugs of any sort... etc).

If you choose to ignore that you are an ambassador for Christ and figure you are going to vote the way you feel and like regardless... that's your call. I'd not be talking to you anyway when I type. ;)
Amen and agin I'll say amen! We were bought by an incredible price and to Him we have sworn everything. We did not withhold our reasoning. Did we?

misfit815
Jan 26th 2008, 05:59 PM
Actually you are missing my point because it ain't at all about forcing folks to not sin. That can't be done.

My point is that AS A CHRISTIAN... our vote isn't OUR vote. It is voting for God if you truly are an Ambassador for Christ. That is who we are to represent in everything we do and that includes voting sure enough. There are issues with the Libertarian platform that I can guarantee you that God would not "vote" for. Ron Paul, is a Libertarian save a few issues. If those issues are issues that he stands against totally then fine. If not then not fine.

His stand on abortion I think is pretty clear. If his idea there though is to "let the states decide" then that's a weak stand. Mind you it is better than "have at it." But still a weak stand. If he would fight, like he has apparently done, to end it then cool on that.

The issue of homosexuality... there's a problem. The issue of drugs... there's a problem. His stand on supporting Israel... in my book is a huge problem as well. So these are issues that one has to ponder because I sort of figure that God has spoken clear on them (save the drugs although he speaks of being a drunkard and I figure that covers all of the ground be it booze, drugs of any sort... etc).

If you choose to ignore that you are an ambassador for Christ and figure you are going to vote the way you feel and like regardless... that's your call. I'd not be talking to you anyway when I type. ;)

Believe it or not, I think I've finally beginning to see the source of your position. And now, 148 posts later, my question when I started this thread may finally be answered! :D

Let me take a stab at it...

A Christian who does not support Dr. Paul would believe that casting a vote for him is in disobedience to God because it is an implied tolerance of clearly sinful behavior (drug abuse, homosexuality, etc). The fact that the Christian voter AND Paul both condemn those things is irrelevant. What is important is that Paul's positions open the door for those things to take place, and so God's vote cannot be in support of that.

Is that close enough?

Assuming it is, I think my original question is answered. I don't think there's any more convincing that could be done, and in fact (by Romans 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&version=51)) those of us who support Paul have no business even trying.

And I do still support Paul. I think the other issues that are at stake are more important, and I believe that others here do as well. But as for my question, "Why not Ron Paul?" I think it's finally been answered. Thank you.

J

th1bill
Jan 26th 2008, 10:15 PM
misfit said,
A Christian who does not support Dr. Paul would believe that casting a vote for him is in disobedience to God because it is an implied tolerance of clearly sinful behavior (drug abuse, homosexuality, etc). The fact that the Christian voter AND Paul both condemn those things is irrelevant. What is important is that Paul's positions open the door for those things to take place, and so God's vote cannot be in support of that.

.. The entire problem is much more complicated than that.
.. i.e. When I was young I always told people that I disapproved of drugs and drunkenness. I thought I did. I still hung around with these folks and before I knew what had happened, an old proverb of my father had come true. He often stated that the birds of a feather, oft times flock together. I thought him unwise and long before I realized it I was a drunken drug abuser. At the very least Ron Paul is in a dangerous position.
.. Cap that off with his statements of position, after the syntax is carefully examined, and he has no legs to put his statements into motion. Ron Paul is a canon that has been loaded, broke loose from it's mooring and is being tossed about the deck. He makes beautiful statements but they are anchored to nothing.

misfit815
Jan 28th 2008, 03:21 PM
I would like to return to a couple of things that th1bill said earlier, since I think I finally understand his reasoning.

He said, "I recall that Ron Paul had absolutely no problem supporting Mr. Nader's bid for the White House. Politically, that ties Him to all of Ralph's Drugs for free society notions and the other rather strange social leanings of the gent."

He also said, "A large one is that he was and in my mind still is a Libertarian. He has only taken on the tag, Republican,. because he knows his association with Ralph Nader will forever drag him through the mud."

And most recently, he said, "...I just have such huge problems with a man that slides from one guise, after he sees it will never work, into another."

Here's where I went wrong before.

I believe that supporting a person's position on one issue has nothing to do with supporting them on any other issue. As was just discussed on this thread, there are those (including th1bill) who I don't think would agree with that.

If I understand their argument correctly, then it becomes quite clear what th1bill's comment regarding Ralph Nader meant. In 2004, in support of his Voter Freedom Act (HR 1941), Paul criticized the government (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul194.html) for actively trying to prevent Nader from appearing on ballots across the country. While he did not directly support Nader, his position on the issue *effectively* supported Nader's bid for President.

And while Paul has only run as a Libertarian candidate once (for President in 1988), his political positions are typically (and correctly) identified as being Libertarian in nature. Despite this, he regularly runs as a Republican, self-identifying with the Goldwater Republicans. While the two positions - Libertarian and Goldwater Republican - are exceedingly similar, it is much more politically advantageous to claim the Republican label, an advantage that Paul himself has acknowledged.

So, if I understand this all correctly, Paul is found to be at fault by supporting Nader indirectly, through his support for third-party candidates, and then by running as a Republican, in order to avoid the negative connotations that running as a third-party candidate brings.

How'd I do?

J

Fenris
Jan 28th 2008, 03:29 PM
It's all moot. Paul ain't getting the nomination.

misfit815
Jan 28th 2008, 03:36 PM
It's all moot. Paul ain't getting the nomination.

Actually, it's still possible. Consider the following:

- Unlike most other Republican candidates, Paul has enough money to spend the big bucks to air during the Super Bowl, two days before Super Tuesday.
- A larger impediment to Paul than any of the other major candidates is a lack of awareness. He's simply not getting air time. As the field thins, the additional exposure's only going to help him.
- And evangelical Christians have really only been rallying behind Huckabee and Thompson. Thompson's out, and Huckabee's short on cash. That's why I started this thread; to figure out what evangelicals had against Paul, and to counter any false information. If Huckabee drops out, who gets the Christian vote?

J

Fenris
Jan 28th 2008, 03:50 PM
Why would Huckabee drop out? At the present polling numbers he'll get enough delegates to play kingmaker and get a VP spot.

matthew94
Jan 28th 2008, 06:02 PM
Where do you read where we shouldn't "legislate" morality? I know the words aren't going to read like that... but just show me that principle somewhere in the Bible?

It's not our job as Christians to govern the morals of the wicked. This principle comes directly from St. Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 5:12: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."

Now certainly God's judging of the wicked can be via the government. But that's His choice. And He has made America, for the time being, a representative democracy. And in such a system every participant has a right to vote for what policy he thinks would be best. I am sharing my opinion that I think the church is best served by not trying to legislate morality. As a church, we're commanded not to try to make non-Christians act like Christians. As Americans, I just think it's a good idea. In my observation, the more the federal government involves itself in a social issue, the worse the situation gets. That's Ron Paul's philosophy and I share it.


And again... are we truly ambassador's for Christ? If so... would you think God would say "you go and support the folks that believe that homosexuality is fine if that's what floats their boat... and oh yeah... that whole abortion thing is fine as long as that person has rights as an individual." That isn't being extreme because while Ron Paul is not for abortion (if I recall)... he does believe it isn't his choice to make. And homosexuality is not his bag of tea but hey... it's all good as long as it isn't messing with someone else's right! It's not an issue of supporting homosexuality. It's an issue of supporting freedom. Laws don't change people, Jesus does.

On the issue of abortion, I think you are just misinformed on Paul's position. He is radically pro-life. He thinks Roe v. Wade should be negated (in fact, "Roe" has since become a pro-life advocate and has endorsed Ron Paul). He believes life begins at conception and that this fact ends all arguments about the legality of abortion. The life has rights from conception forward.

