Go Ron Paul!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kyredneck, Nov 20, 2011.

  1. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    273
    Romney Two-Way Race Now Four-Way Republican Dead Heat in Iowa

    "Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in a dead heat as the top choices for Iowans likely to attend the Jan. 3 Republican presidential caucuses.

    A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away."

    Yea, I know I know, this is just Iowa and just a Bloomberg poll, but still, it gives me a little hope for my favorite.
     
    #1 kyredneck, Nov 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2011
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    I agree - about "go ron paul" a one way trip right back to Texas!
     
  3. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!! Go go GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

    ...and don't come back.

    A s*domite propagatin' candidate, and rah rah'in for him?

    Uh?

    Sure, go cast your vote for that, and show what you support.
     
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not impressed with Paul. He has a few good ideas and then some terrible ideas that totally ruin the good ones.
     
  5. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    He is still the only politician I have ever finacially supported. After reading his manifesto, I am convinced he is a true Christian.
     
  6. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    A "true" Christian that supports gay marriage, or better yet, the practice and propagation of s*d*my? Any one who sees this as "true" Christianity is deceived.

    Not even close to being "true."

    There is no such Christian in the Scriptures.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Can you prove these allegations? A true Christian wouldn't just go around accusing people of evil without some kind of proof would they? What do the sciptures say about the sort of Christian who would?
     
    #7 poncho, Nov 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2011
  8. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    He's proved it himself.

    He supports gay marriage, which yes, is evil.

    Go find the evidence yourself that proves it.

    Then, come back and apologize to me, OK?
     
  9. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been listening to Ron Paul for years and his views are different than what you report.

    First, he supports marriage between one man and one woman. However, he believes that government should not be in the marriage business, but that it should merely be a church issue. He believes the state have ruined marriage and we could best preserve marriage by getting the state out of the business of marriage.

    Secondly, he also believes that the Federal Government should not be in the business of telling states what marriage is and is not.

    Now, this is the one issue I disagree with Paul on, however, I agree with him that the state has done more harm to marriage than it has helped marriage. Since the 1930's, most laws concerning marriage have been negative to the institution of marriage. If marriage was not recognized by the state, few people would desire marriage, including homosexuals.

    Where he is wrong is that marriage is both a social and religious contract. However, almost all other politicians over-emphasize the social contract part of marriage thus making it overly a state issue.

    Thus, your rhetoric does not seem to fit his actual beliefs. While I disagree with Paul on this issue, his viewpoint is more nuanced than you give him credit.
     
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone please explain why licensing marriages should be a state function. In every other government activity I am told that government licensing "means" government control. Why is marriage different? If the government sets qualifications for pistol permits, why should not governments set qualifications for marriage permits?
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    If I'm not mistaken, some States or Commonwealths require pre-marital counseling.

    I don't have a problem with state licensing for marriage. First they ensure that there is no bigamy is involved, ect.
    In addition, if the State was completely out of the business, they would not be able to prevent polygynous marriages and those between brothers & sisters, sons & mothers, ect. Also, there is a set standard - albeit is now getting a bit immoral.

    I just checked the Constitution Party platform.

    " We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage."

    "No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment,..." (bold my emphasis)

    Actually the CP is incorrect! State governments are permitted to authorize or define marriage or family relations...

    Interestingly enough in Germany (and I suppose in other European nations) a religious wedding has no legal status. So often a couple will get married twice.

    Now lets get back to Ron Paul
     
  12. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, OK.

    No, his views aren't different than what I report. They're different from yours, when rightly viewed via truth minus the lens of being politically correct and via the lens of compromise.

    Go for the sounding smart instead of using common manhood, Christian principles, and sense? You're being desensitized and are compromising Biblical truth for the sake of following a politician. Those who continue to follow this compromising view are also guilty themselves. It reminds me of the Corinthians who looked at the man in adultery as practicing "liberty," but were puffed up in their fleshly minds and were compromising truth. How smart and suave they must have felt. They were on the "cutting edge," or so they thought.

    I won't compromise Christian belief for the sake of being "politically popular" or "politically correct." This is exactly what Ron Paul is doing. I find it interesting any believer would find such as a wise position. One must decide what is more important, their Christian faith, or denying such beliefs in following ones political persuasion, or favored candidate. We are either of His kingdom, or of this world, there is no dual citizenship that is acceptable, nor are there two sets of values, one "here," and one "there." Being renewed in the spirit of our minds rejects Ron Pauls compromising and worldly stand.

    Whenever any person does not make a strong and Biblical stand against a position (who claims to be a Christian) and lifestyle that is condemned by God, then he is riding the fence and is a politician.

    A real Christian and man wouldn't play the politics and ride the fence, and this is what Ron is doing. Probably a matter of fact is that no true Christian would ever make it in the US as a candidate for president, as in so doing, one must play the cards right which means losing true values for votes.

    A true believer wouldn't compromise and find excuses to do so for the sake of ANY nation, as you are doing, and as you are supporting him in doing himself. This is simply a person putting "America" above Christian belief and duty. But this is the way of the "church" these days, and anyone making a bold stand against it is cast off for doing so. Such who hold this position argue for how they are right in doing so, and cast truth aside in so doing. It's about being "right" these days, not about paying a price, not about giving up rights for Him, nor about denying self for the Kingdom of Christ, instead it's about sounding good, being popular, being on the cutting edge, which is worldliness in a new, shiny package.

    He condones gay marriage by copping out and leaving it up to "states." So does any person who supports him in it, at the same time celebrating him as a "true" Christian.

