The IMM Smearing Of Ron Paul Begins

Or considering that centralized govt. and NOT states rights was responsible for Roe v. Wade.'s inception, it could be a body cast for a hangnail.

Yes, by not enforcing laws against adultery Jesus broke the law. I suggest you fine him for his nasty libertarian streak on personal sin. And if allowing people to morally fail is wrong in and of itself, you should ticket God while you're at it for the Eden testing which thus resulted in man's ability to choose prostitution.

 

This is a logical fallacy. Whether at the state level or at the federal level it is the wrong law as it supports this type of murder. The problem currently isnt that it is at the federal level but that it allows it.

 

Agreed.

Not so. The federal govt. not only allows it but strengthens abortion by making it an "all or nothing" issue. In other words, we have to totally accept abortion everywhere or universally ban it all together. Such is the nature of consolidated power. While "all or nothing" schemes may float the ideological boats of purists they aren't plausible given congressional diversity and the very likely continuity of said diversity. It's like this, taxes can fluctuate from state to state and you can benefit from the differentiation while others are fiscally retarded via a different choice. In an imperfect world, accomplishing the most good as quickly as possible seems not only preferable to "all or nothing" thinking but actually feasible as well. Besides, a "Reagan plank" is upwards of three decades in stalemate. Pragmatically, isn't it time for unconventional thinking?

 

It should be banned altogether everywhere. It needs to be at the federal level.

 

Agreed. But can it be banned everywhere is the topic at hand. On a similar note, terrorism should be wiped out universally: should we invade the entire Middle East at once?

I believe you overlooked this:

 

The handling of abortion does not lead to the handling of terrorism in the same manner. I would think this would be obvious.

Not so. I just have no concern for it.

 

Riiight. Because killing innocent people and killing innocent people are radically different subjects. Regardless, the unforunate point still stands, in an imperfect world if you only opt for all or nothing you'll receive nothing everytime. Such is the dirty, dirty, oh so dirty nature of politics.

Btw, you've "no concern" about my point that the Reagan plank has been upwards of three decades in stalemate? How many more decades of it not passing before you change course?

 

Then I will ask again how many inncoent unborn children are acceptable to sacrifice?

I am not lead by the Reagan plank as you put it. so I have no concern for your question.

 

God may do whatever He likes and I have no right to say that it was wrong.

So now you answer my question about when was the law overthrown?

 

Thank you, 2 Timothy! Your statement is very eloquent! :applause: :applause: :applause:

 

Jesus never broke any law whatsoever. He is God and He may pardon whomsoever He pleases. You seem to be saying that the law Thou Shalt Not Murder has been overthrown. Since clearly the law Thou Shalt Not Murder still exists and is still in force, then so is the commandment to execute murderers such as abortionists. Ron Paul is against capital punishment and promises no capital punishment in federal cases--so it is Ron Paul who suggests breaking the law of Jesus.

 

CMG, the Federal Government can't promise everything and the moon to boot.
Sirhan Sirhan has been imprisoned for over 38 years and he was originally sentenced to death but that was commuted to life in 1972. Sirhan Sirhan is in a safe place where he can do no harm to anyone. In a way I can relate to having suffered the loss of a loved one at the hands of a cold blooded killer but over the years I have realized that an eye for an eye won't bring you peace or give you closure, only the forgivness that one can give in the worst of times can bring you God' peace. Jesus gave us a gift by forgiving of us of our sins and forgivness is valuable asset to have if you can forgive others. We are to be forgiving otherwise how can our Heavenly Father fogive us. The death penalty may be necessary but is not a solution, it definitely won't bring about world peace.

 

It is a commandment that was never abolished. Ron Paul has to be classified as religious leftist on that point.

 

And aren't you glad that God doesn't give us all what we deserve. How many commandments have each one of us broken and yet we have not gotten what we deserve. If we are Christians then that means we will follow in Jesus' footsteps as Jesus was sent to be our example of how we should live our lives. Showing mercy is a Christian attitude if you have no mercy how can you expect your Heavenly Father to show mercy to you.

 

Well, why are we even arresting murderers if we have to show mercy? Wouldn't the most merciful thing to do be to erect a billboard and say that if you murder someone, then you are naughty, naughty? Does thou shalt not murder really apply in today's society?

 

CMG, now you are being totally silly. Oh well, I didn't think you were serious about the topic anyway.
But to answer your question, there will always be consequences to pay. Locking away someone for a senetenced term or for life does not equate to a fun day at Disneyland and it removes the criminal element form society.

 

See you are satisfied in locking someone up but to Scripture the death penalty is demanded. All I am saying is that Ron Paul has dealt with this issue from a human point of view and not from a Scriptural point of view. Once you depart from Scripture you really are trying to walk on a slippery slope of human reasoning where it is hard to draw lines.

The same can be said of legalization of drugs and prostitution. In the case of drugs, society becomes a sort of enabler. In the case of prostitution, you have created a medical disaster in your own society. It would be like Holland here. Is that what we want? Not me. Civilization must be preserved.

 

Preserving civilization means protecting our unalienable rights from government incursion. The government is to protect us against violent acts by others. It is none of the government's business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.