Romney, Thompson, Paul, and Tancredo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delmar

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
drbrumley said:
Ron Paul will not support the Republican nominee either, so why he is even mentioned as supporting the nominee is not being truthful
Click to expand...
I heard he says he won't go third party again. What do you think?
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse said:
I don't see anywhere that Bob called Ron Paul a sodomite child-killer. He just said that the US would be crawling with them if we used the laws Ron Paul is proposing.
Click to expand...

Don't you think the country's crawling with them already?:think:
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vine&FigTree said:
So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath? Frankly, I don't want the federal government to have any more "say" than it does. Nor do I want the Mexican Government to have a say in what the states do about abortion. Nor the "North American Union."
Click to expand...
How is being anti abortion breaking an oath to abide by the Constituion. Show me the article that says it is lawful, or Congress can not limit murder of the unborn, or abortion for those that are in favor of said murder. That constitutional right does not exist. It is case law, which in and of itself is a violation of the constitution. Article one states, all legislateive power shall be in Congress.
 
V

Vine&FigTree

Member
Abortion is not a federal issue.

Abortion is not a federal issue.

Lighthouse had originally said, "P.S. Wanting the federal government to have no say if a state decides not to outlaw abortion is not pro-life."

I replied: "So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath?" Now Nick M asks:
Nick M said:
How is being anti abortion breaking an oath to abide by the Constituion.
Click to expand...
Not being anti-abortion, but asking the federal government to overrule state law on abortion - that's what violates one's oath to support the Constitution.
Nick M said:
Show me the article that says it is lawful, or Congress can not limit murder of the unborn,
Click to expand...
This is one of the most elementary features of our Constitution. The federal Congress cannot make shoplifting, burglary, smoking marijuana, or even murder a crime in any of the 50 states. If Colorado makes abortion or euthanasia or Jew-gassing legal -- that is, the government of Colorado refuses to punish anyone for doing those things -- the federal legislature cannot pass a law requiring Colorado to punish them. Our Constitution makes the federal government a limited government of "enumerated powers."
Nick M said:
That constitutional right does not exist. It is case law, which in and of itself is a violation of the constitution. Article one states, all legislateive power shall be in Congress.
Click to expand...
Note the legislative powers which are reserved to the States. Check out the 10th Amendment and the link above. Pay close attention to what Madison said in Federalist 45.

Being "pro-life" does not mean adovcating a federal dictatorship. Keeping one's oath to abide by the Constitution does not make one pro-abortion.

Ron Paul is -- hands down -- THE most pro-Constitution AND the most anti-abortion candidate running for President.
 
Last edited:
YahuShuan

YahuShuan

New member
Vine&FigTree said:
Lighthouse had originally said, "P.S. Wanting the federal government to have no say if a state decides not to outlaw abortion is not pro-life."

I replied: "So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath?" Now Nick M asks:Not being anti-abortion, but asking the federal government to overrule state law on abortion - that's what violates one's oath to support the Constitution. This is one of the most elementary features of our Constitution. The federal Congress cannot make shoplifting, burglary, smoking marijuana, or even murder a crime in any of the 50 states. If Colorado makes abortion or euthanasia or Jew-gassing legal -- that is, the government of Colorado refuses to punish anyone for doing those things -- the federal legislature cannot pass a law requiring Colorado to punish them. Our Constitution makes the federal government a limited government of "enumerated powers."Note the legislative powers which are reserved to the States. Check out the 10th Amendment and the link above. Pay close attention to what Madison said in Federalist 45.

Being "pro-life" does not mean adovcating a federal dictatorship. Keeping one's oath to abide by the Constitution does not make one pro-abortion.

Ron Paul is -- hands down -- THE most pro-Constitution AND the most anti-abortion candidate running for President.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree with V&FT, upon the ponderance of all the candidates, Paul is the only one I would trust to bring, or even try to bring, our Constitution back to order. If we don't, the people of the land aren't going to stand what we get for not "voting the Constitution". It don't matter who is in what party, what matters is the stands they have taken and the consistency thereof, and...WHO will give the "Right ruling" that will make the Constitution works as the designers intended. And as also do "We the People".
 
Ktoyou

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I have a question; say one of these candidates is elected in the primary, would you not vote for him and let someone like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards become president?
 
Turbo

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ktoyou said:
I have a question; say one of these candidates is elected in the primary, would you not vote for him and let someone like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards become president?
Click to expand...

Yes.

1) Voting for a candidate who condones child killing profanes God, no matter how much more wicked the other candidate is. We should not do evil that good might come of it. We should not vote for a Nazi because he promises to kill fewer innocent people than the Stalinist he's running against.

2) The Republican Party has become increasingly liberal. If we vote for whoever they nominate, just so long as that candidate is a smidgeon less liberal than the Democrat he is running against, then we give them no incentive for nominating worthy candidates. They will continue to nominate wicked candidates, wooing "swing voters" in the middle while taking our votes for granted. The only way I can think of to pull the Republican party back to the right is to stop voting for their liberal pro-abortion candidates. Finding a right-wing third-party candidate to vote for is better than not voting at all, because then there will be a record of how many right-wingers were dissatisfied with the Republican candidate.

3) When a liberal Democrat is in office, the Republican politicians and the Christian leaders oppose their liberal agenda at every turn. But those same people will go along with the same liberal policies if they are put forth by a Republican because he's "our guy." We will call him "pro-life" no matter how much he undermines the personhood of the unborn, no matter how many "exceptions" he sites where he thinks abortion should be permissible, and he can even say that a state should get to decide whether abortion is legal. He will still be labelled "pro-life.

For example, George W. Bush has consistently stated, even before he was elected to his first term, that he thinks abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. When South Dakota recently had a referendum on its ballot to make all abortion illegal, Bush campaigned against it because it did not reflect his position. Yet Christians leaders identify Bush as "pro-life." James Dobson even calls Bush our most pro-life president ever.

Another example: Justice Scalia pledges that while he would overturn Roe v. Wade, he would also strike down its opposite: a law that would make abortion illegal in all states. He openly states that he thinks the people within a state should get to decide whether abortion is legal in that state. Yet Christians are deaf to this and they constantly label him as pro-life just because he disagrees with Roe v. Wade.

The same goes for Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. They are all pro-choice by state, and they are legal positivists who undermine the personhood of unborn babies. But since they were appointed by Republicans, they are labeled "pro-life." They give a ruling detailing several ways in which a baby can be slaughtered without violating the so-called partial-birth abortion ban (which never had the hope of saving a single child's life), and the Christian pro-life movement celebrate it as a victory.

We have been voting Republican for the past generation and as a result we have seven Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, and zero pro-life justices. And in general, Christians have no idea because our leaders keep telling them otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top