Thanks Bob

[S†ephen]

I posted a pretty good quote from TOL's Turbo in which he very well articulated my position on this. To save time, let me encourage you to give it a read, and then we can talk through it if you like and what you disagree with on it. It's just a few posts back, so won't take much time to find. (Posted today at 12:06 am)

Thanks. Will do.

 

[S†ephen]

let me encourage you to give it a read, and then we can talk through it if you like and what you disagree with on it.(Posted today at 12:06 am)

First let me start with what we do agree on. This thread has gotten nasty when in fact I think we share way too many of the same views to be bickering like this.

It is an unbelievably lousy thing for a politician to pull something like what Turbo spoke of on elective and therapeutic abortions. Not only that I wouldn't trust a politician not to do it.

Do you know if Ron Paul was speaking of therapeutic or elective abortions? I don't know for sure and I intend to do some research. Let me know what you come up with.


S†ephen

 

[sopwith21]

Wait, wait, wait, where did YOU hear about the additional US casualites that we have never heard about on the news? If you do not give an answer then please stop making claims like this.

What additional casualties? Do you even really know what you're asking about?

You see, it doesn't matter what the source is. You will reject it. You have to come to truth in your own time through your own efforts. The only thing you will believe is your own research.

If you aren't willing to reveal the sources you've used to come up with your views and opinions, it makes it difficult for others to verify the validity of those claims!

Any source I mention will be immediately rejected. My goal is not to get you to believe whatever I believe, but to start educating yourself on what is happening in your country. If you're curious, go find out. And no, its not difficult... you can find information as easily as I can.

this is such a stupid thing to say Stephen.

You're getting emotional again, Kevin. Relax, step away from your puter and come back later.

You have no idea what I might or might not have studied as it relates to casualities in Iraq.

Then let's find out if I was right...

- Were you aware that there are documented claims that more than 1.2 million Iraqis have died as a result of the US invasion?

- Did you cross examine those documents to determine if they were valid?

- Were you aware of the documented claims that there were far more casualties in the US forces than publicly listed, and did you examine those claims as well?

I believe the answer is "no" in each case. If I am wrong, I apologize. But I don't think I am. If the war you support was built on lies and has cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, I would think that as a strong pro-lifer you would want to know. I am encouraging you to find out what is happening in your country and what your country is really doing in your name.

 

[sopwith21]

No we cannot favor outlawing automobiles unless their only purpose were to be used to murder innocent children. Since they have so many more purposes how could we outlaw them.

Your criticism of Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that if he refuses to prevent abortion by any and every possible means available, then he favors it. I believe it is fair to apply the same principle to your own beliefs. As absurd as it sounds, the fact remains that you could prevent a great deal of abortions by outlawing automobiles. Does this make you pro-choice, or does it simply mean that your pro-life strategy is different than mine?

The bill in question is about stopping minors from going out of state WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of murdering innocent babies. That Ron Paul voted against it says a lot.

You believe outlawing automobiles to prevent abortion is "inane," yet the notion that police should investigate the purpose and intent of every female in America who drives across a state line does not disturb you in the least.

 

[sopwith21]

How would you feel if some people just showed up at your church one Sunday and started hurling accusations at your pastor calling him a liar over a political opinion he had expressed?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

obviously you have a low view of your pastor.

Wrong. This is not about the person making the statement; it is about the statement. The claim is either true or it is false. A statement doesn't magically become right because my pastor made it. Truth is objective.

Ron Paul is not pro-abortion. When Bob Enyart insisted otherwise, he lied. If I said it, it would be a lie as well. If my pastor said it, it would still be a lie. Scripture teaches us to condemn lies rather than support them. Bob Enyart should apologize publicly and to Ron Paul. This is not personal and it is not emotional. The statement made by Bob Enyart was simply false.

 

[sopwith21]

Whatcha wanna bet all the debate stops at 4:15pm?

Go Colts.

 

[PKevman]

yet the notion that police should investigate the purpose and intent of every female in America who drives across a state line does not disturb you in the least.

Where did I say this? That police should investigate the purpose and intent of EVERY female in America who drives across a state line?

The bill was to prevent MINORS from travelling across state lines to have abortions. I see nothing wrong with that bill. You can say, yeah but Ron Paul wants to change the laws in the states making that bill worthless. That is fine and dandy, but when Ron Paul voted against it, Ron Paul was dealing with the current abortion laws.

 

[PKevman]

Whatcha wanna bet all the debate stops at 4:15pm?

Go Colts.

Exactly!

 

[PKevman]

What additional casualties? Do you even really know what you're asking about?

:doh: You were the one who brought up the "30,000 additional casualities" that we've never heard of. I asked you where YOU heard about it. This was your answer. :sigh:

You see, it doesn't matter what the source is.

Sure it does. If a guy in a loony bin tells me he saw a 25 foot man with 4 heads it would make a difference compared to if a totally sane and rational person that I know told me the same thing. Wouldn't you agree? :think:

The source is one way to verify the validity of the information.

You will reject it.

