Ron Paul - A Surprising Republican

Of course, anything else is disobedience to God.

Of course, failure to execute murderers is disobedience to God. Scripture teaches that murderers are to be executed. Pastor Larry has stood for the truth.

I doubt if Ron Paul's supporters care two cents about his stand for the abolition of capital punishment. Ron Paul's supporters are out to bash Bush, repudiate Bush's war policy, and grab power for themselves or else hand power over to the Democrats. Ron Paul's supporters are aided at this time by the religious left and liberals, but when November 2008 arrives, they will go home to the Democrats. The Constitution Party is the best hope for Ron Paul at this time.

 

And what is your military background to be able to make this declaration? Did your career in Accounting for P&E include a sidetrack in military management in MIddle East warzones?

This is the very kind of thing I am talking about. There is no way you can have an informed and studied opinion on this matter. What you know is what you have heard. That's not elitist. It's common sense.

Not only are you an expert in Middle East wars. Now you are a prophet too??? Get real ...

I am saying that God gave us commands to follow. If God chooses to do something else, that is God's prerogative. He did not leave it up to us to pick and choose which commands we obey. I wouldn't think that would be questioned on a Christian board. But I suppose "they don't make 'em like they used to."

God has declared to us what justice looks like when the image of God is stamped out. To fail to carry out his declared will is to trifle with the image of God, to demean its value, and to declare that we know more than God does. I am convinced that is not an option.

 

Ron Paul calls for the abolition of the death penalty. That should not stop members of the Constitution Party from supporting him as far as I myself can tell. Ron Paul also calls for states rights in allowing abortion and same-sex marriage. That should not stop members of the Constitution Party from supporting him either in my opinion. However, it means that Ron Paul is history with Republicans, but then he never has had a national following since he abandoned his natural party, the Libertarian Party.

However,

'...Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, has endorsed Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) for President. “My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008,...”' and '...Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. “I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, ‘Oh ho, somebody we can trust!’ and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee,” he said....'

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/23/libertarian-badnarik-endorses-ron-paul/

I think that we will see the merger of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party under the banner of Ron Paul.

 

Ron Paul is a religious leftist.

Paul did not murder; he acted upon behalf of the Jewish authorities to execute Christians. I don't think that he is a good example of anything other than bad Jewish law in ancient Israel under Roman authority. David said that his sin was against God and Pastor Larry has already discussed that issue and explained that the law has never been set aside.

 

Using your anti-Bush radio talk show host's material again I see. But we have never assigned such a large number of troops to Baghdad before. They have been spread thin across Iraq, with not enough troops seeking out the enemy in the capital. As has been said; 'As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq'.

Possibly. And possibly come September, even the most virulently anti-Bush partisan will admit that it was the right move.

 

this is so true

:applause: : I wish that more people would see this and stop with this, Get out people out now" thing. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.

 

I see you are still knowingly ignoring the truth in favor of bearing false witness against a fellow brother in Christ!

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.

I would hope that Christians wouldn't stoop so low as to spread lies about the only conservative candidate running, in order to promote their pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-big government, anti-Constitution candidate.

 

:applause: :thumbs:

 

You know if you read carefully what it is said that Paul tried to do on abortion, you will see that he wants to give it back to the states, which is all that I ever said. This differs from the GOP platform in that the GOP platform calls for a constitutional amendment. Paul wants to make this a states rights issue, which would mean that liberal states like Vermont would contine abortion. That is all that I ever said about Ron Paul on this issue and no one can find where I ever said anything else. He just does not support the GOP pro-life plank, which I even quoted at least twice. It is difficult to discuss anything intelligently when people choose to misunderstand your position, but I suppose that is the nature of politics, which creates extreme hatred among the far right and far left especially.

 

I would rather it be state decided than an ammendment. The GOP has had 20 of the last 28 years in the White House, 6 with a GOP house & Senate, and couldn't get it done. I'm giving up on the party of lip service, and going individual. Tancredo, or Paul, right now, for me.

