1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Michael Anthony Peroutka Endorses Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by KenH, Sep 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reagan didn't attack Saddam either. Was he prolife?
     
  2. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1) Not proven.

    2) Not proven.

    3) False.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Saddam Hussein was an ally of these United States during the Reagan presidency.
     
  4. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was hoping someone would mention that. As was bin Laden. Wonder how long the current powers that be will love us after they no longer they need us? Or will we once again be infidels?
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not consistently, but that is not about attacking Saddam. He simply was not cnosistently prolife.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it wasn't proven. But the evidence was there. As for your last statement, there was credible evidence that he had them, and every intelligence gathering nation, including both sides of the aisle agreed on that. Hindsight has perhaps shown us differently (though I am not convinced we have all the facts yet). But the evidence was there, and it was credible enough for all the intelligence gathering nations of the world, Democrats and Republicans, including Bill Clinton and his administration to agree on.
     
  7. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm confused. When you say he was not consistently prolife do you mean Reagan or Paul?
     
  8. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And we now know as a fact that all of us who believed these people were foolish to do so.
     
  9. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    So what? How about the fact that a former nominee of the US Constitution Party is not supporting his own party's nominee. That adds credibility to his candidacy. On top of that, it is a fascinating move for those who follow American politics.

    I see you are supporting Fred Thompson. Now there is a fact that will change the course of American history. Boiled down to a nutshell, in reponse to your support of Fred, all one can say is "So what?"
     
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    As was Manuel Noriega. As was Fidel Castro. We seem to do a great job of picking our puppet dictators, don't we?
     
  11. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    :laugh: Boy you seem to find the strangest things to get bothered about.
     
  12. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you seem to have the least to add to about any conversation. :laugh:

    Saturneptune gave you an excellent reason as to why this mattered and instead of talking about, you only want to joke. Can't you have a real conversation or is that hard for you?

    Do you not really understand what this endorsement meant? Nevermind, don't bother answering... it would only be a joke to you I am sure.

    Jamie
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both, but the conversation in particular was about Ron Paul I think.

    But at the time, a decision was made on the best information available given all the possibilities. And that's what leaders do. It is why you are unfit to be a leader and will be until you recognize this. A leader has to make decisions on what is available at the time. He cannot keep waiting until more info is known. There will always be something else to be known.

    Let's face it: To this day, we don't know much about Saddam's WMD program. What we know is that we have not found it yet. We do not know that he did not have WMDs, that he did not transport them to Syria or some other country.

    One day, information may come to light that will end up making the other side look really foolish.

    All in all, I think history in 20-30 years will vindicate Bush on this, but I think it will take about that amount of time, and will require sticking around long enough to get a stable democracy in the Middle East that will then affect others around it.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1) My employer disasgrees with you.

    2) Yes, we do know that Iraq did not have WMDs and that no WMDs were not transported to Syria or some other country. It is silly to believe otherwise. If there was any evidence of this at all - even a smidgeon, the Bush administration would have trumpeted it loud and long.
     
  15. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    While your statement is true, the difference between Bush and a good leader is that when a good leader makes a mistake, they will own up to it. I can't fault Bush for going on the information he had, however when it was found out that the information he and others used was wrong or full of holes, then he needs to be the 'leader' you think he is and step up and say we were wrong. He has only done that a time or two in the last 6 years and even then it was because someone else found it out and was making it public and he had no other choice.

    Bush isn't the only one at fault with this either. We have a a lot of 'bad' leaders and very few if any good ones.

    Yes we do. We know he didn't have them. There hasn't been ONE bit of proof of this. If you think so, please post anything that would say otherwise.

    Isn't that always the case? Does that mean we should just buckle under whatever the government tells us and "hope for the best"?!?

    What exactly is your point?

    In 20-30 years ANY president will be seen to have good points and bad ones... Look at Carter, one of the worse Presidents in history and yet we can find good band bad things he did.

    I don't think Bush will be vindicated like you said. He will be found to have done some good things.. and some bad things...

    Are you suggesting that we should stay in Iraq for the next 20-30 years? I mean why wouldn't we.. isn't that what we do? Isn't that what Bush said we would do? Oh, no... that's right.. he wanted to topple Saddam (done) and get an Iraqi government in place (done) Now what? Oh, stablize it... without their help it will never happen.

    Jamie
     
  16. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, the Democrats and Republicans in the Congress who voted to give President Bush the power to invade Iraq are equally at fault.
     
  17. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh Yeah? Short sentence coupled with smilie right back at you! ;) <j/k>
     
    #37 Ivon Denosovich, Sep 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2007
  18. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    This, to me, is the FUNDAMENTAL question: In the 1,000 + years of recorded Islamic history, where do you find one shred of evidence that Moslims are remotely interested in democratic institutions such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gender equality, etc?

    Our side already has been vindicated by history with our former allies bin Laden, Saddam, the Taliban, etc. Our precedent is neither imaginary or hypothetical. Respectfully, touche!

    It's ironic to watch Republicans disregard whole swaths of world history only to promise how much they'll eventually care about it peradventure it ever comes out on their side of things.
     
    #38 Ivon Denosovich, Sep 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2007
  19. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    #39 Ivon Denosovich, Sep 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2007
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's his money. He is entitled to spend it as he wants. You may be a fine leader in your field, but in this field, you give evidence of being ill-equipped.

    Actually, we don't know. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. I tend to agree that we now know that he did not have them. But that does not mean that he did not. What you (again) do not understand is words and their meanings, and their use in logic and argumentation.

    It is one thing to say, 'As far as we know, he did not have them." I would agree with that.

    It is another thing to say, "We know he did not have them." We don't know that for sure.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...