Ron Paul - A Surprising Republican

[KenH]

Ron Paul, way outside of the mainstream, calls for the abolition of the death penalty.

Lots of Christians don't support the death penalty - maybe even a majority.

You really need to get out more, cmg.

 

[Jack Matthews]

Yes, but Ron Paul, as you have pointed out, does not endorse the GOP platform on life, which calls for federal action. He is the same way on same-sex marriage, and I understand that he stands for the abolition of the death penalty, contrary to Christian teaching which calls for the execution of murderers.

Ron Paul should seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party and/or the Constitution Party, as he is outside of the GOP mainstream, a total unknown, and has no money and no polling data. He also repudiates Bush, which is contrary to the GOP mainstream.

Where does Jesus, or any of the New Testament writers, call for the death penalty for any crime?

Sanctity of Human life includes all life, even that of criminals. You can't be against abortion and for the death penalty, or pro-war for that matter. It is inconsistent with Christian teaching.

 

[church mouse guy]

Ha! Ha! Jack Matthews, I am glad to see that the religious left supports a guy like Ron Paul. If he were elected, Arkansas would be allowing abortions and same-sex marriage and repealing the death penalty. Then all of the law-abiding people of Arkansas would be moving to Indiana and lining up iln our unemployment lines but happy to be out of Arkansas.

 

[KenH]

Arkansas would be allowing abortions and same-sex marriage

Arkansans have already voted to ban homosexual marriage(being up-to-date on the current political landscape apparently isn't one of your strengths, cmg). And I think that Arkansans would vote to ban abortion if given the opportunity.

 

[church mouse guy]

Stop the personal stuff, Ken. It is just a sign that you have lost the debate. Ron Paul is a pig in a poke, but this thread had the advantage of flushing out the Constitution Party to show that they would vote for Paul in spite of his stands and it even got some support from the religious left and the usual line of Bush bashers. Hate is not the basis of a winning campaign and Bush bashing goes nowhere in the GOP so Paul really should close his explatory committee with the public reason being no money and no name recognition and no support. He is just too far out of the mainstream of the GOP.

 

[KenH]

Ron Paul is a pig in a poke

Hardly. Ron Paul is the most straightforward candidate about his policy stances that has announced that he/she is running or is exploring running.

 

[KenH]

being no money and no name recognition and no support. He is just too far out of the mainstream of the GOP

Money is not a problem(his exploratory committee has even received some from me). This is the Internet age.

He has plenty of name recognition and it is growing by leaps and bounds. He was even mentioned by Jason Wright of politicalderby.com on Fox News Channel this morning.

A significant portion of the GOP base is composed of libertarians. In fact, without the libertarian vote the GOP can't win the presidency in 2008.

 

[KenH]

It is just a sign that you have lost the debate.

I've never lost a debate to you, cmg, and I'm not about to start now.

 

[JGrubbs]

Yes, but Ron Paul, as you have pointed out, does not endorse the GOP platform on life, which calls for federal action.

Do you intentionally ignore the facts and the truth when you start spreading lies about one of the only conservative candidates running for president in 2008?

Here are some of Ron Paul's votes dealing with the Sanctity of Life:

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion. (Oct 2003)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

During the 2005 congressional session, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand.

You keep quoting the GOP platform, forgetting that George W. Bush simply removed the parts of the platform that he didn't like back in 2000 and your pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Constitution champion Rudy could do the same and the majority of the GOP voters wouldn't even notice.

For me it's not about trying to build or support a party, but about finding the best conservative Constitutionalist candidate regardless of they party they represent!

 

[KenH]

Do you intentionally ignore the facts

That's pretty much cmg's usual method of operation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

2) So how do our troops bring this about when both sides are engaged in a civil war? Your views on Iraq are unrealistic, Pastor Larry.

How is it unrealistic to say that we should go after anyone who foments violence? Perhaps you and I have different opinions of the capability of our military. I think that they can do it and should. You come down hard and swift on people who cause violence or support it. That's more realistic than your plan ... or abdication, it seems to me.

I think you need to read the federal constitution. It gives the Congress the right to declare war, not the president. And the House is to represent the interests of the people and the Senate is to represent the interests of the states.

The president is not to be a dictator.

The constitution is on my side. The Congress has the right to declare war. We have a republic form of government. The president is the commander in chief, who gets to deploy forces. I think you are hedging here because your idea of the war in Iraq does not match the constitution, so you are trying toget around the constitution.

Yes, there was not civil war in Japan or Germany. Also, both Japan and Germany had declared war on these United States. Iraq had not.

I am talking about what we did after WWII, not during. After the war, the government that had declared war was gone. We stayed behind to help a government who had never declared war. We ran the Berlin Airlift, transporting supplies into hostile areas to help out. Your history has simply failed you, as has your consitutional knowledge.

Listen, we can disagree on what we should do. But don't abuse history or the consitution to do it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where does Jesus, or any of the New Testament writers, call for the death penalty for any crime?

