PKevman
New member
I guess the host of videos I shared of Alan Keyes didn't count?
Thanks Bob
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
- Status
I guess the host of videos I shared of Alan Keyes didn't count?
S†ephen
New member
If you go to China you're still on the same planet.
S†ephen
New member
I saw his words. But then again we have Ron Paul's words and those didn't count.
Before calling people who disagree with you "fools," I would recommend some serious historical work. You can start researching my cousin HERE. If there were any way to defend my own bloodline, I would do it... but there is not. Truth is more important than my previously held beliefs. Abraham Lincoln was a wicked man and the South was, indeed, in the right. Of course, you won't believe this, either, but all I can do is present the truth. Its up to you to accept it.
I didn't say "deaths." I said "casualties." Even the most vague effort at researching this would have revealed that. Please do some research and spend time and effort investigating the truth before commenting.
I would either educate myself on the topic or refrain from passing an opinion until I did. Either would be productive.
You would have taken the source that way, too. There's always an excuse, Kevin. The source is biased. It didn't really happen. It's revisionism that only a fool believes. No matter what ideas are presented, they are all "wild claims" unless they support your current position. You have to come to truth on your own. You won't believe anything else.
First you reveal your prejudice by saying my claims are "wild." Then you say that the debate must be conducted in your preferred method or it is "irresponsible." Your mind is already made up. There is nothing that I can say and no source I can provide that will ever convince you of anything. You must find truth and convince yourself. I am simply telling you that its there... its up to you to accept it.
You're getting emotional and personal again, Kevin. Step away from your computer and re-focus on the topic.
Because it doesn't matter... you won't believe what anyone tells you.
They are called "trigger laws." That means a state has already passed a law to outlaw abortion, but the law cannot take effect until Roe v Wade is reversed and the decision is handed down to the state level, which is precisely what Ron Paul wants to do.
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Utah and South Dakota have already passed trigger laws outlawing abortion in various ways. At least three more states (Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota) have passed trigger laws severely restricting abortion. A total of 17 (not 13) states are waiting - NOW - to restrict or outlaw abortion. Its done, finished, confirmed, voted in and completed. The only thing that stops their trigger laws from outlawing abortion is our insistence on forcing the issue to the federal level. In the meantime, babies in these states continue to die.
In Mississippi, the trigger law passed the house as HR 60. You can look up the number designations on each state's bill on your own... if I gave them to you, you wouldn't believe it.
Last edited:
Bob has lied by calling Ron Paul pro abortion. Until he stops lying, I will continue to call him on it. If you are any friend at all to him, you will do the same.
Do your own homework.
Ron Paul isn't proposing more big-government, federal quick-fix legislation at all... just the opposite. He's proposing that the issue be sent back to the states where it belongs. And 17 states are waiting, right now, to restrict or outlaw abortion but because of people like you, they cannot.
After 35 consecutive years of miserable failure, perhaps you would do well to consider another strategy?
You don't believe Paul's own words. Are you asking us to believe Keyes'?
PatriotBeliever
New member
Boy, skip a day in this thread and you'll never catch up.
Look, since this thread was centered around Ron Paul's position on abortion let me bring it back on topic a bit. Ron's record in Congress is unparalleled on every issue. His stance firmly against abortion has been rock solid and consistent. He was dealing with the issue, to include reprimanding and arguing against the libertarian pro-abortion stance from the beginning. It is apparent that the biggest gripe by some has been that Paul was not already a dictator king stopping abortions. In that regard, he has fallen short of the glory of Enyart and dominion-ists alike.
The piles of information that have been put in this thread more than confirm his dedication to a real end to abortion while completely reinforcing his opinions from every speech and writing on the subject. His stance has remained unchanged from his days in residency becoming an OB-GYN M.D. and is supported in great detail in his 1990 book "Challenge to Liberty" which dealt exhaustively with the real issue of abortion, the root cause of Roe and very real solutions. If one has not read that book they are truly missing a great deal of understanding of the tragedy that abortion really is from the perspective of the one pro-life Christian man that has held the two most relevant positions anyone could ask to be in to be equipped completely to deal with the issue in the abortionist country we now live in.
