See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
Source:
LibertyPost
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=234674&Disp=9#C9
Published: Aug 16, 2008
Author: thangdatrang
Post Date: 2008-08-16 21:56:43 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 1774
Comments: 171
Because Chuck Baldwin says: I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Poster Comment: Come, anti-Christians, and spew your bile here you sorry mixed bag of LOSERS! ;-)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-58) not displayed.
.
.
.
#59. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
(Edited)
Testy testy. I'll sidestep the barbs and strawmen to simply stay with the issue as it is an important philosophic point. Which religious principles did I browbeat you with? I simply pointed out that the basis of philosophic understanding of the Founders were based to no small degree upon their religious views and that is supported copiously in their writings. Yes, they had other influences and understandings, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, etc., .... By today's standards they were very learned men. Religion, taking it in the generic and avoiding specific dogma, is at its base an understanding, or an attempt to understand what we, "man", are. From that basis flows an understanding what we mean by rights and responsibilities. Religion, within its province, addresses those interrelationships of understanding the nature of man and thus from that what is moral, ethical, and just. Natural law is just such a realm and its basis is what is regarded as man's basic nature and rights and that springs again from the realm of religion. Many of these standards, ethical sensibilities, can be found in more than one of the great religions. Whether Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism it is regarded as wrong to steal, to lie, to cheat, and to commit murder (not that people belonging to such religions do not do these things but that they are recognized as criminal). These are all fundamental principles which comprise what we call a just society and they are all issues explored within the realm of religion and ethical precepts supporting them and are the basis upon which codified law is generated. To seperate religion from law and from government is to suggest that amoral relativism should be the standard upon which we govern. The horrors that such a society would visit upon the innocent is not a pleasant thought. Because you personally have a "bug" on religion does not change history, nor, thankfully, society.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here. But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn. But go into our wallets? NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! By what logic is the taxpayer's purse sacrosanct but the body of a woman open to govt compliance inspections? The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it. And, (like welfare) abortion should not be a federal question or mandate for the states either way. Just as murder is a state law, so should be any laws pertaining to abortion. It is not an issue that the constitution addresses just as slavery was not a question that the federal govt was lawfully empowered to settle. I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby. No offense but, it would help if you weren't intentionally obtuse when I try to explain things that require some intelligence which you obviously have. I expect that from numb nuts but not from you.
Postscript: I have no issue with citizens making donations as long as they don't declare donations to foreign nations as being income tax deductible on their US tax returns. Would you agree? I don't know if he would or not but I suppose it would depend on treaty obligations and the circumstances. But maybe you could ask him. I am not his campaign manager, just a supporter who thinks that he is the best man running. I was for Ron Paul but Ron dropped out. As for your second question, I have been against the unlawful application of the misnamed "income" tax for years, even wrote a couple of books about it back in the 80's (both of which are out of print). I don't think most Americans should even be filing such tax returns because the reality is that there is no law which requires them to. And the only reason most people file them is due to ignorance and misunderstanding and a large dose of fear. In fact, it is mainly due to fear of losing what they have acquired and of having jurors who are as ignorant as they are finding them guilty for so-called "crimes against the state" and sending them to prison that keep most people filing forms they are not required to file and paying the government money they never owed in the first place.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. a. our post modern world's decadent sexual mores b. what does society do with unwanted babies, some of whom might be damaged through drug or alcohol use during pregnancy, many of whom might not be adoptable due to race mismatch with prospective parents who wish to adopt c. what right does government or society to intrude in an individual's private personal decision that involves a woman's body? does the government have ownership rights to a woman's uterus? is it in the constitution that government can withhold medical services to a woman because she is pregnant and wants to abort?