Paul has received criticism from other libertarians b/c of his pro-life stance. Most libertarians, you are right, are pro-choice, but Paul is different b/c he recognizes the fact that life begins at conception.

ProjectPeter
Jan 28th 2008, 06:30 PM
It's not our job as Christians to govern the morals of the wicked. This principle comes directly from St. Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 5:12: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."Why do you put the word "judging" in there. No where do you see where I said we should judge them. Legislating morality isn't judging folks. It is determining right and wrong and making it a law.


Now certainly God's judging of the wicked can be via the government. But that's His choice. And He has made America, for the time being, a representative democracy. And in such a system every participant has a right to vote for what policy he thinks would be best. I am sharing my opinion that I think the church is best served by not trying to legislate morality. As a church, we're commanded not to try to make non-Christians act like Christians. As Americans, I just think it's a good idea. In my observation, the more the federal government involves itself in a social issue, the worse the situation gets. That's Ron Paul's philosophy and I share it.Where are we commanded to do such a thing? Contextually... you aren't going to find that at all. The only way you can make that case is to somehow make this a matter of judgment and it isn't. As a Christian, an alien in this nation, an ambassador for Christ... you don't have that right to vote how you "think would be best." You vote in such a way that gives glory to God.


It's not an issue of supporting homosexuality. It's an issue of supporting freedom. Laws don't change people, Jesus does. And do you believe that you are an Ambassador for Christ down here in the nasty now and now? As His ambassador... HOW can you support anything that supports homosexuality?


On the issue of abortion, I think you are just misinformed on Paul's position. He is radically pro-life. He thinks Roe v. Wade should be negated (in fact, "Roe" has since become a pro-life advocate and has endorsed Ron Paul). He believes life begins at conception and that this fact ends all arguments about the legality of abortion. The life has rights from conception forward.

Paul has received criticism from other libertarians b/c of his pro-life stance. Most libertarians, you are right, are pro-choice, but Paul is different b/c he recognizes the fact that life begins at conception.As I have said in here already a couple of times... that is likely why he's not a full blown party bonafide Libertarian. If he was their official candidate then they would have to rewrite their platform or at least acknowledge that he was running against their platform on that specific issue.

ProjectPeter
Jan 28th 2008, 06:36 PM
Believe it or not, I think I've finally beginning to see the source of your position. And now, 148 posts later, my question when I started this thread may finally be answered! :D

Let me take a stab at it...

A Christian who does not support Dr. Paul would believe that casting a vote for him is in disobedience to God because it is an implied tolerance of clearly sinful behavior (drug abuse, homosexuality, etc). The fact that the Christian voter AND Paul both condemn those things is irrelevant. What is important is that Paul's positions open the door for those things to take place, and so God's vote cannot be in support of that.

Is that close enough?

Assuming it is, I think my original question is answered. I don't think there's any more convincing that could be done, and in fact (by Romans 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&version=51)) those of us who support Paul have no business even trying.

And I do still support Paul. I think the other issues that are at stake are more important, and I believe that others here do as well. But as for my question, "Why not Ron Paul?" I think it's finally been answered. Thank you.

JClose enough for the most part. As to other issues overriding things... that's your call. However... that can be done for the glory of God. No way one could lay much of that stand at the feet of God and say that He would endorse it. If you don't vote for the glory of God... then none of this is relevant anyway nor does it matter. Vote what you think is best.

ProjectPeter
Jan 28th 2008, 06:38 PM
Actually, it's still possible. Consider the following:

- Unlike most other Republican candidates, Paul has enough money to spend the big bucks to air during the Super Bowl, two days before Super Tuesday.
- A larger impediment to Paul than any of the other major candidates is a lack of awareness. He's simply not getting air time. As the field thins, the additional exposure's only going to help him.
- And evangelical Christians have really only been rallying behind Huckabee and Thompson. Thompson's out, and Huckabee's short on cash. That's why I started this thread; to figure out what evangelicals had against Paul, and to counter any false information. If Huckabee drops out, who gets the Christian vote?

J
Even if Huckabee is out (he probably is for the most part) then the vote isn't going to go to Paul. If it was.... it already would have. Florida will be interesting. See if Paul gets a surge there from Thompson voters. I'm betting he doesn't and it is already apparent that Huckabee didn't get them. ;) They've gone to either McCain or Romney as is pretty evident.

matthew94
Jan 28th 2008, 07:12 PM
Why do you put the word "judging" in there. No where do you see where I said we should judge them. Legislating morality isn't judging folks. It is determining right and wrong and making it a law.

Let me try to speak a write a little more fully what I'm trying to say. I would think, and hope, that you agree that the church often does the OPPOSITE of 1 Corinthians 5:12. Paul said don't judge those outside the church, but judge those inside. BUT WE, as Christians, often do the reverse. We judge those outside the church, but aren't bold enough to deal with sin inside the church. On that point I am sure we agree, right?

So what does judging consist of? In general, it consists of pointing fingers at and calling something a sin - someone a sinner. Paul says we are not to focus on the sinfulness of sinners, but the sinfulness of believers. By not focusing on the sinfulness of sinners, we are not saying their sin is OK. Not at all! We are simply focusing on what God would have us focus on.

Now, despite how some people use it, the Bible is not a textbook for how to govern a secular nation. God doesn't layout a blueprint for political democracy. He is concerned, in Scripture, with changing the church into the vessel it needs to be to impact the peoples of the world. He doesn't tell us whether morality should be legislated OR not. He simply tells the church not to judge the world.

So the question of whether or not we should legislate morality is open to Christians to discuss and disagree about. I'm simply saying that in my observation, every time a government gets its hand in a social issue, the morals of citizens on that issue begin to crumble. I doubt many would argue that prohibition didn't make alcoholism worse. I doubt many would argue that getting the government involved in marriage licenses didn't hinder the integrity of marriage. I doubt many would argue that drug-usage has gone down since its illegalization. The evidence points to the idea that whenever the feds get involved in things, there is corruption and decline.

Take FEMA as another example. They are supposed to do a moral task, helping those in crisis. But they did an absolutely terrible job after Katrina. It was the church that was able to get the most bang for its buck in the aftermath of that crisis. The federal government is just not very good at social issues.

As a Christian, I agree with St. Paul that it's not my business to judge lost people, to tell them what to do and what not to do, to point fingers at them. As an American, I agree with Ron Paul that it's not the federal governments business to make an abundance of laws against private or consensual sins.

I think the church and the country would be far better off by expanding freedom and allowing states and local governments to deal with problems in their area. The local governments can debate the merits of certain laws. The churches can spread the message of hope and purity and Jesus Christ. It's not that I, or Ron Paul, thinks these things are OK. It's not even that we think these things shouldn't be illegal. We simply think the federal government has no business telling the states and the communities what to do in these areas b/c the federal government doesn't have the reputation to speak with authority.


Where are we commanded to do such a thing? Contextually... you aren't going to find that at all. The only way you can make that case is to somehow make this a matter of judgment and it isn't. As a Christian, an alien in this nation, an ambassador for Christ... you don't have that right to vote how you "think would be best." You vote in such a way that gives glory to God.

Where are we commanded to legislate morality?

The last line is meaningless. Obviously my opinions are my best attempt to think like Christ (since I'm a Christian). My opinions are based on my understanding of what Christ would have me to think. So when I vote my opinions I am indeed attempting to glorify the Lord.


And do you believe that you are an Ambassador for Christ down here in the nasty now and now? As His ambassador... HOW can you support anything that supports homosexuality?

