toldailytopic: Ron Paul. At CPAC Ron Paul won the straw poll as their top potential p

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for February 22nd, 2010 08:53 AM

toldailytopic: Ron Paul. At CPAC Ron Paul won the straw poll as their top potential presidential candidate. What do you think of Ron Paul?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yesterday during Bob's sermon he said that Ron Paul had made some very positive comments about Personhood. He said that Ron Paul might be "reachable". That's the first time I have heard Bob speak positively about one of the major political candidates.

 

[chickenman]

I've seen comments about Ron Paul not being pro-life, but all I've ever seen from him is staunchly pro-life. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[mmstroud]

I've seen comments about Ron Paul not being pro-life, but all I've ever seen from him is staunchly pro-life. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Randy

Randy,

Here's a url for Ron Paul's own writing on the issues:

http://ronpaullibrary.org/

Living in California where we knew our vote would only be a political statement, we voted for Ron Paul in both the Primary and General elections. He was the only true conservative running.

I encourage everyone to read Paul's The Revolution: A Conservative Manifesto. I know, I know, everyone wrote a manifesto in the past few years, but if you want to know what he would do specifically, that's the place to find it. My only concern is his age. Even though he's probably in better physical shape than most of the 50 and 60 year-olds on Capitol Hill, it would undoubtedly be an issue for a lot of voters.

 

[Ps82]

I think his son is pretty promising too... but I don't know that I am for a third party. I had rather have a good man for the Republican spot.

 

[Nick M]

I've seen comments about Ron Paul not being pro-life, but all I've ever seen from him is staunchly pro-life. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Randy

He is a "States rights" kind of guy. As a great many of good right wingers are. If he repents, great.

Authority does not flow uphill. That is the first problem. States rights says if California wants faggots to marry, it isn't the federal governments place to stop it.

 

[chickenman]

He is a "States rights" kind of guy. As a great many of good right wingers are. If he repents, great.

Authority does not flow uphill. That is the first problem. States rights says if California wants faggots to marry, it isn't the federal governments place to stop it.

Does he consider murder, in general, a states rights issue and would leave the federal government out of it? More specifically, with abortion, does he see that as a states right issue, and would leave the fed out of it, as well?

Thanks,
RA

 

[Tico]

Does he consider murder, in general, a states rights issue and would leave the federal government out of it? More specifically, with abortion, does he see that as a states right issue, and would leave the fed out of it, as well?

Thanks,
RA

Hey Randy,

One of the problems with states´right libertarians is that they don´t like the 14th amendment which guarantees that States must provide equal protection of their laws to their citizens (for example: applying their murder laws equally to all persons). The courts have also used the 14th amendment to require that the states refrain from making laws that would infringe on (certain) rights guaranteed under the Constitution to their citizens (of course the 2nd amendment is excluded).

Thus, a strict states´rights libertarian would like to reject the 14th amendment´s imposition on the states that they would have to protect their citizens under the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Nor do they like the idea that the 14th amendment can tell a state to treat all persons equally under its laws.

As applied to abortion, if it were declared that a person is a human being from his biological creation, then the 14th amendment would required that the states protect these unborn persons. A strict states´rights libertarian would have a problem with this.

I too would be interested to know where Ron Paul stands on the issues you raised and the application of 14th amendment.

 

[drbrumley]

He is a "States rights" kind of guy..

That he is.

As a great many of good right wingers are..

I see

If he repents, great..

Yeah, if he actually had something to repent about. This surely isn't it.

Authority does not flow uphill..

"Cliche, cliche." Is this all you can utter? Well, I appreciate your insightfulness Sherlock! Of course authority doesn't flow uphill. Right now it certainly does, thanks to folks like you who don't know any better or knowingly loves the central state as it exists today.

That is the first problem..

That's not the problem.

States rights says if California wants faggots to marry, it isn't the federal governments place to stop it.

On the other hand, if the Federal government mandates it, no state has the authority to break that law. Check mate!

 

[WizardofOz]

He is a "States rights" kind of guy. As a great many of good right wingers are. If he repents, great.

Authority does not flow uphill.

Well, then by your logic you must also support the UN/global governance.

After all, authority doesn't flow uphill.

