It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it.
Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too?
I can vote for Chuck too. He is the best man running (and I would say that even if his "competition" were a whole lot better than McCain and Obama--to say that he is better than them is no great compliment). I would have loved to have seen a ticket with Ron and Chuck, that would have been as good as we could have wanted or hoped for.
I'll prolly end up voting for Baldwin, he seems to be only candidate left that actually has a soul. I guess that's what bothers me about Barr, he always seemed up for grabs.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved.
Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done?
As a Christian pastor it would be incumbent upon him as president to punish anyone who went to Canada for an abortion just as our govt would punish someone who goes there for marijuana now.
Do you support codifying his morality into law and enforcing it with criminal penalties? Why is that preferable to Bush's? There are millions of cops and other "drug warriors" (hooked on asset forfeiture) who'd rather keep marijuana illegal and (forced to choose) keep legal abortion. To hear them tell it, marijuana is deadly and dangerous because that's what their "religion" teaches.
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
Why is one group of hypocritical kooks preferable to another?
Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done?
Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in the marriage issue and don't believe in getting a license from the state to get married. As for the abortion ban, I am opposed to abortion and that is a perfectly libertarian position--non aggression, especially not against the innocent and who is more innocent than a baby? Would an abortion ban or law against abortion completely end abortions? No, of course not.
All I have said is that Chuck Baldwin is infinitely preferable to Obama, who doesn't even mind infanticide, and McCain, who seems to think that it is perfectly all right to kill any number of Americans in bs wars for the benefit of the MIC and the bankers.
As for the abortion ban, I am opposed to abortion and that is a perfectly libertarian position--non aggression, especially not against the innocent and who is more innocent than a baby? Would an abortion ban or law against abortion completely end abortions? No, of course not.
You cannot take control of another person's body with the law and claim to support the non aggression principle. How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy?
And, if Baldwin spoke out against America's military imperialism and demanded that the money stay in the pockets of taxpayers, (close 700 bases in 130 countries) then how many families would feel pressured to terminate pregnancies because we can no longer keep mothers at home and survive on a single income?
The federal govt is the cause of so many of the problems they pretend to try to solve (and always with criminal sanctions not "socialist subsidies" to expectant mothers because that money is earmarked for military contractors and Israel) and they, the true criminals create boogie persons (some class of citizens, but never "too much govt" or over reaching power hungry politicians and their fellow closet mates, Christian fanatics) to keep us from seeing the truth.
Does Baldwin have the courage to stand up and say "Christians don't need to hyphenate with "Judeos" and aren't dependent upon Jews, Israel, Zionism, or the ADL stamp of approval for legitimacy"?
Of course not. he's just another cowardly, Jooish bootlicking business-as-usual politician without as much apparent baggage at the starting gate.
Any attempt to sell him as "Ron Paul Lite" is horse shit.
Why don't you ask Chuck if he'd consider taking the billions in aid from Israel and spending it on poor mommies in America? Then watch how these "Christians" piously chirp why maintaining the Israeli war machine to slaughter unarmed innocents is "more holy" than saving unborn Americans.
You cannot take control of another person's body with the law and claim to support the non aggression principle. How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy?
You cannot murder your child. What makes it ok one minute and not the next. What about if someone hits your wife in the stomach and kills the unborn. Should they be charge.? If you say yes then you are a hypocrite. If you say no then your a heartless SOB.
I say outlaw all abortions. If the bitch wants to get a back alley abortion and ends up bleeding to death. At least justice was served instantly with no judge or jury. Attempted murder...get it?
I say outlaw all abortions. If the bitch wants to get a back alley abortion and ends up bleeding to death. At least justice was served instantly with no judge or jury. Attempted murder...get it?
Wow, just say wow! Old Friend, you are quite the little poster boy for all them down home JudeoChristian (?) values.
Ever heard of the concept of reaping what you sow.
So you are against the death penalty?
If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty?
Not me, i'd string them up myself.
Whatever...so how does death penalty relate to your wishing that "pregnant bitches" die from their back alley abortions? Are you trying to change the subject, maybe?
But on the subject of death penalty, to answer your question, I am very consistent in my positions. I believe that the death penalty is a necessary evil in society as is abortion.
"It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary"."
You proved you are not pro-life with your self serving blood thirtiness regarding capital punishment. Your alleged anti-abortion sentiment is not pro- life, it is about controling women.
"It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary"."
You proved you are not pro-life with your self serving blood thirtiness regarding capital punishment. Your alleged anti-abortion sentiment is not pro- life, it is about controling women.
Pro life is a label like pro choice. They mean different things to different people. I'm anti abortion. Anti murder of innocent people. People who kill other people should be killed. After a trial of course.
If some woman wants to murder her baby and dies in the process. I have no sympathy for her.
And I will add this. Men who abandon and don't take care of their children are scum. I don't know what the solution is to dead beat dads. But something severe is in order.
Don't take this personal but I have long held the view that Christians are hypocrites when it comes to the issue of life most treat Gods word like a Chinese menu picking those passages that best fit their own agenda....if one is pro-life that means as stated in Romans 12:17 "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord
For me that pretty much sums up what pro-life means...no gray areas there!
Don't take this personal but I have long held the view that Christians are hypocrites when it comes to the issue of life most treat Gods word like a Chinese menu picking those passages that best fit their own agenda....if one is pro-life that means as stated in Romans 12:17 "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord
I don't take it personal. You make a good and valid point. Yes many christians are hypocrites at times. Myself included.
What you quote in Romans I believe talks about an individual.
Elsewhere in Romans it does talk about civil authority. I support the death penalty in theory. I would never want to be the one to have to carry it out, unless it involved my family. If someone killed my kid. I would want to take out vengence on that person. Would I go so far as to do it. I don't know and don't want to know. If that makes me a hypocrit so be it.
I talked about a woman getting an abortion (attempted murder) dying in the act. All I said is that I would have no sympathy for her. None at all. Not even a little. That is different then some lone nut going out and killing women who had abortions.
Elsewhere in Romans it does talk about civil authority
Hope you are not taking Romans 13 out of context allow me.....
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent.
Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
I haven't read all of what you said yet. But let me start with this.
I interpret Romans narrowly. Kind of like the constitution. What are the "delegated" powers to the governments. I believe they have the legitimate functions mentioned in Romans 13 and maybe elsewhere and no more. Not redestributing wealth or other such stuff governments are involved in today.