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!

Peroutka bombed on Medved

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by church mouse guy, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Hear, Hear!"

    I don't support the Constitution Party and Michael Peroutka because I think he will win the election and save our nation, I don't think anyone in politics can save our nation. I think the only thing that will save our nation is when Christians accross American stop shaking their heads and hands at the lost world around them, and blaming the lost world for the moral decline of America, get on their knees and repent of their sins, and turn from their wicked ways. I believe there is a problem with the fact that Christianity is a booming business in America, mega churches, Christian bookstores, music, concerts, etc. are at an all time high in America, while the world is dying around us.

    I am voting for Michael Peroutka, because I believe he is the most conservative candidate, with the policies and platform that is best for America, if the Constitution Party every strays away from what they stand up for, I will find another party and candidate to support in future elections. It's not about party loyalty, or who will win the election, it's about voting based on principles and convictions, and trusting God with the outcome.
     
  2. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peroutka has never said the war on terror is illegal, he has rightfully said the invasion of Iraq is illegal, the administration is telling the American public that it is part of the war on terror, but it is not.
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who's lying, Pennsylvania? You go too far. Who cares about all your little points and quibbles. Call it the war in Iraq if you want. To me the terms are interchangable, but you insist that they are not. That merely makes another place where I disagree with you politically.

    But I do not care to quibble with you all the time. Michael Anthony Peroutka has called the war in Iraq illegal. Medved defeated him soundly on that point. That was the reason for Michael Anthony Peroutka's anger and very harsh words towards Medved.

    Does that little two-cent point make you happy now, Pennsylvania Jim?
     
  4. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Know what? After reading all of this, one could conclude that none of the candidates measure up to being the kind of person that follows Biblical principles in all things. Sounds like a reason to say I should not, in good conscience, vote for any of them.

    But we know that's not a good thing. My point is that we always have to make decisions based on imperfect choices. And since that is true, we pick the one that we find the least objectionable, and do what we can to keep out the ones we find the most objectionable. I hardly think any of the third party candidates is a David or a Joseph. So let's make our choices in such a realistic way so as to put the LEAST objectionable guy in office. And realistically, that's GWB.
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can y'all act grown up enough for a second to answer a question: is there anyplace we can hear the actual interview on the web and decide for ourselves?
     
  6. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point stands. It is not a "little point or quibble". It is an important fact of foreign policy involving the lives of our troops, many billions of dollars, and the future of our foreign relations.

    It is not a point of "political disagreement". It is an objective fact. And, an important one.

    Your "concession" does not make me happy, because I know that you will continue to promote the politically motivated distortion that the Iraq war equals the war on terror.
     
  7. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Y'all can quibble about the war in Iraq if you want to. Bottom line for me: we took out a threat to us. Would you psuedo-conservatives feel the same about the war in Iraq if we'd done the same thing to Afghanistan pre 9-11?
     
  8. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would argue that the neo-conservatives are the psuedo-conservatives, and most would agree. The neo-conservatives were former liberal's. the paleo-conservatives, are the old conservatives who still hold true to the foundations of conservativism.

    I don't think Iraq was a threat to us, and I think the best way to prevent 9/11 would have been to tighten our immigration and visa policies, and use profiling at the airports. We let the terrorist into our country legally, we let them train here legally, we let 19 of them pay cash for one way tickets, and we let them have box cutters on the planes.

    A pre-emptive strike in Afghanistan wouldn't have stopped 9/11, and the invasion of Iraq has done nothting to stop the next attack that will happen thanks to our open borders.
     
  9. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I would agree, but only in a direct way. Saddam as it’s been proven was a threat to the US in a more indirect way.

    I agree, BUT you can’t isolate the US from the rest of the world and rely on that to keep us from harm. IF the US never got involved in WWII, we’d be speaking German today, under an atheistic government.

    Well now, what our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has done was greatly weaken these terrorist networks. We’ve gained valuable Intel from detainees of these terror cells of any future planned attacks. We haven’t seen an attack here in the US since 9/11. I feel though our next attack will come from within. A home grown American that has been influenced, whether it was at a Mosque or prison by radical Islam such as Wahhabism.

    We are at WAR with radical Islam and once we accept this and identify our enemy, we need to take measures in defending ourselves.

    Every Mosque and Islamic organization and its members needs to be profiled, and how they are supported and what outside organizations they support. We need to support federal and state governments in a sustained investigation of Islamic extremism in our country. We need to support our FBI, the Justice department and other agencies who are investigating the extent to which Islam in the US is under the influence of anti-American and anti-democratic extremists.