Again, YOU are defining what 'supports' homosexuality. I think laws against homosexuality support homosexuality just like laws against alcohol ended up supporting alcohol. You seem to have the mentality that a federal law against something actually fixes things!

It seems to me the best way to be an ambassador for Christ and against homosexuality is to be salt and light, not to make laws. I think federal laws, supported by evangelicals, that limit the freedoms of homosexuals, simply push these people farther away from the church, and therefore, farther away from Christ Who dwells therein. I think we'd be far better off by BEING the church God would have us to be, by dealing with sin in our own midst, and therefore setting a great example for homosexuals. We win people by showing them what is right, not by telling them they are wrong.


As I have said in here already a couple of times... that is likely why he's not a full blown party bonafide Libertarian. If he was their official candidate then they would have to rewrite their platform or at least acknowledge that he was running against their platform on that specific issue.

He's a lifelong republican. He only was a libertarian for a year. But who cares about parties anyways? If the libertarian party is more like the republican party of old than the republican party of now, all the power to them! I agree with libertarian philosophy. Abortion simply doesn't fall into that realm b/c life begins at conception. The mainstream libertarians are wrong on that issue.

It's obvious we don't see eye to eye on this issue. You seem to have much more confidence in the federal government than I do. I've never been very big on passing laws to affect social change.

ProjectPeter
Jan 28th 2008, 07:57 PM
Let me try to speak a write a little more fully what I'm trying to say. I would think, and hope, that you agree that the church often does the OPPOSITE of 1 Corinthians 5:12. Paul said don't judge those outside the church, but judge those inside. BUT WE, as Christians, often do the reverse. We judge those outside the church, but aren't bold enough to deal with sin inside the church. On that point I am sure we agree, right?Agree.


So what does judging consist of? In general, it consists of pointing fingers at and calling something a sin - someone a sinner.You are half right. It would be pointing fingers at someone and judging them. If they are a sinner then they are a sinner and there is no question of that. Sin is sin and if they sin they are a sinner. Calling something a sin is not at all judging nor casting judgment on someone. If that was the case then Scripture is the most judgmental book ever written and that includes both the Old and New Testament.


Paul says we are not to focus on the sinfulness of sinners, but the sinfulness of believers. By not focusing on the sinfulness of sinners, we are not saying their sin is OK. Not at all! We are simply focusing on what God would have us focus on.I am not focusing on the sinfulness of sinners. I am focusing on how we, as a Christian, should represent God. In doing that very thing which we are told to do... how do you do that while voting for sinfulness?


Now, despite how some people use it, the Bible is not a textbook for how to govern a secular nation. God doesn't layout a blueprint for political democracy. He is concerned, in Scripture, with changing the church into the vessel it needs to be to impact the peoples of the world. He doesn't tell us whether morality should be legislated OR not. He simply tells the church not to judge the world.And you are missing the point entirely. I am not advocating setting up a theocracy... Christ will do that without my help. My point is how we represent Christ here in the nasty now and now. Show me the Scripture that would lead you to believe that it would be fine to support someone that is pro-choice? Pro-homosexuality? etc. I know Paul isn't prochoice but since some of the folks running are... may as well cover them as well in this because the same is in place.


So the question of whether or not we should legislate morality is open to Christians to discuss and disagree about. I'm simply saying that in my observation, every time a government gets its hand in a social issue, the morals of citizens on that issue begin to crumble. I doubt many would argue that prohibition didn't make alcoholism worse. I doubt many would argue that getting the government involved in marriage licenses didn't hinder the integrity of marriage. I doubt many would argue that drug-usage has gone down since its illegalization. The evidence points to the idea that whenever the feds get involved in things, there is corruption and decline.It isn't the government legislating morality that gets the nations in trouble and history makes that clear. It is when the nations STOP legislating morality thus breeding immorality... that's when the proverbial stuff hits the fan.


Take FEMA as another example. They are supposed to do a moral task, helping those in crisis. But they did an absolutely terrible job after Katrina. It was the church that was able to get the most bang for its buck in the aftermath of that crisis. The federal government is just not very good at social issues.Katrina wasn't a "social issue" and FEMA did a horrible job and it appears they have learned from that. What did folks expect after something of that magnitude from an agency that has never faced anything near that magnitude? While I think FEMA is ignorant for a lot of other reasons... that isn't one of them. It happens and they weren't ready for it. Now that it has happened and they've learned... should it happen again then I would suspect they will be much better prepared.


As a Christian, I agree with St. Paul that it's not my business to judge lost people, to tell them what to do and what not to do, to point fingers at them. As an American, I agree with Ron Paul that it's not the federal governments business to make an abundance of laws against private or consensual sins. Um... Paul made it clear that sin was sin when he preached. We're not talking a church service though. Again... you are supposed to represent God doing all for His glory. There are just some issues that can't possibly do that... issues that the Libertarian Party are about.


I think the church and the country would be far better off by expanding freedom and allowing states and local governments to deal with problems in their area. The local governments can debate the merits of certain laws. The churches can spread the message of hope and purity and Jesus Christ. It's not that I, or Ron Paul, thinks these things are OK. It's not even that we think these things shouldn't be illegal. We simply think the federal government has no business telling the states and the communities what to do in these areas b/c the federal government doesn't have the reputation to speak with authority.When voting for your local officials then fine. When voting in the Federal elections... you're stuck. And rest assured of this as well... even if someone like Paul did get elected (and I figure that is quite doubtful) then rest assured... Congress ain't going to allow it nor is the Senate. It's not going to happen nor frankly am I convinced it is totally the correct thing. Folks want it to be at a state level until there is a problem... then they are hollering for Uncle Sugar to bail them out! :lol:



Where are we commanded to legislate morality?We are ambassador's for Christ... your vote should always be towards that which is moral. How could it be otherwise while claiming the name of Christ... a child of God?




The last line is meaningless. Obviously my opinions are my best attempt to think like Christ (since I'm a Christian). My opinions are based on my understanding of what Christ would have me to think. So when I vote my opinions I am indeed attempting to glorify the Lord.We gotta do better than attempt. That should be all of our charge.



Again, YOU are defining what 'supports' homosexuality. I think laws against homosexuality support homosexuality just like laws against alcohol ended up supporting alcohol. You seem to have the mentality that a federal law against something actually fixes things!And laws that are against stealing, murder, etc... support stealing and murder etc? That just makes no sense at all and is more a liberal way of thinking than anything else. Shoot... let's just ABANDON ALL LAW! That would insure us of one thing... total insane chaos within the first week. Not very prudent I would think.




It seems to me the best way to be an ambassador for Christ and against homosexuality is to be salt and light, not to make laws. I think federal laws, supported by evangelicals, that limit the freedoms of homosexuals, simply push these people farther away from the church, and therefore, farther away from Christ Who dwells therein. I think we'd be far better off by BEING the church God would have us to be, by dealing with sin in our own midst, and therefore setting a great example for homosexuals. We win people by showing them what is right, not by telling them they are wrong.Um.. so you think the Law of Moses pushed the sinning Hebrews further away from God and in fact Moses wasn't being light but instead darkness for establishing those laws of God? That is where you would have to take this sort of logic.

As to dealing with sin in our midst... we should certainly do that very thing. If, as a Christian, we are going to vote... then our vote has to be for light as well and not darkness. I don't see how it can be otherwise and us say that we voted for the glory of God.


He's a lifelong republican. He only was a libertarian for a year. But who cares about parties anyways? If the libertarian party is more like the republican party of old than the republican party of now, all the power to them! I agree with libertarian philosophy. Abortion simply doesn't fall into that realm b/c life begins at conception. The mainstream libertarians are wrong on that issue.