Your understanding of the classics still doesn't prepare you to defeat the constitution and the limits under which it was intended to serve. Do you understand why "gun free school zones" was not a legitimate federal issue? Do you know why the only means the feds have to enforce federally mandated speed limits is the withholding of funds? Why are there no national criminal sanctions or fines for violators of the federal speed limit? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT OF LIMITED POWERS, and better scholars than you and I have tried to defeat that for their own reasons? (The diff is, I know why they failed and why your argument is retreading over losing ground) Until you do, you're just making smoke to hide your "constitution deficit". And, high sounding references to the classics do not justify exceeding the limits under which the federal govt was intended to operate. It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
b. I have been against the unlawful application of the misnamed "income" tax for years a. there is no mutual self defense treaty between Israel and the USA. Israel pointedly refuses to sign such a treaty with us. So what circumstances could possibly justify our sacrificing American blood and treasure on behalf of such a self-serving selfish nation like Israel? As for Baldwin - I think you know the answer about how he prioritizes Israel from his writings on another thread. You don't need to be his campaign manager to figure out what he'd do and that's why I don't see Baldwin as being an AmericaFirster or one bit better than McCain/Obama. b. We file income tax out of fear. That's a given but what exactly is your position on declaring as income tax deductible those donations given to foreign nations?
Me on the other hand am against abortion and for the death penalty (if they get it right). Right and right. As I told you earlier, I am consistent in viewing both capital punishment and abortion as necessary evils. "Necessary evils" = imparts the concept of "without prejudice."
Sigh. First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it. However, that was not my point which you are steadfastly missing or ignoring i.e., what influences and standards guided the Founding Fathers in constructing that document? Hint: The prohibition against "establishments of religion" was not set up to guard the state against religion but the church against the state. Well at least you were half right. Under the existing Constitution it is not a Federal issue, but I think your over the top example is simply begging the question since the phrase "nor should it be" is your personal value judgement. The kind of thing the Founding Fathers took into consideration in writing the Constitution - value judgements and the Constitution was not written in a vacuum devoid of understanding of the preceding thousands of years of history, and religion, for good and ill, was very much a part of that history. Further the Founding Fathers were largely a religious group and schooled in religion and that schooling had no small influence in their final product i.e., the Constitution.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
And the Bill of Rights was not meant to establish the rights of men but was the "Ten Commandments" of the Constitution, the "thou shalt nots" aimed at the government. These are God given rights and "thou shalt not" touch them!
Thank you, a most excellent point.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Damn right I would be. The death penalty is wrong, and human beings do not rate the perogerative to decide who's life should end when.
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.
OI, you are by far the ass-kickin'est. Hey Mike.
That is because you are a blood thirty, anti-life, conflicted nose thumber in regards to the value of human life.
Howdy, how goes?
Still givin' er. See my animal scraps thread.
This might reduce the ability to manipulate whole societies through fiat currency based upon debt, reduce the expansion of war machines universally, and end fictional law in commerce ... but, should we dissolve the "fed" we needs be careful to institute a monetary policy that restrains the oligarchs ability to usurp it, ie., the gold standard. My opinion is against any standard that would allow those with ill gotten gains from the fiat system to turn them into control of a new system through the gold they have stolen already. Most of this ill gotten gain can be tracked down and restored to the nations having suffered the losses by and through corruption of international banking authorities. Depending upon how this might work out could determine the best form of monetary policy for the future. I had always been convinced that a gold/silver backed currency would be superior to any other. I think differently today because of the obvious, nothing would change besides the method of valuation. The holders of large blocks of gold would remain in control of international monetary policies only benefitting themselves. Treasury Notes without backing other than America's (and other countries) willingness and ability to produce the merchandise desired by the world at large would create the need for those wishing to purchase things from America to have currency capable (Treasury Notes) of transacting business. The demand for products would support the value of the currency and make Americans realize the import of production. The important thing to address is dissolution of "the fed" as it is the most blatantly criminal institution in America and causation of 90% of the grief/slavery. This, the richest nation on planet earth, has been raped to the point of bankruptcy by a small group of banking elites and their willing toadies. There exists a plentitude of honest and moral people weary of fiat induced slavery willing to monitor and maintain the purity of a replacement institution. Transparency being the key ingredient. The next biggest fraud are CORPORATIONS when considered as "legal persons" complete with protections from suit that no natural person has available. This situation must be rectified. And lastly, all laws need to be written so that a 4th grader can comprehend them in plain language, having been publicly noticed for 30 days prior to passage and made law. Restoration of privately prosecuted criminal complaints, taking discretion away from govt. prosecutors is another must. We can do this but it may require some bloodshed because the greedy blood- sucking sons of ugly bitches have much to lose and nothing to gain should Americans eradicate them. I'm sure there are many others with ideas and concepts much better than these simplistic notions of mine. The important thing for us all to realize is that we've been robbed by the most sophisticated mafia on earth. 99% of their theft is conducted through our participation and contributions to their system, which consumes our souls for a pittance but worse makes us accomplices in their treachery worldwide. No more influence peddling/bribery, this should be made a Capital Offense, punishable by death.
"Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States." "Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country. . and was to supply financial power to an international superstate -- a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure."
2. But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn. 3. The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it. 4. I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby. 1. Good for you. But you know, this board "ain't my first rodeo" as they say. So I was probably posting that somewhere else when you were posting it here (maybe even before). 2. Not quite. I responded to your questions, even though I don't much care for your tone. When it comes to the human body murder is illegal. Period. Murder, at least as most people define it, means to take an innocent life. Ron Paul, a man I admire very much, has delivered something over 4,000 babies in his career and is opposed to abortion so I think I am in pretty good company--and the fact is that many libertarians oppose abortion on the grounds of non aggression. You seem to value the right to privacy very highly and I do too but when rights are in conflict something has to give. The right of the baby to live, once conceived, takes precedence over any right to privacy of someone else. You know, when people talk about being "pro choice" they are not talking about killing a wildebeest or something indefinable and unrecognizable, but a living human being. That is my position. May not change your mind and I can accept that. 3. I don't dispute that the transfer payments are made but I certainly do dispute the legality of it. If it isn't Constitutional it isn't legal because the Constitution itself is "the supreme law of the land" and the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear enough to all but the most severely brain damaged that powers not expressly given to the federal government were still the province of the people and/or the states. 4. I don't advocate any foreign aid whatsoever, at least not government to government aid which I have denounced on this very thread. I have no problem with any American citizen giving his or her money to any cause they believe is just and to anyone they feel is worthy of their help no matter where they are or who they are. But any time a government takes money through coercion and fear from those who have earned it and gives it to someone they favor more, whether it is some vote-buying scheme or aid to some of their "friends" in other governments, it is still theft and should be looked at as such. I regard them as thieves.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. That is because you are a blood thirty, anti-life, conflicted nose thumber in regards to the value of human life. No it is because I am being consistent. If one actually thinks abortion is murder as I know it is. Then you should support the death penalty for murderers. Especially if you support the death penalty for other crimes. You on the other hand compromise your principals by pimping for Obama.
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.
I came to respect Ron Paul's position on federal capital punishment for one reason: the federal government can use it to intimidate people, and the central government already has too much power over life and limb. States should decide life and death issues, based on the Constitution, according to Ron Paul.
No I told you. Because you were being a hypocrit on this subject. I don't know how anyone who claims to care about the suffering in Iraq that we are inflicted could be for killing babies in the womb. Its sickening. Disgusting and uncivilized.
My position is, and has been for quite a few years, not to pay taxes I don't owe and don't file forms I am not required to file. And I believe if enough people would do that and just mind their own business that the world would be a much better place. As for people taking whatever "deductions" they are "allowed" to take I don't have much of a problem with it in any event because most people are actually giving the government a gift they don't owe it no matter how much or how little they pay in "income" tax. Because, correctly understood, income doesn't mean what most people have been brainwashed into believing it means. It should be clear to anyone who has ever spent even a little time studying the issue that income means a "profit or gain" and those terms are synonymous. And no one has ever been able to show me where there was a nickel of profit in an "equal exchange."
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I should expand on my opinion regarding the death penalty. I support it in theory. My problem is I sure wouldn't want to get the wrong person. So although I am for it, I wouldn't want to burden of meting out that sentence. But with a woman trying to kill her baby. Well that leaves out all doubt.
Hey good post. Your thoughts mirror many of my own.
No, you are being highly inconsistent. Either human life is precious, or it ain't. If human beings have no perogerative to end life in the womb, then it is a fool's errand to claim the ends justifies the means in killing captive, imprisioned human beings. We are not dogs and cats to put to sleep out of a blood thirty and self ingraciating sense of revenge, we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end. At best capital punishment is a pander politicians use to appeal to the worst in people, it is never applied fairly across the board, does not deter crime, and empowers people to act as judge, jury and executioner on their own.
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!
