Thanks Bob

[elected4ever]

Bob said and has said that Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state. You should make some effort to understand that position before you repeatedly accuse him of lying.

If one recognizes a fact and accepts that as fact although that person is opposed to to the fact it is a lie to accuse said person of approving of the wrong. Bob has a habit of this. The acceptance of reality is not the same as approval.

 

[sopwith21]

Prove it.

Do your own homework.

 

[sopwith21]

And that despite the fact that in this very thread I have openly and recently admitted to having some doubts about Keyes due to some of the positions it takes. The evidence doesn't match your accusation against me.

You recommend Bob Enyart's book and ask others to accept it. I offer DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln," and you instantly reject it without even reading it.

When Ron Paul refuses to go to a higher level of government to outlaw abortion on a wider scale, you label him "pro abortion." When you refuse to go to a higher level of government to outlaw abortion on a wider scale, you claim to be "pro life."

You post interviews with Alan Keyes as proof of what he will do as president. We post interviews with Ron Paul and you say "Well, we can't really know what he'll actually do if elected."

When someone kills a homosexual, you say its "murder." When a government agent commits the very same act, you call it "justice."

When Ron Paul accepts abortion only to save the life of the mother, he is "pro murder." When Alan Keyes accepts abortion only to save the life of the mother, you say he is "righteous." When prima faci evidence, straight from Keyes' own mouth, is presented, you respond only by saying that you might have "some doubts" now.

You're a dear friend and a good man, but debating you has been a week-long clinic in double standards. In fact, there is no true debate at all. You cannot be convinced of anything.

You ask for others to invest the time and effort to do intensive, difficult, long-term research and then present to you their hard-earned findings gleaned from years of study in the convenient form of a single condensed, easy-to-read post just so you can arbitrarily dismiss it with the waive of a hand.

Kevin, I ask you to reconsider your commitment to truth, to reconsider your willingness to accept truth when it doesn't match your preconceived ideas, to recommit yourself to hard, long term research that specifically includes a detailed analysis of the positions of the persons you debate, and to apply your standards evenly, fairly and with intellectual honesty to your own beliefs just as you apply them to everyone else's.

Then, and only then, can there be a debate. Until then, the only person who can convince you of anything is you.

 

[sopwith21]

Bob said and has said that Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state. You should make some effort to understand that position before you repeatedly accuse him of lying.

I do understand the position, and intellectual honesty forces me to conclude that Bob Enyart is either "pro-abortion country by country," or he has lied about Ron Paul. Apply the same principle to Bob that you apply to Paul. If Paul can go a level higher to outlaw abortion, so can Enyart. No more double standards.

 

[Lighthouse]

Do your own homework.

Yeah, I didn't think you could.

 

[PKevman]

You recommend Bob Enyart's book and ask others to accept it. I offer DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln," and you instantly reject it without even reading it.

I hardly dismissed it. You are the one who is on the verge of dishonesty now. In fact I said I would gladly do further investigation into the topic, but like SO MUCH of what I have said in this thread, you ignored that completely.

Further, what I asked you about it was a simple question: Why should that author and that book be accepted as evidence over they myriads of quotes from Lincoln himself, and myriads of books that show a completely different picture of Lincoln. I also asked if you agreed with the guy who made the assertion that Lincoln was gay. He claimed to have lots of proof, all of which turned out to be bogus upon examination. And yes I examined the evidence.

Whether or not I will read DiLorenzo's book is irrelevant to the question of why should HIS views of Lincoln be elevated over tons and tons of other views of people just as qualified if not more so to speak on the subject?

You made a wrong assumption to say that I dismissed it and would not read it. If you have it, I would be more than willing to read it.
Maybe you should watch those wrong assumptions that I have talked about many times in this thread?

When Ron Paul refuses to go to a higher level of government to outlaw abortion on a wider scale, you label him "pro abortion." When you refuse to go to a higher level of government to outlaw abortion on a wider scale, you claim to be "pro life."

This was all dealt with at length and is a ridiculous argument that seems to be framed just for the sake of being obnoxious and argumentative. We live in the United States of America. We are one country. I am a citizen of this country. There is no United Countries of The World. The U.N. is a bogus, toothless, liberal organization. I have a voice and influence in the country I live in as a voting citizen and therefore could influence this country far more than I could influence China. You wouldn't accuse a Chinese person of not caring what happens in America because he didn't vote in our election. He lives on the other side of the world and has no vote and little voice in what happens in our country.

You think that your argument is irrefutable, but it has been trounced utterly and completely. Only those who agreed with you politically would agree that this argument was effective, and then the source is completely biased.

