Thanks Bob
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
- Status
S†ephen
New member
Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Next time do the research yourself, think before you post such blatant stupidity, and apologize publicly for it.
S†ephen
New member
Because his answer was he would rather blow his vote than vote Ron Paul and at least do something about abortion. In other words he would let all the children in the 12 states listed die before he would vote for Ron Paul. That blatant support of murder is unchristian in every sense. We may not get all 50 at once but we have to at least start somewhere.
S†ephen
New member
Of course. And we both agree on this. But please tell me, what makes Alan Keys a major front runner for presidential office? Not only has the man run before and not gotten in he also is willing to use the federal government to accomplish his ends. So by the time he gets out of office the problems (abortion included) will come right back because he didn't do anything to stop an evil system. Ron will stop the system and work at stopping abortion. He will also make it much easier for the common man to stop abortion since the power will be in the smaller hands of the states rather than one single politician.
So... I re-ask my question:
Are you willing to blow your vote and fight a man who YOU KNOW is against abortion in some measure?
I want this question answered people.
PKevman
New member
I am not convinced that he is against abortion in any measure. I haven't heard the passion or the utter commitment against it that I have heard from Dr. Keyes. I have seen too many things that make me believe he has a low view of the unborn.
Further than this, I learned from previous elections to never again vote for the "lesser of two evils". Usually this person is just as wicked but is misrepresenting their position.
You have George W. Bush to thank for my hesitancy to support a Ron Paul. Years ago, I might have.
Now I will vote for someone who I believe holds the Biblical views that I do, even if I have to write their name in. I don't care. My vote still counts the same as the next guy (1 vote), so to say my vote doesn't count is silly.
If more people would stop looking at it like this, we might be able to get the Retardicans and the Dumocrats to take notice.
S†ephen, I have not been following this topic so please forgive me if I am asking something that has already been asked but...
How do you define a "blown vote"?
drbrumley
Well-known member
OK PK, here ya go.
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul
Copyright 1981
Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.
We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.
A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.
Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.
Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.
I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.
DRBrumley-State can mean the United States, or any state, ex Florida
S†ephen
New member
How many bills has Dr. Keyes tried to pass against abortion? Ron Paul has tried twice with the The Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act.
How many bills has Dr. Keyes had to vote on? Ron Paul has been presented with several, some of which I posted and every time he voted against abortion and for American Liberty as much as possible within the given bill.
How many books has Dr. Keys written on the subject of abortion? Ron Paul has written 2: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue.
How many times has Mr. Keys openly stated on a live television debate on a major network such as FOX that he is against abortion?
Ron Paul has mentioned several time that he is extremely pro-life and you can check his myspace page for the debates.
On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Ron Paul described "the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time."
I'm sorry but how can you say Ron Paul doesn't have as much fervor as Alan?
S†ephen
New member
Personally? I define as one that will have no real impact apart from the collective. One that, no matter how many people you get, the candidate is realistically not going to have any chance.
Ron Paul is on the edge of what I would consider a blown vote but his support is growing and he's just barely popular enough to get a little major news network attention. I haven't seen Alan Keys in this at all.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Because Alan Keyes believes in the State. Pretty simple if you ask me.
S†ephen
New member
By state you're referring to the federal branch correct?
Because I know no one on here, being staunch lovers of freedom as they admit to be, would support a candidate who is willing to use a current inconceivably evil system to accomplish their ends.
They would seek to set the system right so that their goodness would continue down even after their term is over.
S†ephen
New member
would you be so kind as to inform me of the bill of which you speak and what you do not like about it?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Read post#547
Without a complete investigation of the travel plans of females crossing state lines, how will you know who to prosecute? Or do you support check points at every border to examine the ID of females to see how old they are? And if they are minors, you'd have to have instant pregnancy tests for each female at each checkpoint, and if a minor female does turn up pregnant, then you have to prove "intent" (i.e., you have to read minds) to demonstrate their criminality.
The law is ridiculous, unenforceable and an encroachment upon freedom. If we're going to outlaw abortion, then let's outlaw abortion... not create layer upon layer of redundant, unnecessary, liberty-destroying bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing.
drbrumley
Well-known member
The bill in question, the Sanctity of Life bill. What I don't like about it is it does allow states to keep it legal.
As post 547 says in his OWN WORDS, he would and should be against that.
I understand he wants to limit the courts from legislating from the bench. We all do....but to take any check and balance we can get is kinda foolish in my book.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Bottom line, Sop is right.
S†ephen
New member
Where does it say that? I didn't see anything like that.
No. You would reject it because it does not support your position. If you cannot refute the information you will question the source. If the source is solid you will dismiss it as an isolated incident.
No one can convince you of anything, Kevin. The only one who can change your mind is you. I am simply telling you that there is much, much more to the story than what you know. The rest is up to you.
- Status