If it's good information that cannot be refuted, why would I reject it? Because I'm an idiot and cannot see the truth that you see if we are both looking at objective, cold, hard data?

You have to come to truth in your own time through your own efforts. The only thing you will believe is your own research.

I have researched and come to my own views thank you very much.

Any source I mention will be immediately rejected.

Depends on if it is from an objective source and what the data is, and WHERE the information came from. This going round and round about sources is silly. Like Crash said, if you make a crazy claim, the onus of proof is on YOU.

My goal is not to get you to believe whatever I believe, but to start educating yourself on what is happening in your country.

NATURALLY. Someone who doesn't agree with you just has to be uneducated about what is happening in our country. And what if you're wrong?

Ok the game is starting.

God bless you man.

 

[PKevman]

Abortion already needs to be outlawed

Amen! I am glad we at least agree on this!

 

[S†ephen]

Amen! I am glad we at least agree on this!

Of course. Really, we agree on even more than this. But this thread has turned into individuals defending their ideals no matter what they may be instead of actually trying to profit from the debate.

I only ask that you do all in your power to open your mind and possibly change your ideals. I promise that I will do my best to do the same. There is no shame in sacrificing a bit of pride for wisdom. At least that's my opinion.

8:36 sec. away from a colts win!!!!!!!

 

[PKevman]

There is no shame in sacrificing a bit of pride for wisdom. At least that's my opinion.

I agree completely. Wisdom NEVER makes exceptions for murdering an innocent life. Agree?

 

[Lighthouse]

A few posts ago you were saying:

Consistency would be nice.

I am being consistent. What do you see as inconsistency?

Agreed.

I'm glad you can see that.

Apparently so. Do a little research and you'll find that the massive power shift to federal level has made the constitution basically meaningless. When the nation depended on a state union we had almost none of the problems we do now.

The Constitution is a federal document. It doesn't leave anything up to the states.

And if the states were agreeing with the 14th amendment, they wouldn't allow abortion. They would ignore Roe v. Wade.

By supporting Ron Paul that is what I am suggesting. :doh:

And yet, Ron Paul is willing to allow states to allow abortion, and preventing the federal government from telling them no.

Yes and if CHRISTIANS had stayed out of it the whole thing would've stayed at the state level. Instead we have a whole nation killing unborn babies.

What a load of crap.

 

[S†ephen]

I agree completely. Wisdom NEVER makes exceptions for murdering an innocent life. Agree?

Of course! But we couldn't call it wise to defend our conclusions without honestly considering all sides of the problem.

 

[S†ephen]

I am being consistent. What do you see as inconsistency?

You need to decide whether you want power vested in states or federal governments.

And yet, Ron Paul is willing to allow states to allow abortion, and preventing the federal government from telling them no.

Do some research. He's preventing it in the best way he can while still doing his best to return power to the states.

What a load of crap.

Don't start that with me. Either debate on an intelligent level or don't post.

 

[Lighthouse]

Are you proposing a monarchy like Bob Enyart? Yea, o.k.
Also America was a representative republic which is something completely different than a democracy. You are right, democracies are evil and always destroy themselves.
You make a complete assumption about the states. I and others have completely dealt several times with your complaints about the Sanctity of Life Act and what the states might do and you still can't come up with anything real, just fear of a hypothetical state anarchy, so I have to assume you have read little of our reason or sources. Guesses on what states would do and pretending that we should live in a monarchical utopia where a human man should be given all power to execute God's "law" on the planet is preposterous without Jesus being that "man". Until the day he returns to do that, for the idea to be suggested as an alternative to our originally intended constitutional republic, is the stuff for a novel and distracts from the debate. It is an escape from the issue.

I was going to answer the more recent challenges by PastorKevin but Stephen has dealt well with them. I will however, add the link to Ron Paul's comments concerning the Partial Birth Abortion "Ban" since Paul is the public official to take issue such as Bob did with it. If you have not read this opinion and you are truly concerned about actually doing something about it, you might want to: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403.htm

While your at it, it is apparent many here really do not understand Ron Paul's pro-life position. I encourage (again) you to read his article "Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle"http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm

And for those really interested in learning about Ron Paul on Abortion...http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21

Idiot.

 

[Lighthouse]

You need to decide whether you want power vested in states or federal governments.

I've already decided. And I have not stated anything to contradict myself.

Do some research. He's preventing it in the best way he can while still doing his best to return power to the states.

The power doesn't belong in the hands of the states. And it doesn't belong in the hands of the people.

Don't start that with me. Either debate on an intelligent level or don't post.

:baby:

 

[PKevman]

Do some research. He's preventing it in the best way he can while still doing his best to return power to the states.

See I don't think he is Stephen Dale. As I read through his voting record I don't think that at all. I see a candidate who is still completely and totally sold out to Libertarian ideals, even if he is running as a Republican.

 

[PKevman]

The power doesn't belong in the hands of the states. And it doesn't belong in the hands of the people.

I agree Lighthouse. Well stated.

 

[S†ephen]

Idiot.

Good grief. I hope you're talking about yourself. He posts links and shows his research and all you do is throw some little kiddie insult. What an embarrassment.