Jesus called for it in Gen 9:6 based on the truth that man is in the image of God. He also called for it in Rom 13:4. It was recognized by Paul as legitimate in Acts 26:5. So the Bible clearly supports the death penalty.

Sanctity of Human life includes all life, even that of criminals. You can't be against abortion and for the death penalty, or pro-war for that matter. It is inconsistent with Christian teaching.

Christian teaching, indeed moral teaching, is that life is honored by exacting just penalties for the abuse of life, including capital punishment for life. The sanctity of life demands capital punishment. It does not merely make it optional. So long as man is made in God's image, than the proper response to murder is capital punishment. Anything else is disobedience to God.

 

[church mouse guy]

...
You keep quoting the GOP platform, forgetting that George W. Bush simply removed the parts of the platform that he didn't like back in 2000 and your pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Constitution champion Rudy could do the same and the majority of the GOP voters wouldn't even notice.

For me it's not about trying to build or support a party, but about finding the best conservative Constitutionalist candidate regardless of they party they represent!...

For the record, I quoted the 2004 GOP platform and linked it as showing that the GOP supports a constitutional amendment based upon the Declaration of Independence that every person has a God-given right to life and that it is the duty of the federal government to protect life. Now, Paul believes in states rights on that issue, as Ken pointed out, as well as on the issue of same-sex marriage. That would mean under Paul some states would go on murdering the unborn child and some states could legalize same-sex marriage. Paul also supports abolition of the death penalty--so an abortionist could not be given the death penalty under Paul.

Grubbs, I recognize that you do not support the GOP and I have pointed out that you worked for the Constitution Party as an internet publicist, NetPub being your original BB name. If the CP wants Paul as a candidate, I personally think that he would be available. Paul would support the CP platform plank that the Iraq war is illegal.

Grubbs, in the old school, loyalty was more important that cleverness so I reject Paul because he is not a loyal Republican in that he opposes so many planks of the GOP platform. Anyone who bashes Bush is too clever for the GOP; 2008 is about the future and not about Bush. Grubbs, you have your party to worry about, but you can have Paul for your party if you like. Even the Texas GOP never slates him.

 

[KenH]

1) If the CP wants Paul as a candidate

2) he opposes so many planks of the GOP platform

1) There is a good possibility that if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination that the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party will endorse him and not run a candidate of their own.

2) No GOP candidate supports(and I doubt even reads) the entire platform. How many people period even read party platforms? Maybe a dozen?

 

[KenH]

Anything else is disobedience to God.

That statement is flat out wrong.

 

[KenH]

We stayed behind to help a government who had never declared war.

Your are attempting to hide behind semantics - and failing.

 

[KenH]

That's more realistic than your plan ... or abdication, it seems to me.

Your plan will get a lot more Americans killed and not make Iraq one bit more stable. America can't stabilize Iraq. Only the Iraqis can stablize Iraq.

 

[KenH]

The constitution is on my side. The Congress has the right to declare war. We have a republic form of government. The president is the commander in chief, who gets to deploy forces.

I am starting to wonder if you have ever read the whole federal constitution.

The Congress has the power to tell the president when to deploy troops and when to bring them home.

 

[Pastor Larry]

First, Ken, don’t make a bunch of one line posts. Put your response all in the same post.

That statement is flat out wrong.

Um, No. I am just quoting Scripture. If you have an issue with it, your issue is with God. He is the one who said that we honor life by taking the lives of murderers.

Your are attempting to hide behind semantics - and failing.

This doesn’t even make sense. I haven’t failed at hiding behind semantics because I never hid behind semantics.

Your plan will get a lot more Americans killed and not make Iraq one bit more stable. America can't stabilize Iraq. Only the Iraqis can stablize Iraq.

It won’t get “a lot more Americans killed.” It will help to stabilize Iraq by providing much needed force against violence.

I am starting to wonder if you have ever read the whole federal constitution.

No need to wonder. If you have read it, then you know I have.

The Congress has the power to tell the president when to deploy troops and when to bring them home.

They have the power of the purse, not the power to direct the troops. The congress has the power to raise an army, but not to direct them.

But this is all moot anyway since the Congress voted for the use of force and has not rescinded it. The body of representatives of the people voted in favor of this and haven’t changed their mind.

But here’s the real issue: What are the long term affects of this issue? I think Ron Paul is sorely misguided. He fails to note the history of these kinds of things when governments have not been supported. Ron Paul is right, if this was four years ago. But it isn’t. We can’t live in the past. And that kind of short-sightedness that he shows (and you agree with … for now … hard to tell where you will be in a few months on this issue) is, IMO, unacceptable for someone who desires to lead this nation.

 

[KenH]

Since we have not been able to stop the civil war up till now, how will adding a few more troops make it happen. Adding only 21,500 more troops is the equivalent of sticking you finger in a glass of water, removing it, and then looking to see what kind of impression you left.

Come September even the most ardent surge supporter will have to admit that Bush's plan has failed.

On the subject of capital punishment it sounds like you are saying that no person who kills another person should be shown mercy. So did God violate his own rule when He showed mercy to David or to the apostle Paul?