    Although we hardly hear this in the liberal media, but there are moderate and patriotic Muslims that oppose this radical Islam in the US. We need to identify them and support them.

    We need to hold the liberal media to account for its coverage of these issues. We heard the question many times after 9/11, why we didn’t hear Muslim leaders speak out against these attacks. But actually many Muslims did in fact speak out around the world and many oppose this radical Islamic expansion and terror, but it didn’t fit the mold the media likes to impose in their reporting, instead we heard angry Muslims blaming America’s support of Israel and other misleading factors.

    Many, many Muslims are ready to stand along side America and are thankful for Bush, who is ready to deal a death blow to these terrorists and those that harbor or support these terrorists.
     
  10. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I imagine that you have to buy a copy of the tape. Have you ever heard Medved? --Don't start, I forget. Another reason for all of the anger against Medved is that he also knocked out Alan Keyes the same day. Keyes did not have enough nerve to show up in person. Medved took him out over carpetbagging, asking for reparations, and for comparing abortion to terrorism. Medved asked Illinois Republicans not to vote for Keyes. Keyes also assisted Janet Reno in sending the Gonzalez boy back to the slavery of Cuba. Medved calls Keyes psychotic. Keyes is also from Maryland.
     
  11. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, yeah, Pennsylvania, I am going to go on and quibble with you until the day I die--No, I don't even care about the issue with you. I am very happy to debate with you that George W. Bush acted illegally in going to war in Iraq. With all due respect, since you know only my penname, I doubt if you know, "Your "concession" does not make me happy, because I know that you will continue to promote the politically motivated distortion that the Iraq war equals the war on terror." (You still say that I am lying--LOL?--LOL!)

    The unconstitutitionality of the war is the issue where Medved silenced Michael Anthony Peroutka who did not know enough about the Founding Fathers to hold a conversation with US history expert Medved. Michael Anthony Peroutka lost big time.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Stop making this unsubstantiated claim, cmg. Either provide proof or **** ** about it, buddy.

    [ August 26, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
     
  13. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The proof was provided by N-Publicist when he showed Michael Anthony Peroutka's reaction to having been on the Medved show. He expressed extreme anger. The anger was over the exchange on this issue and the issue of same-sex marriage.

    Buy the tape and hear for yourself.
     
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are starting to get really confusing...

    You say because in your opinion that Peroutka "bombed" on the Medved show that he is an Anti-Semite because he didn't know enough about the Founding Fathers so he wasn't able to debate the issue of the Iraq war and same-sex marriage? Huh??

    All Peroutka said was:

    "I enjoyed being on the Michael Medved Show this afternoon despite the fact that it was, to say the least, an antagonistic interview."

    "Although I certainly don't mind mixing it up and taking some punches if I have to, I was disappointed in the boorish behavior of Mr. Medved. He was insulting and derogatory in personal ways which is often a sign of intellectual dishonesty or impoverishment."

    How is that proof of any of your claims?
     
  15. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michael Anthony Peroutka expressed anger when he mentioned the boorish behavior of Mr. Medved and when he called Medved insulting and derogatory in personal ways, as well as intellectually dishonest and intellectually weak.

    Anyone impartial knows that Medved is more than fair and intellectually a genius.

    Michael Anthony Peroutka did not need to attack Medved. The debate was a mere radio talk show. To turn around and trash the host for giving you a lively debate shows how uptight Michael Anthony Peroutka is. As I wrote before, I have been acquainted with a lot of rich and successful lawyers and most of them are nice, win, lose, or draw.

    Perhaps Michael Anthony Peroutka had a bad moment afterwards when he spoke those words but his best strategy was to just go on and forget about the talk show hour. His words drew attention to his own acts and made more of the situation than it was.

    But when you seem to be leading your party to a tally of less than the 98,000 of 4 years ago, I suppose that you lash out for no good reason. Can you imagine JFK II or John Edwards issuing a statement like that after a talk show program? No, it would only make matters worse.
     
  16. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, you gave your opinion on the interview based on you love Medved, you hate Peroutka.

    You still haven't shown why this makes Peroutka an Anti-Semite, or how he doesn't know enough about the Founding Fathers.
     
  17. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Buy the tape and listen for yourself. As a high-ranking member of the CP, you certainly have access to CP sources on what happened and perhaps even a transcript.