    - Peace
     
    #12 preacher4truth, Nov 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2011
  13. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not one who gives into things for political expediency. If you read my post, I noted his position. In history there have been three major positions.

    1. The church is only arbiter of marriage (Ron Paul but also many of our founding fathers in America)
    2. The State is the only arbiter of marriage (English Puritans)
    3. The church and state have a combined but distinct role. (My position and the position of several in history)
    4. The church is over the state and thus controls both marriage and state (Catholic)

    A new position has been advanced within my lifetime, we will get to that later.

    Believe it or not, there have been Christian theologians throughout history who supported various aspects of these issues.

    Yet, rather than argue the issue, you chose to attack me personally. You would rather show hatred and bitterness towards a brother in Christ than argue the issues. Having read all these sides from their historic context, I understand but also disagree with Paul, as I noted in my post. However, his is a philosophical position that is consistent with several of the founding fathers. You attack me for political expediency when I clearly noted my disagreement but merely explained his position after researching it for years. This single position is why I didn't endorse him 4 years ago.

    As well, I also noted the other candidates tend to jettison the historic view of marriage as well. Some want the state as the final arbiter of marriage. This, in my opinion, is an overstepping of the state issue.

    My view on marriage is quite clear. Marriage is defined by God, upheld by the church, and recognized through the social contract by the state. This, by the way, is the old Common Law view. Most conservatives want marriage defined by God (so far so good), upheld by the state, and recognized by the church.

    The reason I am for the state defining marriage is so they can properly recognize it. However, I am not for 99% of the laws they have concerning marriage. Most of the conservatives and liberals are for big government in this regards.

    So, if you feel better in wrongfully attacking a brother in Christ and calling him names, in demeaning him by your own prejudices, then go ahead. I recognize Paul's philosophical position, reject it, and but believe it is better than the left's position and has some strengths too. His position is hated by both the left and the right and misconstrued by both.

    Finally, while he would leave it to the states, that is really not his position. His position is that Government should be out of the marriage business completely and the churches should be the sole arbiter of marriage. He believes state involvement is one of the problems with marriage today. I happen to agree with him that state is one of the biggest problems in marriage today, but I disagree with his solution.
     
    #13 Ruiz, Nov 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2011
  14. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, you are either ignorant or lying. Just because someone does not support federal police busting down the doors of private homes, to enforce morality laws on folks, does not make them pro-sodomy.

    Honestly, this kind of lying rhetoric should be banned from the board. Would you rather have Cain, the rapist? Romney, the pro-baby murder candidate? Perry, the pharmaceutically owned fake conservative? Gingrich, the adulterer and thief? Santorum the war monger?

    Who do you suggest instead of Paul? Oh, no, Paul believes that the Federal government needs to leave the decision to the states! Gasp! Did you know murder is ALSO left to the states? I guess that makes us "pro-murder"...

    Good Grief. Get a clue.
     
  15. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul is dead on on the marriage issue. The Federal Government (and state government, for that matter) needs to get OUT of the marriage business. Marriage is a church issue. The Government does not regulate baptism, and I sure don't want them regulating marriage either.

    Who wants sinful, unbelieving politicians controlling marriage and its definition? That is INSANE>
     
  16. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    What would athiests do ?




    There is no legal status regarding baptism
     
  17. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever they want, as long as I am not required to endorse it.



    Nor should there be for marriage. Whether or not I am married, how I am married, or who I am married to, is none of the Government's *&mn business.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    So a couple shack up have a kid - and now they can say they are married, they get to claim married on their tax -and thus they pay less, then a year latter, the guy decides to marry 5 more women - claims them and the 8 extra kids on his tax........

    Now you are not endorsing what they are doing......

    of course homosexual can consider themselves married....
    and kids could get married - possibly at the urging of their parents for tax purposes......

    yea, go ahead and open a can of worms.....


    Come quickly Lord Jesus
     
  19. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice name-calling. Thanks. Then the audacity to say a person should be banned? I won't even look at what you've said as personal, and will instead just consider the source and bless you back.

    And now we'll move onto the truth of the matter -

    Actually it's folks like you who fill posts with pejoratives who should be banned from the board. Your attitude towards many on here is ridiculous, and typically derogatory in nature. Even though you're a cal, I generally avoid your posts as they are typically enraged responses, as is this one. I am happy for you that the web gives you a place to vent. Outside the web? Not so much, right?

    What I said about your politician stands. However you got to he should knock down doors via federal police is strawman prattle and shows just how out of control you get yourself when you get worked up over things that weren't said. Where did I say he needed to force morality laws on people? Oh, that's right, I didn't say that.

    You need to settle down. Try staying on track with what I actually stated, OK, that way you can lose the actual argument instead of losing your strawman argument?

    I said someone that is a true Christian needs to make a stand, not compromise. You came up with the other foolish add-ons in your fantastical delusion "knock down doors/force morality laws" nonsense like a good reporter for National Enquirer would do, or like a "good" liberal politician would do.

    Don't like the truth? Don't read my posts. Obviously you get twisted, see things, and can't handle it.
     
    #19 preacher4truth, Nov 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2011
  20. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I don't care what "theologians" believed, or settled/compromised on. If that makes you comfy to do so, then do it. There's a higher standard than a theologian.

    Secondly, there was no "personal attack" on you. If it makes you feel better to believe that, then go for it. But the truth is nothing I said attacked you personally, I simply exposed his compromise, and obviously yours as well. You use a fictitious unnamed theologian to show that compromise is common, and practiced by "Gods people" for what? To show that it's OK because others have done it as well? That's it, go with the status quo. Me? Not happening.
     
    #20 preacher4truth, Nov 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...