Ron Paul Supporters in Wonderland

Christian and Libertarian link:

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34361

 

I sympathize with your objective. However, what gives you the right to use government force to accomplish your objective - stopping consensual actions by adults, especially since law enforcement is a limited resource? Who do you want the police to spend its limited time going after - murderers, thieves, etc., or willing prostitutes and drug users? I choose the former.

 

Righteousness meet Semantics. Semantics, Righteousness.

 

Btw, Pastor Larry, I was willing to open myself up publicly and share how I came to realize that I wasn't in a position to criminalize someone else's personal sin. And as the saying goes, the best way to criticize is to out do. Perhaps you'd like to take this time to share your own personal story about how God led you to believe that the sin(s) of your choosing should recieve a legal pass.

Oh, and since we're talking about the destruction of society, Pastor Larry, have you ever:

1) Looked at porn?

2) Lusted?

3) Been unfaithful?

Sure you want to criminalize personal sin?

 

So what's the cause of these problems, too much personal liberty?

 

Because prostitution does not serve the general welfare that the Constitution is aimed at. A society is never better off when marriage is devalued.

Who knows, but again, citing the constitutional provision of general welfare means that we can and should make these drugs illegal. They do not provide for the general welfare of the peope of this nation.

Why don't you support the constitution?

 

And you argued from an invalid platform.

He did not lead me to believe that.

 

That is an unfair and immaterial comment, especially in reference to a pastor. Anybody's past sins are no one else's business. There are certain things that common sense says you do not ask someone. The op is about personal behavior being legislated in general, not a personal resume.

 

The folks who wrote up the constitution might disagree with you on that PL. Rumor around the History Channel has it that the framers were a hard partying bunch prone to some uh, dubious activities themselves. :smilewinkgrin:

 

It has nothing to do with semantics. It has to do with the post that you wrote that I responded to. If you didn't like my wording, then it is your fault. You are the one who used the words that I cited.

 

They might. That's fine. It is certainly an issue worthy of debate, but it seems hard to deny that "promoting the general welfare" is consistent with legalized drugs and prostitution.

 

What happened after the government declared war on drugs? Did we see more drugs on the street or less?

 

I think that your interpretation of the general welfare phrase means basically that the government can legislate just about anything. I reject your interpretation, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

By wasting your vote on Paul, you are contributing to the hillary (probably) vote. A good case can be made for Perot siphoning off enough votes to elect slick in '02'. I might be wrong about that though.............

 

How's that? Ron Paul won't be on the general election ballot.

Plus the only vote that is wasted is the one that isn't cast. To denigrate a fellow citizen's vote when he is voting his beliefs to improve our nation is really uncalled for.

 

I think you're wrong, and I think therre is ample evidence that you have been wrong enough times to make this a pretty solid assertion.

There's really no way to tell. There are too many other factors. The truth is that were it not for the war on drugs, it could be far more drugs on the street.

 

I completely agree! I just wanted to have the pleasure of having Pastor Larry concede as much. If only he had a political position on fairness...

 

Well, Larry, I guess that settles that.

Which is no more the government's business than how much Dr. Pepper or how much pizza is on the street.

 

Now, KenH, you know that you should do as someone says not as they do. Case in point: 1) Larry Craig 2) the rest of humanity.

I mean someone has to be more righteous than the rest of us, or who would decide which sins shouldn't be punished?