 

Okay, but Vermont, for example, might decide to allow abortions. So you have some states that will allow abortions but you have said that you will not amend the constitution to stop a state like Vermont. So you tolerate a certain amount of loss of life but on July 4, 1776, you said that God gave everybody certain rights and among those God-given rights was the right to life. So how do you explain that you are going to let some states take away God-given rights in the USA?

 

I am against funding a federal beureau that is responsible for enforcing a ban on abortions. Murder is a state charge. Perhaps, if a lawyer can convince a supreme court that abortion violates a baby's civil rights, then Roe v Wade will be overturned, and it would be returned to states anyway. I cannot imagine a state would make a law that says it's ok, once it has been established that unborn babies have the right to be born. I may be wrong, but hey, I could always move to a state that had some spirit-filled voters.

As it is, republicans not only have failed to stop abortion, they actually help fund the machine. I give up.

 

And the Federal government could announce that they will refuse all forms of federal funds to any state that allows abortions. Like the Bush administration is doing to any state that refuses to comply with the National ID in 2008. The one thing the GOP and the Bush adminisration has shown us over the last seven years is that they can accomplish anything they set their minds to, even by forcing the states to comply if needed, but ending abortion has never been one of their priorities. To this, and most other conservative issues, they simply give lip service, and get Karl Rove to wine and dine the Christian conservative voters into submission.

Ron Paul is one of the only conservative candidates running, yet the liberal Rudy is the GOP front runner, if that isn't a sad picture of the state of conservativism in American, I don't know what is!

 

You forgot to mention that Ron Paul is against the death penalty so he is a Christain leftist, and hardly a conservative.

The idea that the federal government would enforce a national ban when the issue is states rights is not logical. Nor is it logical to say that a state would not allow abortions when many states such as Vermont are very liberal. And the same issue applies to same-sex marriage in that a liberal state might allow same-sex marriage.

If there is no difference between the GOP position and the Republican Liberty Caucus--and I have listed the exact wordings in another thread dedicated to the Republican Liberty Caucus--then we can conclude that the Republican Liberty Caucus is stupid for going to the trouble to list a different position on an issue where some here are saying that the are the same. Which is it? Is there a difference or is the Republican Liberty Caucus stupid? If the Republican Liberty Caucus is the same as the GOP, why is there a Republican Liberty Caucus?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38146

The truth of the matter is that the Republican Liberty Caucus is not loyal to the GOP but is another party within the party. It is time to tell the truth to the American people. Ron Paul is not a mainline GOP; he is really out in left field on his idea of the abolition of the death penalty. He is legally inept on his idea of states rights on abortion and on same-sex marriage. He is not a conservative but a card-carrying member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38146

 

My enemy has said, "I see you are still knowingly ignoring the truth in favor of bearing false witness against a fellow brother in Christ!"

It turns out that I have told the truth and that false witness has been borne against me. But that is par for the course.

 

CMG, You like to make many assumptions don't you?

I used to be a member of the Young Republicans, but when the GOP started drifting to the left and working to destroy our nation I had no choice but to find another party to support. I have been an Internet Consultant for over 10 years, and have been running my own Internet Hosting and Consulting business as NetPublicist for over six years. But, NetPublicist is not affiliated with the Constitution Party in any way other than the fact that I host the web site for the Florida state party on one of my web servers along with 100+ other businesses and ministries web sites. I have never "worked for" or received a single penny from the Constitution Party.

In regards to your previous statements about Ron Paul, you have repeatedly stated that Ron Paul doesn't believe that the federal government should do anything about abortions, you even went as far as saying in one post that Ron Paul thinks states should "allow abortions". To say this, while knowing that Ron Paul has voted on many federal bills dealing with the abortion issue, and has even authored and introduced federal legislation that would overturn Roe v. Wade is simply dishonesty on your part, regardless of how you try to pass it off.

You can't dodge the issue that you are supporting a 100% pro-abortion candidate while continuing to bash one of the only conservative candidates running, who has done much to try to stop the murder of innocent babies in America.