It's obvious we don't see eye to eye on this issue. You seem to have much more confidence in the federal government than I do. I've never been very big on passing laws to affect social change.I have very little confidence in the federal government. My confidence in them isn't at all the issue though. My vote for Senate, Congress and President is in fact a federal vote for a federal office. That vote has to be made as a representative of God. If God doesn't approve of part of a candidates platform then there is no way that I can accurately vote for that candidate and call it a vote for God. I don't care who that is or what Party they are in there... the point doesn't make exceptions to the rule. If there is no one that fits that bill... then write in the vote. If that isn't an option... don't vote but I think most states have it as an option... maybe all of them.

The primary may well not because you are voting for the party ticket unless your state allows otherwise. Many don't. If there isn't a candidate that has a platform that fits a godly standard... then don't vote in the primary and wait for the general election. There you can exercise the write in option.

matthew94
Jan 28th 2008, 08:41 PM
how do you do that while voting for sinfulness?

This discussion will go nowhere so long as you continue to imagine that voting for increased freedom is a vote 'for sinfulness' :)


Show me the Scripture that would lead you to believe that it would be fine to support someone that is pro-choice? Pro-homosexuality? etc. I know Paul isn't prochoice but since some of the folks running are... may as well cover them as well in this because the same is in place.

Once again, we aren't going to get anywhere if you continue to imagine that voting for increased freedom is somehow 'pro-choice' or 'pro-homosexuality'. Paul is neither 'pro-choice' nor 'pro-homosexuality'.


It isn't the government legislating morality that gets the nations in trouble and history makes that clear. It is when the nations STOP legislating morality thus breeding immorality

First of all, I think the idea of 'legislating morality' requires more nuance. A government has a role in legislating morality when it comes to sins that impact other citizens directly. We, of course, legislate morality when we have laws against murder (including abortion), rape, theft, etc. Nobody is arguing that such legislation is wrong. But when it comes to sexual preferences, drug usage, smoking, etc it's a whole different ballgame. That's a necessary distinction to make to avoid straw men.

Second, I think you are historically wrong. As a specific example, are you claiming that prohibition was a good idea and/or that it worked?


Katrina wasn't a "social issue" and FEMA did a horrible job and it appears they have learned from that. What did folks expect after something of that magnitude from an agency that has never faced anything near that magnitude? While I think FEMA is ignorant for a lot of other reasons... that isn't one of them. It happens and they weren't ready for it. Now that it has happened and they've learned... should it happen again then I would suspect they will be much better prepared.

Helping people in crisis is a moral responsible. And I think you are incorrect to speculate that they failed simply b/c they didn't have practice in such a large scale crisis. They failed b/c federal agencies are, by their very nature, beaurocratic instead of people centered. The church rolled in and did a lot of the work efficiently. And that's the way it should be.


Um... Paul made it clear that sin was sin when he preached. We're not talking a church service though. Again... you are supposed to represent God doing all for His glory. There are just some issues that can't possibly do that... issues that the Libertarian Party are about.

Do you think Paul spent a lot of time trying to make prostitution illegal? Do you think he spent ANY time doing that? Do you think he spent a lot of time trying to make homosexuality illegal? Do you think he spent ANY time doing that? Do you think Paul spent a lot of time trying to make drug usage illegal? Do you think he spent any time doing that? No, his vehicle for changing culture was not to use his Roman citizenship to influence the policies of the empire. His vehicle was the church, transformed and radically different from the culture, setting an example of holiness. That's how we bring God glory.


When voting for your local officials then fine. When voting in the Federal elections... you're stuck. And rest assured of this as well... even if someone like Paul did get elected (and I figure that is quite doubtful) then rest assured... Congress ain't going to allow it nor is the Senate. It's not going to happen nor frankly am I convinced it is totally the correct thing. Folks want it to be at a state level until there is a problem... then they are hollering for Uncle Sugar to bail them out!

If I agree that Ron Paul is right, then, frankly I'm voting for him whether he'll be able to change things or not. I don't think Ron Paul will be elected either, but I'm going to make my vote count as a hand objecting to the current status quo. Just because people have become dependant on the federal government doesn't mean that's right. And just b/c it probably isn't going to change doesn't mean I should sit idly by or, worse yet, give it my endorsement.


We are ambassador's for Christ... your vote should always be towards that which is moral. How could it be otherwise while claiming the name of Christ... a child of God?

A third time, you are equating voting for additional freedom as the equal to voting 'for' sin.


We gotta do better than attempt.

I don't understand your line of thought here. Are you saying you are perfect in your attempts to glorify God? All I am saying is that I think Ron Paul's positions are the one's that best align with Scripture. I can't change that opinion until I am convinced otherwise.


And laws that are against stealing, murder, etc... support stealing and murder etc? That just makes no sense at all and is more a liberal way of thinking than anything else. Shoot... let's just ABANDON ALL LAW! That would insure us of one thing... total insane chaos within the first week. Not very prudent I would think.

See previous distinction and historical evidence.


Um.. so you think the Law of Moses pushed the sinning Hebrews further away from God and in fact Moses wasn't being light but instead darkness for establishing those laws of God? That is where you would have to take this sort of logic.

There are so many problems with this comparison, and different senses in which to answer it, that I'm not sure I want to invest the time. Briefly, when we're talking OT Moses, we're basically talking about a theocracy. Further, in some ways, as the NT makes clear, the law was indeed introduced so that the offenses abounded.

I am thoroughly convinced that Ron Paul is a great candidate for a Christian to vote for. But we live in a free country (thanks to Ron Paul...just kidding), so you are free to disagree and vote (or not vote) as you deem appropriate.

th1bill
Jan 28th 2008, 08:49 PM
It's all moot. Paul ain't getting the nomination.
Short, sweet and directly to the point. Bravo!

matthew94
Jan 28th 2008, 09:38 PM
Short, sweet and directly to the point. Bravo!

So because a candidate isn't likely to win, we shouldn't bother discussing his political philosophies or consider supporting him?

ProjectPeter
Jan 28th 2008, 10:01 PM
This discussion will go nowhere so long as you continue to imagine that voting for increased freedom is a vote 'for sinfulness' :) If that platform is endorsing sinfulness and you vote for that platform... one can spin it all they want but it is still ultimately voting for sinfulness.


Once again, we aren't going to get anywhere if you continue to imagine that voting for increased freedom is somehow 'pro-choice' or 'pro-homosexuality'. Paul is neither 'pro-choice' nor 'pro-homosexuality'.And again... if you are voting for a party and that platform... you can't get around the simple facts that you are voting for what that party stands for. If there are sinful things they endorse... and you vote for that party... you are voting for those things to pass. There is no way to separate from that. It is like Democrats in Minnesota. If you are going to be a Democratic politician in the districts outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul... you better be pro-life otherwise you ain't getting elected. The population is a vast majority of Catholic and Lutheran and that's one thing they won't stand for. But it is silly because one who votes for a Democratic politician is ultimately voting for that platform. The reason why... the politician, once in Washington, will learn that he can't buck the party. To do so is political suicide.