You post interviews with Alan Keyes as proof of what he will do as president. We post interviews with Ron Paul and you say "Well, we can't really know what he'll actually do if elected."

I said this about Alan Keyes AND Ron Paul:

And I've already stipulated that there is no proof. I simply said Keyes is the best candidate I've seen so far. You won't admit that there is no proof that Paul will do anything he claims he will do.

Did you miss it, or did you falsely accuse me knowing I said that? Or THIS:

There is no proof that any politician will do something in the future because the future does not exist, and is not knowable.

So, will you apologize now or continue in your error filled accusations against me?

When someone kills a homosexual, you say its "murder." When a government agent commits the very same act, you call it "justice."

When the government enforces the death penalty against those God says it should be used against, God will call it justice. I'll stay on the side of the Lord and what He says in the Bible, rather than men. You never refuted the Biblical arguments presented and continued on ignoring them because you have some preconceived theological notions that you refuse to let go of, even if they conflict with what the Bible actually says.

When Ron Paul accepts abortion only to save the life of the mother, he is "pro murder." When Alan Keyes accepts abortion only to save the life of the mother, you say he is "righteous." When prima faci evidence, straight from Keyes' own mouth, is presented, you respond only by saying that you might have "some doubts" now.

The main issue I have is to find out if Keyes still holds those positions or if they've changed. And trust me I will find out. And when I do, if he does still hold those positions I won't support Keyes. So please, for the love of all that is right, stop falsely accusing me! Either make some effort to understand what I'm saying or don't respond at all. I've made that same effort with you throughout this thread. You want respect, but on this particular subject (politics and government), you aren't willing to give it. And it's a shame, because it's the only other subject that you are like this on. Everything else we've ever talked about or done together as friends has been a joy. I know I'm hard headed. Are you willing to admit that you are as well?

You're a dear friend and a good man, but debating you has been a week-long clinic in double standards.

No it's been a week-long struggle to get you to understand our positions, and you still don't or you wouldn't call them double standards. Again, they're only double standards if you hold to your particular views on politics and government.

In fact, there is no true debate at all. You cannot be convinced of anything.

This is a very high insult. And you must not persist making that charge without proof. If I reject a view it doesn't mean that I cannot be convinced of anything. I have had my mind changed a lot over the years. But by all means continue on, and yet YOU accuse Bob Enyart and Lighthouse of being the rude ones!

You ask for others to invest the time and effort to do intensive, difficult, long-term research and then present to you their hard-earned findings gleaned from years of study in the convenient form of a single condensed, easy-to-read post just so you can arbitrarily dismiss it with the waive of a hand.

No we just asked for your sources. And we've spent pages and pages realizing that you don't want to give your sources. That's fine and dandy. But don't make the claims if you cannot back them up with evidence! Just you saying something doesn't make it evidence. This is not the attitude of someone who has truth. It's the attitude of someone who has a preconceived notion that they are utterly unwilling to consider just MIGHT be wrong.

Kevin, I ask you to reconsider your commitment to truth,

I don't have to my friend. I am utterly committed to truth and to righteousness. In fact when you first asked me last month what I was looking for in a candidate, my only response was righteousness. You proceeded to go into a lengthy discussion about why Ron Paul was what I was looking for. You still haven't proved your case to me, and you refuse to give me the respect to examine the information that you think is so ironclad. So that is where we're at.

to reconsider your willingness to accept truth when it doesn't match your preconceived ideas,

Once again, this reveals that despite our years knowing each other you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I have rejected tons of preconceived ideas I once had in the past 11 years of my life. You repeatedly making this accusation against me doesn't make your false accusation true. But YOU my friend, are the one who refuses to hear. This is evident by you continuing to say this to me.

to recommit yourself to hard, long term research that specifically includes a detailed analysis of the positions of the persons you debate, and to apply your standards evenly, fairly and with intellectual honesty to your own beliefs just as you apply them to everyone else's.

Ok here is the deal. I spend the majority of my hard, long-term research in God's Word. It's amazing that you have all of this political knowledge and yet you confused the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned with the woman at the well. Those are basic stories that a simple reading of the Gospels would reveal to the astute Bible student.

You accuse me of not being studious? I can generally examine something pretty quickly and determine if the positions held are Biblical or not. I generally have little interest in Godless opinions. I will study them for the express purposes of reaching people trapped within them, but that's usually the extent. I believe God's Word to be far superior to any man or men's writings.

Then, and only then, can there be a debate. Until then, the only person who can convince you of anything is you.

Same accusation presented over and over again. And just as wrong as it was every other time you said it.

 

[sopwith21]

Yeah, I didn't think you could.