Do you support the UN? Why or why not?

Further, what has the federal government done for you?

 

[drbrumley]

Well, then by your logic you must also support the UN/global governance.

After all, authority doesn't flow uphill.

Do you support the UN? Why or why not?

Further, what has the federal government done for you?

Funny to see the natural consequence of logic being drawn to its logical conclusion, No? He probably doesnt even realize what he is saying to be honest.

 

[WizardofOz]

Funny to see the natural consequence of logic being drawn to its logical conclusion, No? He probably doesnt even realize what he is saying to be honest.

Not to mention someone in the pro life movement arguing against state rights is a curious stance to take.

 

[kmoney]

I like Ron Paul and am glad to see that a candidate like him is getting this level of support. At this point I'm still hesitant to look at him as a viable Presidential candidate but this could be a step towards it. I'm more left of RP in some areas but I think the area I support him the most is foreign policy. He's not an imperialist like the Republicans.

 

[Doug Wright]

If you want to control the opposition/lead the opposition. Palin and Paul are sheep dogs meant to keep the machine working.

Paul has been in congress for decades and accomplished nothing. 'Audit the Fed'?! how 'bout destroy the Fed. Audit is to give warning and produce a manicured document of approval.

Libertarian, if that is at all possible(it isn't) fails to accept that crime is determined not by what harms our senses, but what is unjust according to God. In that sense there are no victim less crimes. Society that allows Cursing mother father and even Christ, is anarchy-even should it criminalize 'fighting words'.

 

[kmoney]

If you want to control the opposition/lead the opposition. Palin and Paul are sheep dogs meant to keep the machine working.

Paul has been in congress for decades and accomplished nothing. 'Audit the Fed'?! how 'bout destroy the Fed. Audit is to give warning and produce a manicured document of approval.

Libertarian, if that is at all possible(it isn't) fails to accept that crime is determined not by what harms our senses, but what is unjust according to God. In that sense there are no victim less crimes. Society that allows Cursing mother father and even Christ, is anarchy-even should it criminalize 'fighting words'.

Paul would get rid of the Fed.

 

[Doug Wright]

Paul would get rid of the Fed.

dung-good he's done so far.

 

[Nick M]

Does he consider murder, in general, a states rights issue and would leave the federal government out of it? More specifically, with abortion, does he see that as a states right issue, and would leave the fed out of it, as well?

Thanks,
RA

I don't recall the question in the format you are asking. But since he says California can murder unborn babies, and it isn't the Federal governments place to interfere. And abortion is murder. He probably takes the same stance.

I will let the libertarians speak for themselves.

http://kgov.com/bel/20080102

Well, then by your logic you must also support the UN/global governance.

Further, what has the federal government done for you?

Well, by my logic, no. The UN isn't authority. I see you think it is.

The government has done many things, good and bad. Which are you wondering about.

edit, wrong date show

 

[WizardofOz]

I've seen comments about Ron Paul not being pro-life, but all I've ever seen from him is staunchly pro-life. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Randy

I think Paul's stance on abortion is not widely understood. Worse, it is distorted and taken out of context by some pro-life organizations and individuals.

Many will say "he doesn't support a national ban against abortion". This may seem alarming, but it actually says nothing about his view on abortion. He is against abortion laws being made at the federal level period.

Most importantly, his statement put to rest any apprehension about his stance on abortion. He has suggested there be a constitutional amendment declaring that life begins at conception.

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“ I know we’re all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn’t go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order.

Sanctity of Life Amendment

Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act and the amendments made by this Act applicable to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.

 

[WizardofOz]

Well, by my logic, no. The UN isn't authority. I see you think it is.

The government has done many things, good and bad. Which are you wondering about.

I am not talking about the UN per say, but why do you not support a global government? Authority flows downhill, right? I'm just following this to the logical conclusion.

 

[Mike C.]

I like Ron Paul because he is the only politician I know of that actually makes sense when he talks. He's humble towards his opponents and always replies with well-reasoned arguments. He's also faithful to the Constitution, and I always have thought we'd be a better nation if we aimed back towards it (concerning state's rights). That way, I can find a state that agrees with my values instead of risking the federal government legislating things I think are wrong (like abortion).