First of all, I think the idea of 'legislating morality' requires more nuance. A government has a role in legislating morality when it comes to sins that impact other citizens directly. We, of course, legislate morality when we have laws against murder (including abortion), rape, theft, etc. Nobody is arguing that such legislation is wrong. But when it comes to sexual preferences, drug usage, smoking, etc it's a whole different ballgame. That's a necessary distinction to make to avoid straw men.Yeah... heard that before. Neil Bortz and I debated that back several years ago. Problem is... sexual preference does effect others as does dope. Insurance runs out on most AIDS patients very quickly. We pay for that and the government pays dearly. Dopers do a lot of crazy things... they rob for more dope and that's proven over and over and over again. Crime stat's show that much of crime today is dope driven in some form or fashion. And when they drive stoned... they kill just as good as the bonehead drinking and driving stoned. Yeah... I know. We should outlaw booze too if we are going to look at it that way. Okay cool. Outlaw it. Works for me and no... I don't think drinking in itself is a sin and I am not opposed to taking a nip now and again. Nothing wrong with it at all although today... it has gotten dangerous and I'd be all for nixing it totally.


Second, I think you are historically wrong. As a specific example, are you claiming that prohibition was a good idea and/or that it worked?Didn't work then... wouldn't work now any more than laws against dope. BUT... many, if not most, folks are law abiding and would abide with the law. Those that didn't... they would pay the price. Look... laws against murder are good. But folks still murder. It happens and one doesn't declare a law good or bad because folks still do it anyway. Again... that is just odd logic.


Helping people in crisis is a moral responsible. And I think you are incorrect to speculate that they failed simply b/c they didn't have practice in such a large scale crisis. They failed b/c federal agencies are, by their very nature, beaurocratic instead of people centered. The church rolled in and did a lot of the work efficiently. And that's the way it should be. Matthew... I know of many problems that happened even within church agencies and one of the biggest being... people used them just as they did the government. Yes it is a moral responsibility and not just for the church... but also for the government. And rest assured of this. Your Libertarian Party... most of them despise the church. The church would be welcomed much like they are in the Republican Party. Come election time they love you. Come reality time... stay away from us because you guys are poison.

Yes... the fed is a pain in the backside. But then when they work quickly... as they did AFTER everyone turned on them in those first couple of weeks in New Orleans... folks turn on them because they let so many people defraud them. Damned if they do... damned if they don't... but rest assured they'll be damned. Can't make everyone happy and that is in spades now days.


Do you think Paul spent a lot of time trying to make prostitution illegal? Do you think he spent ANY time doing that? Do you think he spent a lot of time trying to make homosexuality illegal? Do you think he spent ANY time doing that? Do you think Paul spent a lot of time trying to make drug usage illegal? Do you think he spent any time doing that? No, his vehicle for changing culture was not to use his Roman citizenship to influence the policies of the empire. His vehicle was the church, transformed and radically different from the culture, setting an example of holiness. That's how we bring God glory.Um... Rome wasn't a democracy or even a Republic. Trying to compare that to now... can't possibly spin it. Just won't work at all and shouldn't even be attempted.


If I agree that Ron Paul is right, then, frankly I'm voting for him whether he'll be able to change things or not. I don't think Ron Paul will be elected either, but I'm going to make my vote count as a hand objecting to the current status quo. Just because people have become dependant on the federal government doesn't mean that's right. And just b/c it probably isn't going to change doesn't mean I should sit idly by or, worse yet, give it my endorsement.That's your call and right as an American citizen. I have NEVER disputed that at all. As a Christian... an ambassador for Christ... I figure that is going to be problematic. But ultimately you have to vote either as a citizen... or an alien.


A third time, you are equating voting for additional freedom as the equal to voting 'for' sin. Again a third time... no I am not. I am saying that voting for that platform that is sinful is the problem. Voting for the platform of an individual candidate, if their platform is sinful and no matter the party... that is just as problematic. That is why I would never vote for say Rudy Guiliani. His stand on social issues is about as ungodly as one can be.


I don't understand your line of thought here. Are you saying you are perfect in your attempts to glorify God? All I am saying is that I think Ron Paul's positions are the one's that best align with Scripture. I can't change that opinion until I am convinced otherwise.Why does it matter if I am perfect or not? Point doesn't change no matter my perfection or imperfection.



See previous distinction and historical evidence.

There are so many problems with this comparison, and different senses in which to answer it, that I'm not sure I want to invest the time. Briefly, when we're talking OT Moses, we're basically talking about a theocracy. Further, in some ways, as the NT makes clear, the law was indeed introduced so that the offenses abounded.

I am thoroughly convinced that Ron Paul is a great candidate for a Christian to vote for. But we live in a free country (thanks to Ron Paul...just kidding), so you are free to disagree and vote (or not vote) as you deem appropriate.Again... that's your right as a citizen of the United States. Never disagreed with that nor would I.

th1bill
Jan 28th 2008, 11:08 PM
So because a candidate isn't likely to win, we shouldn't bother discussing his political philosophies or consider supporting him?
I'm really sorry your so mad but there is no point to it. For you put your spin on what I stated is so much like the secular news media that it is disturbing. I have, up to, and will beyond this point not debate personal ideologies. Each person in the US is free to be foolish and waste their vote on a dark horse, reaching for pie in the sky at any moment. Matthew, it is not a personal item, it is stewardship! And aren't we all supposed to be good stewards with everything God has trusted to our safe keeping?

matthew94
Jan 28th 2008, 11:42 PM
........If that platform is endorsing sinfulness
........If there are sinful things they endorse...

You haven't come close, at all, to connecting what Ron Paul advocates to 'endorsement' of any of these sinful activities.


Yeah... heard that before. Neil Bortz and I debated that back several years ago. Problem is... sexual preference does effect others as does dope. Insurance runs out on most AIDS patients very quickly. We pay for that and the government pays dearly. Dopers do a lot of crazy things... they rob for more dope and that's proven over and over and over again. Crime stat's show that much of crime today is dope driven in some form or fashion. And when they drive stoned... they kill just as good as the bonehead drinking and driving stoned.

Anybody can see a difference b/w direct and indirect impact.


Yeah... I know. We should outlaw booze too if we are going to look at it that way. Okay cool. Outlaw it. Works for me and no... I don't think drinking in itself is a sin and I am not opposed to taking a nip now and again. Nothing wrong with it at all although today... it has gotten dangerous and I'd be all for nixing it totally.

You're an authoritarian. I'm OK with that. I just disagree. I used to be one too, but I am not anymore. Then you go on to say, if I may paraphrase, the even though prohibition didn't work, it was/is still worth having as a law (is that a fair assessment?)

But you seem to totally neglect that users of drugs (for example) WOULD still have to pay a punishment for committing a crime provoked by their drug use! Libertarian philosophy doesn't neglect punishment and consequences for negative impacts made by people free choices!


Your Libertarian Party... most of them despise the church. The church would be welcomed much like they are in the Republican Party. Come election time they love you. Come reality time... stay away from us because you guys are poison.

I don't care 1 iota about the libertarian party. I agree with libertarian philosophy as Ron Paul describes it.


Um... Rome wasn't a democracy or even a Republic. Trying to compare that to now... can't possibly spin it. Just won't work at all and shouldn't even be attempted.

Haha, so you can illustrate points with OT theocracy, but I can't illustrate points with NT empires? (I want to note here that my tone is playful, not combative, I'm enjoying the discussion). Fine, I'll re-phrase the question, if Paul were living in America today, do you think he'd be heavily involved in legislating morality? I suppose you'll say yes, but I'd very much disagree!


But ultimately you have to vote either as a citizen... or an alien.

If I were only voting as an american citizen I'd vote Ron Paul.
If I were only voting as an alien ambassador I'd vote Ron Paul.
It's a both/and for me, not an either/or


Again a third time... no I am not. I am saying that voting for that platform that is sinful is the problem. Voting for the platform of an individual candidate, if their platform is sinful and no matter the party... that is just as problematic. That is why I would never vote for say Rudy Guiliani. His stand on social issues is about as ungodly as one can be.