    You CP guys always want to make everything emotional and personal. This was an intellectual debate on political issues. Michael Anthony Peroutka had a bad night and lost the debate. Part of his loss was dealing with the subject of the unconstitutionality of the Iraq war, which Medved refuted by using American history examples that took Michael Anthony Peroutka by total surprise.

    I cannot understand why Michael Anthony Peroutka wants to turn his back on Israel the first day that he is President. He knows what will happen. But I think that Israel will win the war against the Arabs and that the war will be short because Israel will use nuclear weapons.
     
  18. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no interest in hearing the tape, it's water under the bridge, Peroutka has moved on, the Medved interview was just one of 17 radio interviews he has done this month.

    I'm not a high-ranking member of the CP, everythig I do for the party and for Peroutka is on a volunteer basis.

    You can't seem to let go of that whole "Michael Anthony Peroutka wants to turn his back on Israel" idea can you. Peroutka and the Constitution Party are against sending millions of dollars in foriegn aid to any country, not just Israel.

    I agree that Israel can take care of themselves, and that they would have removed alot of their problems if people like Bush were not telling them to show restraint all the time.
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    CMG, yes, I've heard Medved and read him. I'd just like to hear for myself how Peroutka did. Having no familiarity with Peroutka, it would be interesting to hear how it went down. But I'm not going to waste my money on Peroutka.


    Net Pub, most of my reaction was covered by John6.63. Sanctions were not working against Saddam. He was a threat to us. Reagan knew it at the end of his term. Bush 41 knew it. Clinton knew it. Bush 43 knew it and acted. Since then, Libya has piped down, Iran has cooled a bit, and North Korea has changed their tune a bit.

    Would an attack on Afghanistan pre 9-11 stopped the tragedy? Who knows? We'll never know if isolationist pseudo-conservatives and liberal Democrats get their way and America stays handcuffed in order to not defend itself.
     
  20. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Okay, this is just my memory of the debate at the flashpoints. I do not care to engage on the issues.

    First of all, neither Medved nor Peroutka expressed any anger with each other on air. As I said before, Medved is a tough cookie and very bright and calls the United States the greatest nation on God's green earth at the close of every program.

    He welcomed Peroutka to the Program and complimented him on the well-written platform (it is a lot better than the Libertarian platform, which really is poorly written.) He asked about his career and family and showed himself familiar with the history of the Taxpayers Party. He mentioned that they got .1% last time and asked why Peroutka was running. He asked who Baldwin was. Medved said that Peroutka was just taking votes from Bush.

    Then they moved on to issues. Medved asked if Peroutka were for the FMA. Peroutka said no. Peroutka talked about the issue in the standard statements and platform of the CP. Medved denied that those legal things would work and asked Peroutka how he was going to stop same-sex marriage. Peroutka started to go through the same speech more or less. Medved wanted to move on to callers. He asked Peroutka again how he would stop same-sex marriage and asked Peroutka to answer the question. Peroutka just kept talking. Medved said that he was not going to answer and cut him off and took a call.

    Some calls were pro and some calls were con. Medved let them talk. None of the calls was especially pithy or confrontational.

    Medved mentioned the war in Iraq. Medved pretended to be surprised that Peroutka thought it was unconstitutional. Medved said that it was undeclared like Korea, Viet Nam, etc. Medved said that Clinton had gone into Kosovo, Haiti, etc. Eventually, Medved said that the ability to wage war and the ability to declare war were divided powers by the Founding Fathers. This stopped Peroutka.

    Medved said that the President had waged war 200 times since the Founding Fathers without a declaration from Congress. Peroutka questioned the number 200, but let Medved talk. Medved, the expert in American history, started with Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Peroutka was quiet the rest of the way. Medved pointed out that Washington waged war in the Whiskey Rebellion. Peroutka did not answer if he thought Washington had acted illegally. Medved said that John Adams had waged war with the French Navy and won. He mentioned an example with Jefferson, also, but I do not recall it. Peroutka said nothing and they went to commercial break.

    By now it was the end of the show. Medved expressed that the CP would only take votes from Bush. Medved said that the CP was not living in the real world.

    Somewhere in the show, Medved asked where the CP was strong. He asked if they had elected anyone. The highest elected official was a member of the Montana legislature who changed parties after being elected. Medved, aware of the case, asked if he wasn't defeated in the next election. Peroutka said that he was.

    Medved closed with support for Bush as the best candidate in spite of his failings.

    That is all that I remember.
     
Loading...