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!

some questions about Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Chessic, Dec 23, 2007.

  1. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    Merry Christmas to you and yours!
     
  2. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Frankly, he has left some wriggle room and I hope that he will accept the Libertarian Party nomination in 2008. It is basically his for the accepting.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There you go with the same two party paradigm silliness that Pastor Larry uses that all votes are automatically Democrat or Republican votes from the get go.

    I think it is silly when Republican voters make that argument just like I think it is silly when Democrat voters make that argument about 2000 and Ralph Nader.
     
  4. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are welcome to your opinion as are Pastor Larry and I.

    I find it quite silly when people overlook the facts of what has happened in the past and that will happen again in the future if we are not careful.
     
  5. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here is something to think about. Lets say that your theory (and PL) of voting for a third party does elect the liberal candidate. That is only true when the third party tends to be conservative. You and others keep citing 1992 when Perot, as is said by the theory, kept Bush from getting enough votes and elected Clinton.

    Yet, go forward to 2000. If your theory holds, I hear no protests about the same standard being used on a liberal third party that takes votes away from the Democrats, and allowed the election of George Bush.

    My point is you all only hold to the evil third party idea when it hurts the outcome you want.

    If you want a true election where a third party got a substantial number of electoral votes, which is what counts in Presidential elections, then study the election of 1968.

    My idea is that the whole theory is what got us into the fix we are today, where Christians are going to be forced to vote between two pro abortion candidates next year.

    We need to think outside the box, as has been said. That means, getting people to vote who have never voted, to register that have never registered, Independents, Democrats and Republicans that are sick of their parties selling the American people down the road, and vote both major parties out of existence. It is time to start over with ones that will serve the American people, and not politicians self interests, pigs that they are, both parties.

    The numbers are there to do it. It takes imagination. How many of us in 2000 and 2004 voted for Bush on the premise that he was a conservative that would lead this country on conservative principles?
     
  6. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    He previously said IIRC that if he did not win the Republican nomination, he would not run otherwise. If, having said that, he goes back on his word and runs as a third party, he would be shown again to be just another politician who will go back on his word.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    My objection to third party votes has to do with outcome. When a third party vote gives ground to liberals, I am against it. When it gives ground to conservatives, or at least more conservative, I am for it. There is no debate that the third party vote in 2000 probably gave the election to Bush. And there is no debate that this country is better off than it would have been with Gore.

    So my third party position is not a principled one against third parties. It is a position about outcomes and the good of the country.
     
  8. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with PL again, it is not about the outcome, but about what is best for our country.

    A lot of what you say is probably true, but it is not going to happen any time soon if ever. So in the mean time I would prefer a more conservative candidate over any of the Democrat candidates.
     
  9. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, he has stated over and ove again he has no intentions of running as a third party. He has never stated for an undisputed fact that he will NEVER run as a third party. Just on Meet The Press, he stated that he is 99.9% sure he won't run, but even than he never said he wouldn't run. Russert tried, like everyone else to get this good man to commit to something that isn't worth commiting to.

    How many other politicans have been asked whether they will run as a third party if they don't win the nomination? Why does it seem to only matter when it comes to Paul?

    I think people are afraid of him.. At first, he was a "kook", someone that didn't have a snowballs chance... then he started to gain in the polls... then the money started pouring in, and now he has poll numbers, money, people behind him... NOW people are worried that he might win!! I love it! The power of the people is showing everyday!

    So, as much as you would like to paint him as just another lying politican.. you need to stop and consider what you're asking of him and the true reason you're doing it..

    Jamie
     
  10. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is exactly why I am voting for Ron Paul! :)

    So, according to your standards, who are the conservative candidates?

    Jamie
     
  11. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    The more conservative candidate will be the Republican nominated to go against the Democrats.

    While I have not determined completely which Republican I will support yet. I can tell you that whichever Republican is nominated will get my vote in Nov 2008. If Ron Paul was to get the Republican nomination, I would gladly give him my support.

    I realize that not all of the Republican candidates are as conservative as I would like them to be. But they are still better for our country than any of the Democrats. And I do not want to giftwrap the election for the Democrats by voting third party for a candidate that has no chance of winning.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I recall, the statement was pretty unequivocal. But I am not really hung up on this. I don't really care one way or the other.

    Because Paul is, to my knowledge, the only one who has ever run as a 3rd party, or who has any 3rd party connections.

    Probably. I am not scared of him.

    I think it is very reasonable to say that Paul has some very serious issues that should lead us to question his integrity. His position on earmarks is very troubling. Much less so is this third party run, but these are the kinds of things that cause us not to trust politicians. You can't take them at their word. The reason I am doing it? Simply to point out that Paul isn't the second coming of Jesus, or even of George Washington. He has issues that cause serious concerns.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You're talking about the "little" facts here right? Those gagillion little facts swirling around forever in minutia that make one carefully pick and choose between two or more of the false front candidates while never really considering the "big" fact?

    The fact is that the state is the state and it'll do whatever it takes to empower and enlarge itself at our expense no matter which statist is at the helm. It's happened in the past, it's happening in the present and it'll go right on happening in the future if we keep rewarding the global elite's little yesmen and lapdogs by giving them more and more power to abuse.

    And another "big" fact the people tend to overlook is that voting for either party will only giftwrap the election in favor of the global corporate puppeteers. They win no matter which party is in power. So what the democrats get elected? It isn't going to be their policies they promote. So what the republicans get elected it isn't going to be their policies they promote...no sir those policies come down from a "higher power" straight down the strings attached to their puppets we all see dancing around acting as if they actually run things.

    Do something different this time around vote for us..."we the people" and stop rewarding the state for it's gross incompetence and corruption.
     
    #53 poncho, Dec 25, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 25, 2007
  14. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is true.

    The most limited government candidate(unless Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination) will be the Libertarian Party nominee who will receive my vote unless Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination while keeping the door ajar for possibly Fred Thompson.
     
  15. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which candidate is a vote for us?
     
  16. Dagwood

    Dagwood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know you think a lot of yourself pastor Larry, but you don't actually know what would have been, you can only speculate.

    There are plenty of people who feel that America got the worst possible outcome with the election of Bush in 2000.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Goes to show what you know. I think very little of myself.

    It is not speculation to know that we would have two liberal justices. The only upside to a Gore presidency would have been the obstinacy of a Republican congress.

    So?
     
  18. Dagwood

    Dagwood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    To quote Ronald Reagan pastor Larry, "There you go again." You don't know who Gore would have appointed or whether or not they would have turned out to be a liberal or a conservative justice. Sometimes these justices don't turn out like expected. Therefore you don't actually know, you just assume.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    To quote Sherlock Holmes (who didn't really say it), "Elementary, my dear Dagwood."

    Gore made it clear that he would appoint justices who would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Therefore, we know the commitments of the justices he would have appointed.

    Not sure what your interest is in ignoring 1) the clear commitment of Democrats, and 2) the stated intentions of Al Gore. He is the one who said it, not me. It seems that you are perhaps making an argument simply for sake of making a argument. There is certainly no merit in your position.
     
  20. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Two interesting questions:

    Even if there were 9 conservative judges on the U.S. Supreme Court would they totally reverse Roe v. Wade and risk the social upheaval it would cause? Or would they simply make it easier for the states to restrict abortion(parental notification, watiting period, parental notification, etc.)?
     
Loading...