No where in Ron Paul's 'platform' does he endorse sin. Nothing in his platform is sinful. You type as if the fact that he has some libertarian tendancies makes him an endorser of all libertarians!

Good discussion,
matthew

matthew94
Jan 28th 2008, 11:48 PM
I'm really sorry your so mad but there is no point to it. For you put your spin on what I stated is so much like the secular news media that it is disturbing. I have, up to, and will beyond this point not debate personal ideologies. Each person in the US is free to be foolish and waste their vote on a dark horse, reaching for pie in the sky at any moment. Matthew, it is not a personal item, it is stewardship! And aren't we all supposed to be good stewards with everything God has trusted to our safe keeping?

I'm not mad. Try not to read tone into posts.

Nor did I spin your words.

You agreed that this thread is 'moot' b/c Paul isn't getting the nomination. I'm saying just b/c someone isn't going to be elected doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.

Comparing me to the media is silly. But since we're being silly I'll reciprocate. You saying Ron Paul has no chance is just like the modern media!

I agree with being stewards of our vote, but I suggest that sometimes a loosing vote sends a stronger message than a compromise. The bottom line is that I believe Ron Paul's message is not only right, but is unique in this election. So I'll vote for him and let my 'losing' vote stand rather than compromise.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 12:27 AM
You haven't come close, at all, to connecting what Ron Paul advocates to 'endorsement' of any of these sinful activities.My response to you has been more on your post saying that the Libertarian Party is the party more in line with for Christians. Ron Paul is simply an interesting by-product of that since he truly is more a Libertarian than a GOP candidate. As I said... save the issue of abortion which is likely the issue that would cause him grief in the Libertarian Party.



Anybody can see a difference b/w direct and indirect impact.Matthew... direct or indirect isn't really relative. The fact of the matter is that impact is impact regardless of the direction it came.


You're an authoritarian. I'm OK with that. I just disagree. I used to be one too, but I am not anymore. Then you go on to say, if I may paraphrase, the even though prohibition didn't work, it was/is still worth having as a law (is that a fair assessment?)They have it on cocaine, marijuana, meth, etc. Having it on alcohol didn't work any better than having it on those things. But nonetheless... the laws need to be there.


But you seem to totally neglect that users of drugs (for example) WOULD still have to pay a punishment for committing a crime provoked by their drug use! Libertarian philosophy doesn't neglect punishment and consequences for negative impacts made by people free choices!Oh come on now. The true libertarian position would be to kill the law thus not making it enforceable because it ain't against the law unless it is a crime done against an individual. Problem is... the person that mixes meth and sells it to your kid... your kid may well be doing it to him or herself... but the person that sold that mess to them DID in fact impact your life albeit indirectly... I'd argue it was directly.


I don't care 1 iota about the libertarian party. I agree with libertarian philosophy as Ron Paul describes it.[quote]You can't separate the party from the platform. The platform is the way the party stands on issues.

[quote]Haha, so you can illustrate points with OT theocracy, but I can't illustrate points with NT empires? (I want to note here that my tone is playful, not combative, I'm enjoying the discussion). Fine, I'll re-phrase the question, if Paul were living in America today, do you think he'd be heavily involved in legislating morality? I suppose you'll say yes, but I'd very much disagree!Um... no. The Old Testament theocray was certainly different than the Roman government... but it still is apples and green beans from the United States form of government.

And even still... it doesn't matter a whit because ultimately how the government works isn't the issue. The issue is as an ambassador for Christ... how can you vote for a person that wouldn't promote godly values? Again... don't care if it is Republican, Democrat, Green, or the Libertarian Parties.


If I were only voting as an american citizen I'd vote Ron Paul.
If I were only voting as an alien ambassador I'd vote Ron Paul.
It's a both/and for me, not an either/orIf you are an ambassador then you don't vote for necessarily whom you would personally like to vote for. You vote for the candidate that the person you represent would vote for. Being an ambassador for God... that is a pretty high standard.


No where in Ron Paul's 'platform' does he endorse sin. Nothing in his platform is sinful. You type as if the fact that he has some libertarian tendancies makes him an endorser of all libertarians!

Good discussion,
matthewHey... probably 98 percent of Ron Paul's stuff... I would applaud and he was almost my choice of candidates. There were just a few things that caused me pause and over time and listening to him speaking... it's not there. He's all for less government... and on the outside that sounds great. But then there are issues such as homosexuality and (with my eschatology and where we would no doubt disagree) the nation of Israel... can't do it and do it believing that God would cast such a vote.

th1bill
Jan 29th 2008, 04:07 AM
I'm not mad. Try not to read tone into posts.

Nor did I spin your words.

You agreed that this thread is 'moot' b/c Paul isn't getting the nomination. I'm saying just b/c someone isn't going to be elected doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.

Comparing me to the media is silly. But since we're being silly I'll reciprocate. You saying Ron Paul has no chance is just like the modern media!

I agree with being stewards of our vote, but I suggest that sometimes a loosing vote sends a stronger message than a compromise. The bottom line is that I believe Ron Paul's message is not only right, but is unique in this election. So I'll vote for him and let my 'losing' vote stand rather than compromise.
And now your trying to be argumentative, isn't there something said about that? Oh well, have fun and try thinking first.:D

matthew94
Jan 29th 2008, 04:56 AM
My response to you has been more on your post saying that the Libertarian Party is the party more in line with for Christians. Ron Paul is simply an interesting by-product of that since he truly is more a Libertarian than a GOP candidate. As I said... save the issue of abortion which is likely the issue that would cause him grief in the Libertarian Party.

Perhaps I mis-spoke. I am not endorsing the Libertarian party. I'm endorsing Ron Paul. I didn't mean to say that the Libertarian Party is the party in line with Christianity. No party that I know of is in line with Christianity. What's more, I don't even know very much about the Libertarian Party. My support is for Ron Paul's lower case "L" libertarian styled platform. I think it is a very valid Christian approach to government.


Matthew... direct or indirect isn't really relative. The fact of the matter is that impact is impact regardless of the direction it came.

I very much disagree that direct/indirect isn't relative to this debate!


Oh come on now. The true libertarian position would be to kill the law thus not making it enforceable because it ain't against the law unless it is a crime done against an individual. Problem is... the person that mixes meth and sells it to your kid...

The moment they sell it to a kid they are breaking a law. As I said before, I'm not interested in whatever the true libertarian position is, I don't pick a label and agree with everything the majority of people subscribing to that label say. I have my own version of libertarian philosophy and crimes are punishable.


Um... no. The Old Testament theocray was certainly different than the Roman government... but it still is apples and green beans from the United States form of government.

Um...no. I wasn't saying theocracy and empire were the same. Haha, we obviously failed to communicate on that one and it may be beyond repair.


And even still... it doesn't matter a whit because ultimately how the government works isn't the issue. The issue is as an ambassador for Christ... how can you vote for a person that wouldn't promote godly values? Again... don't care if it is Republican, Democrat, Green, or the Libertarian Parties.

I am voting for a person that promotes godly values. Ron Paul. He promotes pro-life & pro-freedom. He is anti-homosexual and anti-drug.


If you are an ambassador then you don't vote for necessarily whom you would personally like to vote for. You vote for the candidate that the person you represent would vote for. Being an ambassador for God... that is a pretty high standard.

Of course, I completely agree. I wouldn't be voting for Ron Paul if I didn't think that's what Jesus would do.


Hey... probably 98 percent of Ron Paul's stuff... I would applaud and he was almost my choice of candidates. There were just a few things that caused me pause and over time and listening to him speaking... it's not there. He's all for less government... and on the outside that sounds great. But then there are issues such as homosexuality and (with my eschatology and where we would no doubt disagree) the nation of Israel... can't do it and do it believing that God would cast such a vote.