It's almost as if some here have convinced themselves that this statesman had decided more than thirty years ago to pretend to be pro-life, pretend to fight to end abortion while actually delivering thousands of the very real babies he was pretending to want to allow to live just to become the President and then what?... begin his tirade on the unborn by legalizing abortion in the states as opposed to the whole nation. Do you not see the lunacy in this? Why would he need to do this? What a waste of time and energy it would be to try and do something "state by state" that has been so for his entire professional career as both a baby doctor and a Congressman. If he, Ron Paul was as many have portrayed him here, he could have just become an abortionist himself, many OB-GYN's are the same doctor that delivers babies as well as murders them. Or if he, Ron Paul wanted to be the evil statesman many have insinuated here, he could have merely remained silent on the House floor, allowing the current situation to persist without an objection from him Ron Paul has done the contrary consistently on both counts.
So you can propose Bob Enyart's dictator king solution, that thank Jesus will not happen, and you can push for Alan Keyes, who talks wonderfully well. But as I illustrated in the hour long interview I linked to with Ambassador Keyes, contrary to some people's assertion, he has stated he would follow the constitution in most instances that Paul has done, to include force concerning abortion and capitol punishment of homosexuals (which was being discussed way back in this thread.)
I pray we see the beginning of a return to the protection of all human life, especially from conception/fertilization of the unborn, in our lifetime, but you may as well move to another country if you think a single president will make it happen. And while we wait for the holy grail of a constitutional amendment that many also think is the answer, allowing the states to actually protect the unborn now is the only real solution... if you want to start saving these unborn people.
Look, since this thread was centered around Ron Paul's position on abortion let me bring it back on topic a bit. Ron's record in Congress is unparalleled on every issue. His stance firmly against abortion has been rock solid and consistent. He was dealing with the issue, to include reprimanding and arguing against the libertarian pro-abortion stance from the beginning. It is apparent that the biggest gripe by some has been that Paul was not already a dictator king stopping abortions. In that regard, he has fallen short of the glory of Enyart and dominion-ists alike.
The piles of information that have been put in this thread more than confirm his dedication to a real end to abortion while completely reinforcing his opinions from every speech and writing on the subject. His stance has remained unchanged from his days in residency becoming an OB-GYN M.D. and is supported in great detail in his 1990 book "Challenge to Liberty" which dealt exhaustively with the real issue of abortion, the root cause of Roe and very real solutions. If one has not read that book they are truly missing a great deal of understanding of the tragedy that abortion really is from the perspective of the one pro-life Christian man that has held the two most relevant positions anyone could ask to be in to be equipped completely to deal with the issue in the abortionist country we now live in.
It's almost as if some here have convinced themselves that this statesman had decided more than thirty years ago to pretend to be pro-life, pretend to fight to end abortion while actually delivering thousands of the very real babies he was pretending to want to allow to live just to become the President and then what?... begin his tirade on the unborn by legalizing abortion in the states as opposed to the whole nation. Do you not see the lunacy in this? Why would he need to do this? What a waste of time and energy it would be to try and do something "state by state" that has been so for his entire professional career as both a baby doctor and a Congressman. If he, Ron Paul was as many have portrayed him here, he could have just become an abortionist himself, many OB-GYN's are the same doctor that delivers babies as well as murders them. Or if he, Ron Paul wanted to be the evil statesman many have insinuated here, he could have merely remained silent on the House floor, allowing the current situation to persist without an objection from him Ron Paul has done the contrary consistently on both counts.
So you can propose Bob Enyart's dictator king solution, that thank Jesus will not happen, and you can push for Alan Keyes, who talks wonderfully well. But as I illustrated in the hour long interview I linked to with Ambassador Keyes, contrary to some people's assertion, he has stated he would follow the constitution in most instances that Paul has done, to include force concerning abortion and capitol punishment of homosexuals (which was being discussed way back in this thread.)