I could have told you that. I cannot prove anything to you. "Proof" is only proof if the other party accepts it. You won't.

 

[sopwith21]

for the love of all that is right, stop falsely accusing me!

You are not a victim, Kevin. No one is accusing you of anything. I am, however, declining the invitation to be your secretary.

You want to sit back and say "Prove it! Prove it!" every time anyone makes any comment on this forum. This puts you in the incredibly convenient position of rhetorically dismissing everything that is offered, and then crying "Prove it! Prove it!" again (then repeat as necessary). As you can imagine, this little game is of no real interest to others.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that you hold the claims of others to a different standard than your own. You have reasons and explanations as to why, but the fact remains that you do.

You'll notice that after our first few posts of discourse, I've made no real effort to get you to believe anything I say. Its a futile effort. You will, however, believe you. So my task it not to get you to believe what I believe, but rather to get you to research the issues for yourself and come to your own conclusion, whatever that may be.

So please spare both of us the perpetual "Prove it! Prove it!" song and dance. I thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in doing your research, being your secretary or spoon-feeding you an endless diet of sources, quotes, information and data. You'll have to do that for yourself. And in the end, regardless of what conclusion you reach, we'll both be better off.

 

[drbrumley]

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

-----
Source: Abraham Lincoln said this in a speech he delivered to the people of Charleston, Illinois in 1858.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

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.

You are right, including about my lacking treatment about the libertarian party although as a party it's platform is more pro-choice, as a party. That being said, the one thing I didn't point out and that can be said about libertarians is that unlike both the Republican's and the Democrats, NO true libertarian supports any federal funding for abortion. That statement can not be said of the others. My main point is that Ron Paul has been consistent and open directly to those libertarians that may not understand the inseparable and vital link between life and liberty.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

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.

Now this is different than what you actually said he said to you and that I challenged you to post. Thank you for posting it. What you describe is the ability of the states to finally protect life again. This is more consistent with the truth as opposed to your original quote about what the Staff member said to you. We've been saying this all along. The ability of the states to end abortion is not even an option right now thanks to Roe.
This bill makes it possible right now. Yet so many have bound themselves to a hale Mary solution that does not exist in America and we'll talk it to death and not save a single person in the mean time.

Are you willing to let no states have even the option to stop abortions until the Feds "come around" to this fictional idea? Just because it sounds like a good or Godly idea? Until there is an amendment, until there is a court if ever, until there is a "holy" dictator of some kind who would handle power in every issue according to scripture and end abortion... until then the states need the ability to do something now. You do not want a single state to save unborn while the long and tedious processes you and others have proposed are implemented (if they ever could be?)
What move in our system now do you see this happening?
If you are willing to wait and let the unborn in every state keep being murdered, that's sad when there is an option right now in committee. Actual legislation right now. But because there is a chance some states might now do the right thing, you'd choose to keep nationalized abortion? Great idea!
If you are not willing to wait for your solution then name the way you see this happening. Who right now can make it happen? Who has this power now, not who do you think should have it because that will not stop an abortion. Name the process you are so adamant about that you are willing to let abortion remain in place for until it is exercised. Because if you cannot name it, you are relying on talk to save the unborn, just like we have been doing for decades.

Again Ron Paul's bill is the only move to do any saving of unborn people within government in America.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

... I have seen too many things that make me believe he has a low view of the unborn...

You really need to do some reading, listening and checking of records, you are showing how much you have not done.
At least most would agrees with you on Bush.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

If you study your history you will find that the utter poverty in the black community that has existed for generations go back to the way our government treated black people after slavery was outlawed.

I didn't say I was a supporter of reparations either. I just said I wasn't entirely opposed to it. I happen to have a lot of close friends who are black and a mentor who is black. Many in the black community are not even for reparations, so it's not like its something that is going to happen.

I would like to see the logic behind it, the data, and what people would be paid reparations and how much. Then I could make a more informed decision. Isn't that the responsible answer?

I don't want to be forced to pay anyone, who had nothing to do with slavery, for slavery, which I had nothing to do with myself.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

If your next door neighbor is killing his kid in front of you, do you have the right to step in with force and agression and stop him? Or would you watch and say he is within his rights?

Well right now the federal government is preventing me (the State) from stepping in and stopping my neighbor (the abortionists) from killing his kid in front of me. So when do you start applying your hypothetical correctly? Would you go and physically stop abortions right now? Why not? Does not the authority come from God and not the federal government? We won't go that far will we? We want nanny federal government to do what it already has proven it can't, or won't... That is the situation, the States need the ability to do what you are portraying. The states already deal with crimes like murder. Somehow abortion is different?