I can see not voting for him b/c of your view of eschatology I suppose. But I can't see not voting for him b/c of his position on homosexuality. He thinks homosexuality is a sin. He thinks marriage is a religious, not civil, institution. He thinks the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Anyone who wouldn't vote for Paul b/c of that, in my opinion, holds too much esteem for the government.

matthew94
Jan 29th 2008, 04:58 AM
And now your trying to be argumentative, isn't there something said about that? Oh well, have fun and try thinking first.:D

Please return to the topic or exit the thread w/o insinuating that fellow posters aren't 'thinking'

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 12:21 PM
Perhaps I mis-spoke. I am not endorsing the Libertarian party. I'm endorsing Ron Paul. I didn't mean to say that the Libertarian Party is the party in line with Christianity. No party that I know of is in line with Christianity. What's more, I don't even know very much about the Libertarian Party. My support is for Ron Paul's lower case "L" libertarian styled platform. I think it is a very valid Christian approach to government.That makes a huge difference!!!! My differences with Ron Paul himself are far apart from the Libertarian party itself.


I very much disagree that direct/indirect isn't relative to this debate!We're talking politics where most anything is relevant... I wasn't talking about relevant to the debate. I was talking about relative to the persons effected by those things be it directly or indirectly.


The moment they sell it to a kid they are breaking a law. As I said before, I'm not interested in whatever the true libertarian position is, I don't pick a label and agree with everything the majority of people subscribing to that label say. I have my own version of libertarian philosophy and crimes are punishable.Someone is going to sell them the cocaine to make their crack. Someone is going to sell them the pot to grow their own pot. The whole idea is going to require someone to break the law so those in their on home can live in their stoner land. No way around that. And again... the Libertarian party is for killing those laws therefore there is no law to break.


Um...no. I wasn't saying theocracy and empire were the same. Haha, we obviously failed to communicate on that one and it may be beyond repair.possibly


I am voting for a person that promotes godly values. Ron Paul. He promotes pro-life & pro-freedom. He is anti-homosexual and anti-drug. Again... my response was more in your commenting on the Libertarian party. As to him being anti-homosexual... he's anti them adopting children or getting married if I recall. But not sure he's gone much further than that.


Of course, I completely agree. I wouldn't be voting for Ron Paul if I didn't think that's what Jesus would do.

I can see not voting for him b/c of your view of eschatology I suppose. But I can't see not voting for him b/c of his position on homosexuality. He thinks homosexuality is a sin. He thinks marriage is a religious, not civil, institution. He thinks the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Anyone who wouldn't vote for Paul b/c of that, in my opinion, holds too much esteem for the government.Well it is his "government shouldn't be involved in marriage" part that concerns me there because ultimately that isn't going to be taking a stand against homosexuals getting married and in fact it gets a politician out of a pretty sticky wicket. If he'd pass a law that the government is out of marriage but will not recognize homosexual unions then we'd be on to something.

Also... I think I stated earlier in this thread or another (maybe the blog) that the greatest issue that concerns me would be his refusal to make clear that as a nation... we would support Israel should the Arab nations come against them. His stand is that we need to leave them alone and let them deal with things themselves and we don't have the money anyway. That ain't going to cut it in my book at all.

diffangle
Jan 29th 2008, 02:31 PM
Also... I think I stated earlier in this thread or another (maybe the blog) that the greatest issue that concerns me would be his refusal to make clear that as a nation... we would support Israel should the Arab nations come against them. His stand is that we need to leave them alone and let them deal with things themselves and we don't have the money anyway. That ain't going to cut it in my book at all.

Imo, our "alliance" with Israel reminds of the saying, "with friends like us who needs enemies"... we're the reason Israel is dividing up and giving away its land to terrorists. Israel has around 400 nukes(Iran has zero) and a great military, if we(alongside the International community) weren't keeping their hands tied they may be able to actually show a little muscle to their enemies and stop having to give the land away.

Israeli's for Ron Paul...
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50077

Free Indeed
Jan 29th 2008, 02:33 PM
Someone is going to sell them the cocaine to make their crack. Someone is going to sell them the pot to grow their own pot. The whole idea is going to require someone to break the law so those in their on home can live in their stoner land. No way around that. And again... the Libertarian party is for killing those laws therefore there is no law to break.



This issue always bothered me. Obviously, it's not a very good idea to legalize heroin and meth. But on the other hand, our current system of prohibition is a complete failure.

I think we need to reorder our priorities. Instead of sending heroin addicts to prison (where they remain addicts, and come out addicts), why not send them to drug rehab faciliticies? Roughly half of all inmates are incarcerated on drug related offenses. Why keep building more jails for these people when it doesn't work? It may be a bit more expensive in the short term to build, open, and run rehab detention facilities, but just think of the benefits in the long run.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 02:46 PM
What constitutes "complete failure?" Just because folks break the law doesn't make it failed law. It simply makes it broken law.

And drug rehab rarely works unfortunately. Many of those in prison are in for multiple offenses for the very same thing.

misfit815
Jan 29th 2008, 03:20 PM
There's a difference between outright legalization of these things and putting responsibility for them in the jurisdiction where it belongs.

If the federal government retracted its laws regarding drugs, then individual states would fill in that role, to varying degrees. That's Paul's position, and it's my own as well. It's not the business of the federal government.

I live in Indiana. As long as we maintain the status quo, then drug legalization in Indiana is going to be influenced by what happens in California, the definition of marriage in Indiana is going to be influenced by what happens in Massachusetts, and economic policy in Indiana is going to be influenced by what happens in Bentonville, Arkansas.

I'd much rather deal with Bush's puppet governor in Indianapolis than the bought-and-paid-for members of Congress, and the non-believers in other states. It contributes to my freedom to be a Christian. Besides that, as I've said over and over, that policy obeys the Constitution, which is in accord with Romans 13, I Peter 2, etc.

J

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 03:38 PM
Thing is... this is still the UNITED States of America. It isn't just Indiana, Georgia, California or New York. We united for a reason and while I know folks like total States Rights... that defeats the whole purpose of the unification. Folks need remember that.

Lame analogy alert! On this board one of the things we try and push here is consistency across the board. It is a difficult thing when folks have different rules here and different rules the next forum down etc. That is why we have board rules. Mind you... each forum has specific rules which are appropriate for the specific forum... but the major board rules apply in every one of the forums.

When you get into major issues such as drugs and whatnot... there needs to be a consistency. If not... there will be chaos period.

misfit815
Jan 29th 2008, 04:02 PM
Thing is... this is still the UNITED States of America.

And the UNITED States of America gave authorization to the federal government over very few responsibilities. The "war on drugs" is not one of them. Defining marriage is not one of them. Facilitating the murder of unborn children is not one of them. Subsidizing stem cell research is not one of them.

By advocating the federal government's *illegal* restrictions of freedom and misappropriations of wealth and property, we are subverting our freedom and our obligation as Christians to minister to non-believers.

Imposing our morality on non-believers is no more our right than it is theirs to impose their morality on us. Besides that, it is un-Christian and it is bad advertising. It has the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve (which would be the Great Commission, in case anyone's forgotten).

J

Free Indeed
Jan 29th 2008, 04:03 PM
What constitutes "complete failure?" Just because folks break the law doesn't make it failed law. It simply makes it broken law.

The failure consists in what I pointed out in my above post: addicts go to prison, remain addicts while incarcerated, and come back out on the street still addicts. The money we've spent to incarcerate them has thus been completely wasted.


And drug rehab rarely works unfortunately.