I pray we see the beginning of a return to the protection of all human life, especially from conception/fertilization of the unborn, in our lifetime, but you may as well move to another country if you think a single president will make it happen. And while we wait for the holy grail of a constitutional amendment that many also think is the answer, allowing the states to actually protect the unborn now is the only real solution... if you want to start saving these unborn people.
I don't have a problem with that. Do you?
drbrumley has pointed out time and again where the bill does exactly what I said it does. In fact, that's what this thread is about in the first place. And you still want to call me a liar? Ar you going to call drbrumley a liar, too? You've already called Bob Enyart a liar. Is that your next plan for Kevin? Are you going to call him a liar, too? How many people are you going to call liars? How long are you going to ignore the fact that the bill does not allow the government to stop any state that decides not to outlaw abortion?
17? Your son said ti was only 12. SO which is it? And what about the other states? The ones that aren't waiting? The ones who won't outlaw it? What does Ron propose we do then?
And as for the failure, you're ignorant if you think I believe in the strategy that has been failing for so long.
You've had all day, so I assume you've already answered most of these questions through your own diligent research and genuine concern over this issue. But rather than nit pick over the precise number of states (it's 17) perhaps we could focus on the greater point that even if we could only save the babies on one state it would be better than what we're doing now.
You mean the ones who would have abortion either way? Its not like we have a lot to lose here, you know.
Ron Paul proposes that we then take up the far more realistic and manageable task of attacking abortion state by state until it is eradicated, at a lower level of government where local churches and individual Christians can exert more influence and pressure.
And we'll have a 17-state head start.
A personal insult from Lighthouse? Boy... we didn't see that one coming.
S†ephen
New member
Yes. What have they done to us to justify an act of aggression?
The bill says it will allow states to ban or restrict abortion. And you said:
Once again, consistency would be nice. Either that or some good wholesome research. (drum roll)
I'm not ignoring that fact son. Keep up a little. And don't involve yourself in things that you haven't fully researched yet. Helps you look less stupid, um, never mind.
The purpose of the bill isn't to make a giant federal law to ban abortion, it's to allow the states to ban abortion which (as we both know) they can't do right now.
:baby:
Your post is dead on, but please remember that abortion is FAR from a given stance in the libertarian community. On the contrary, it is hotly debated and is a big point of division among libertarians.
Enyart has tried to perpetuate this myth as well, making it even more difficult for people to learn the truth. The truth is that libertarians are neither entirely pro-life (I wish they were) or entirely pro-abortion. Claiming that libertarians are pro-abortion is just as incorrect as claiming that they are pro-life. It is a very hot topic and the community is sharply divided over it.
Absolutely true... but anything presented will be brushed aside with a waive of the hand.
You're asking people to go directly to the source themselves and work to find information from Ron Paul's own words and voting record?
Its a noble goal, but pigs will fly, Satan will apologize to God and Bob Enyart will tell the truth before anyone on this forum will read Paul's book.
S†ephen
New member
LOL. you forgot lighthouse will stop throwing childish insults.
BURN
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
drbrumley
Well-known member
Stephen, I would like to know if Ron Paul's Chief of Staff was lying to ME when he said it will not restrict abortion unless any given state restricts it? If a state decides to keep the practice legal, then, according to the bill itself, and the Chief of Staff, that would be ok.
Like I said, don't believe me. Call (202) 225-2831.That is Ron Paul's office.
Like I said, don't believe me. Call (202) 225-2831.That is Ron Paul's office.
S†ephen
New member
I do believe and agree with you.
But you're missing the point of the bill.
It is to allow the states to ban abortion, which they cannot do right now.
The purpose wasn't to stop it all together. It was to make it so it could be stopped at all, which right now it can't.
Could I ask that you review the bill and perhaps reconsider your position?
- Status