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Ron Paul is not pro abortion. Bob Enyart said that he is. That is a lie.

Bob Enyart has also said explicitly that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist" and that is a bold face lie as well.

 

[PKevman]

You are not a victim, Kevin. No one is accusing you of anything. I am, however, declining the invitation to be your secretary.

All you are declining to do is have a reasonable discourse. That's it. You ignored everything I said. I know I'm not a victim, and am not playing victim. That's stupid.
Go back and read what I said, there was nothing I said which indicated I was a victim. You wrongly accused me over and over in your post. I responded to it and pointed it out. You gave my long and heartfelt response no respect and no effort to even answer anything said in actuality. It's what you've done throughout the thread. You do what you're accusing me of doing.

You want to sit back and say "Prove it! Prove it!" every time anyone makes any comment on this forum.

:rotfl: Exaggerations are not becoming of your or your position. We know you don't want to show the sources of your information, this was proven by your denial that the objectivity of a source can affect the interpretation of the data.
As I said, you demand respect, but you aren't giving it.

I've been battling dunderheads on this site for quite some time now, I honestly didn't expect that I would be battling you like this.

This puts you in the incredibly convenient position of rhetorically dismissing everything that is offered, and then crying "Prove it! Prove it!" again (then repeat as necessary). As you can imagine, this little game is of no real interest to others.

Right, most people give up long before this and just assume you won't give up the sources when you make claims as if they are indisputable facts but refuse to disclose where you are getting those facts. All you do is repeatedly accuse and say "You won't believe it even if I showed you."
I've about had my fill of this conversation. I like you too much as a friend to continue to go down this road with you. You don't want to give the source of your information, don't make the claims. It's that simple.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that you hold the claims of others to a different standard than your own.

Wrong. When I make a claim, and someone asks me why I made the claim, or what is my source, I divulge that information. I don't spend pages and pages making silly assertions that have no basis in the conversation at hand.

You'll notice that after our first few posts of discourse, I've made no real effort to get you to believe anything I say.

That's because you realized I wasn't going to take it just because you said it. The difference is that when I gave a position, such as on the death penalty for capital crimes, I gave the exact Biblical evidence to support those positions.

Its a futile effort. You will, however, believe you. So my task it not to get you to believe what I believe, but rather to get you to research the issues for yourself and come to your own conclusion, whatever that may be.

Then stop making it a "futile effort" and start communicating. None of this stuff is relevant to having an intelligent discourse.

So please spare both of us the perpetual "Prove it! Prove it!" song and dance.

Then spare me from making assertions of fact but offering no proof of those facts. And in the meantime you could show me where I made an assertion and didn't back it up. I'd be glad to offer you the evidence of why I hold that position. I'd be honest and open enough to tell you, as I have throughout this thread.

I thank you for the offer, but I am not interested in doing your research, being your secretary or spoon-feeding you an endless diet of sources, quotes, information and data.

Blah, blah blah. I never asked you to be my "secretary" or "spoon-feed" me anything.

Asking someone to prove a position they have laid out is NOT asking them to be your secretary or "spoon-feed" you. It is simply part of normal conversation and discourse.

You'll have to do that for yourself. And in the end, regardless of what conclusion you reach, we'll both be better off.

And of course you assume that someone who holds a different opinion from you could not POSSIBLY have researched anything, or they wouldn't come to a different view than you.

Pride is in the way of us having a reasonable conversation about this topic. And I can admit it might be some of my own. I'd be shocked if you would admit the same.

 

[PKevman]

Bob Enyart has also said explicitly that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist" and that is a bold face lie as well.

You are contributing NOTHING to this conversation of any value. You're an utter waste of bandwith space.

 

[S†ephen]

Morning Mr. Kevin,

How ya doing?

I gotsta question fer ya.

 

[S†ephen]

Ok, here's something I've had a hard time understanding.

Ron Paul wants to give the power to outlaw abortion back to the states right?

Alan Keys wants to give it to the federal government, yes?

Now, Say Alan Keys gets into office and bans abortion completely throughout the entire United States. Here's what's got me stuck: What happens when another evil president gets in and turns the abortion issue right back around?

I personally would think that Ron Paul would seal the deal on this particular problem because by giving power back to the states you make it so that the power over abortion is vested in a lot more men than one. I would think it would take a couple of evil presidents to reverse this one.

Thoughts?

 

[S†ephen]

You're an utter waste of bandwith space.

:darwinsm: The only burn I liked better than this one was when that Hindu guy said "I hope you are never reincarnated as a cockroach or any other insect."

just goofin fellas.