Yet it works much better than our current incarceration programs. This is why people are repeat offenders. In fact:


Many of those in prison are in for multiple offenses for the very same thing.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 06:26 PM
The failure consists in what I pointed out in my above post: addicts go to prison, remain addicts while incarcerated, and come back out on the street still addicts. The money we've spent to incarcerate them has thus been completely wasted.



Yet it works much better than our current incarceration programs. This is why people are repeat offenders. In fact:
Um... it is called the penal system... what does "penal" mean? I think folks don't understand that very simple fact.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2008, 06:32 PM
The money isn't wasted when drug addicts are in prison. While they're in prison they are committing crimes to feed their drug habit.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 06:56 PM
The money isn't wasted when drug addicts are in prison. While they're in prison they are committing crimes to feed their drug habit.
It isn't even just that although that's certainly a valid point. It's just that folks think our prisons are the rehab institution... but it is not. It is for punishment. That's how it was set up and how it's always been through history. THe old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" was there for a reason.

Free Indeed
Jan 29th 2008, 07:07 PM
It isn't even just that although that's certainly a valid point. It's just that folks think our prisons are the rehab institution... but it is not. It is for punishment. That's how it was set up and how it's always been through history. THe old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" was there for a reason.

I would agree when it comes to other crimes, but drug offenses are different, especially small time possession for personal use. The reason I say that our money is being wasted by incarcerating them is because when they get back on the streets, they're still addicts. Eventually, they'll be arrested again, sentenced again, and we'll have to pay for their incareceration again.

It seems to me that it would be much more beneficial to society to put non-violent drug offenders into rehab instead of prison. Treat the problem instead of the symptom.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2008, 07:11 PM
Prison is rehab. Unless you're telling me these guys are supporting their habit behind bars, they're going off drugs cold turkey.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 07:14 PM
I would agree when it comes to other crimes, but drug offenses are different, especially small time possession for personal use. The reason I say that our money is being wasted by incarcerating them is because when they get back on the streets, they're still addicts. Eventually, they'll be arrested again, sentenced again, and we'll have to pay for their incareceration again.

It seems to me that it would be much more beneficial to society to put non-violent drug offenders into rehab instead of prison. Treat the problem instead of the symptom.
And again... by your standard of failure... Rehab is a failure as well. Few folks actually make it the first year out of rehab. So one failure to another failure and punishment for their crime comes when? After two failures? Three? Four? Won't take long for even that to turn bigtime goofy.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 07:16 PM
Prison is rehab. Unless you're telling me these guys are supporting their habit behind bars, they're going off drugs cold turkey.
Sad to say... the mess gets into the prisons as well. It is worse in some states than others mind you... and it is that way for a variety of reasons. But it certainly isn't as available in the joint as it is on the street.

Nihil Obstat
Jan 29th 2008, 08:18 PM
ProjectPeter for President (we've *got* to get rid of that "spreading reps around" rule...)!

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2008, 08:34 PM
Ha! I'd be a horrible president. My first law would be to take 5 states and label them bonehead states. It would have to be like Texas, Montana, California, etc... big states because there are a lot of BONEHEADS! Then we'd move all boneheads to said state and build a fence. :lol:

Free Indeed
Jan 29th 2008, 08:47 PM
Prison is rehab. Unless you're telling me these guys are supporting their habit behind bars, they're going off drugs cold turkey.

As Peter mentioned, the drug trade exists in the prison system, and junkies continue to use.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2008, 08:48 PM
As Peter mentioned, the drug trade exists in the prison system, and junkies continue to use.
Well, at least they not robbing the little old lady on the street corner to further their habit.

Matthew
Jan 29th 2008, 10:22 PM
Ha! I'd be a horrible president. My first law would be to take 5 states and label them bonehead states. It would have to be like Texas, Montana, California, etc... big states because there are a lot of BONEHEADS! Then we'd move all boneheads to said state and build a fence. :lol:

Texas is full. Send'em to Alaska. :D

diffangle
Jan 29th 2008, 10:38 PM
My first law would be to take 5 states and label them bonehead states. It would have to be like Texas... big states because there are a lot of BONEHEADS! Then we'd move all boneheads to said state and build a fence. :lol:


Texas is full. :D
Hey, watch it... that's my state yur talkin' bout. :P :rolleyes: :cool: :hmm: :D

Matthew
Jan 29th 2008, 10:43 PM
Hey, watch it... that's my state yur talkin' bout. :P :rolleyes: :cool: :hmm: :D

:lol: I should've been clearer.

I'm a Texan too. I just meant we don't want boneheads being shipped in, not that Texas is full of boneheads.

diffangle
Jan 29th 2008, 10:44 PM
:lol: I should've been clearer.

I'm a Texan too. I just meant we don't want boneheads being shipped in, not that Texas is full of boneheads.
K... yur excused. :lol:

Fenris
Jan 30th 2008, 01:46 PM
You guys still think Paul can win the nomination?

ProjectPeter
Jan 30th 2008, 01:59 PM
You guys still think Paul can win the nomination?
His showing in Florida was really bad. They say Rudy is pulling out today. It is clear that Huckabee is staying in at least until after Tuesday... unless he was just pulling the "positive spin" on things as well. Huckabee is about as interesting as Edwards in that both of those guys really do have a legitimate shot at the king maker roll. Something we've really not seen in quite a few elections. That is is possible in both parties in the same year.... that is pretty amazing in and of itself.

But as to Paul... unless he ultimately plans a 3rd party attempt... folks can stick a fork in him... he's done.

ProjectPeter
Jan 30th 2008, 02:10 PM
Scratch that on Edwards... the AP is now reporting that he's dropping out today so it is apparently going to be a two person race in the Democratic Party. The interest with him now will be "who does he endorse." Going to get interesting all the way around! :lol:

HisBlood
Jan 30th 2008, 03:23 PM
Edwards dropping out, huh? That's quite an announcement. I didn't think he was doing too terribly bad.

So I guess it's going to be Clinton and Obama on the ticket, regardless of who gets what role.

Free Indeed
Jan 30th 2008, 03:41 PM
Edwards dropping out, huh? That's quite an announcement. I didn't think he was doing too terribly bad.



Edwards has already promised to stick to it through Super Tuesday, so either he'schanged his mind or the AP got it wrong.

OR...

If Edwards does drop out today, there may be a strategy here. He has been currently splitting the anti-Hillary vote among Democrats with Obama. His exit unifies that vote behind Obama going into next Tuesday. It will be interesting to see if he endorses Obama, and how quickly.

ProjectPeter
Jan 30th 2008, 03:59 PM
Edwards has already promised to stick to it through Super Tuesday, so either he'schanged his mind or the AP got it wrong.

OR...

If Edwards does drop out today, there may be a strategy here. He has been currently splitting the anti-Hillary vote among Democrats with Obama. His exit unifies that vote behind Obama going into next Tuesday. It will be interesting to see if he endorses Obama, and how quickly.
Read my blog... :lol: I posted a couple of things on it today. It is certainly interesting... no doubt.

Free Indeed
Jan 30th 2008, 07:30 PM
Read my blog... :lol: I posted a couple of things on it today. It is certainly interesting... no doubt.

I just read it, and mostly agree. I think Edwards is puling out now because he doesn't want to hurt Obama next Tuesday, and may be thinking about an Obama/Edwards ticket in November.

On the Republican side, Romney fared very respectably last night, but Fla.'s "winner take all" rule puts McCain decisively in the lead. Romney will do well in the southwest, which ahs a large number of Mormons in Republican politics, but I'm not sure even that'll help him. McCain did very well against Huckabee here in SC, a Southern Baptist stronghold, which surprised me.