Thank you very much.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I am against killing innocent life that commited no crime. That is different then being for killing the savages and murderers who take action and kill an innocent person. I'm sorry you can't see that Mike. There should be lots of safeguards as to make sure innocent people aren't found guilty at trial.
At best capital punishment is a pander politicians use to appeal to the worst in people, it is never applied fairly across the board, does not deter crime, and empowers people to act as judge, jury and executioner on their own. I agree that politicians pander with the Death Penalty. I agree that it isn't applied "fairly" across the board. I think that it does deter some crime but obviously not all crime. Mike Obama is for killing babies making him the opposite of your point that "we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end." So it seems that you are letting your morals slide on this issue.
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.
The death penalty is never applied equitably or fairly using your alleged standards of application. It cheapens the currency of huiman life and empowered others to justify their thuggery and murder to advance their own selfish objectives and purient self interest. Ending capital punishment is am important step the United States needs to take to step toward advancing human rights and to end violence. It never advances justice, creates irreversable injustices, and is not done for justice, but to satisfy bloodlust in those applying it that is too uncomfortably simular to that of anyone breaking the law to murder themselves. You are wrong, and do not like this penalty because of a sense of justice, but to satify what is the worst in your own character as a human being. WE all have our moments in this regard concerning a desire to be vengeful, but in acting upon it, we lower ourselves to the level of murderers, and create an environment which precipitates and encourages other unjust and blood thirty killings by other human beings and human entities such as governments elsewhere in the world.
Mike what you said is well thought out. I can kind of understand where you are coming from. I support the death penalty in "theory". If they got the right guy every time I would fully support it. But they don't. If the death penalty went the way of the Dodo it wouldn't bother me to much. I don't want to see innocent people put to death for crimes that they didn't do. If they really did do it I would have no problem putting them to death for things such as murder. To take an innocent life by willingly killing another is so wrong and if there was a way to do it right every time and punish the murderer with death. I think that would be just.
I think that you are half right here. Sometimes it doesn't advance justice. But when they get it right it does.
I understand the power of vengeance however if you ever talk to someone who has taken a life it stays with them till the day they die thats why I feel for all those grunts.. no fun living with deaths demons better to leave that to God
So it seems that you are letting your morals slide on this issue. Our entire nation in every sense ... rationalizes harmony with and truly worships the god of government, ignoring their real benefactor / Creator while refusing to admit it. The God of the Bible clearly states that you can't serve two Masters ... most Christians attempt this when they finance Uncle Sambo so he can murder little kids in Arabic countries and then run to church on SUNday to profess their faith. [Christ warned against hurting "one" of these little ones]. Faith is acting righteously upon trust in the author and Creator of the Universe knowing that this entity holds all power over all things. Setting the example of faith by honoring the Creator's commands regardless of what men say. (Peter stated "whose laws should we obey, men's or God's ?) The Scripture that illustrates the danger to the hypocrits of Christianity is the one where Christ speaks of the resurrection before the throne of judgment, and many cry out that they have healed the sick and removed demons in "His" name ... to which "He" replies ... "DEPART FROM ME for I HAVE NEVER KNOWN YOU" Hypocrisy and Truth have no relationship with each other.
"Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States." "Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country. . and was to supply financial power to an international superstate -- a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure."
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." Romans Chapter 13 by Chuck Baldwin
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.
I think we are largely on the same page.
Comments (99 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNo offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority.
#60. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
#61. To: scrapper2 (#53)
Do you believe Pastor Baldwin, if President, would send American soldiers to fight and die for Israel?
Lord Acton
#62. To: Old Friend (#56)
It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary".
#63. To: Original_Intent (#59)
#64. To: James Deffenbach (#61)
a. I don't know if he would or not but I suppose it would depend on treaty obligations and the circumstances.
#65. To: Old Friend (#55)
(Edited)
That is actually inconsistant. You are in favor of killing innocents and guilty. So in other words you are for right and wrong.
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG (#63)
(Edited)
It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
#67. To: Original_Intent (#66)
First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#68. To: farmfriend (#67)
#69. To: Old Friend (#47)
"If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty?"
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#70. To: Old Friend (#56)
"It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary"."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#71. To: Original_Intent (#66)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#73. To: Old Friend (#54)
"I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#74. To: wudidiz (#72)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#74)
(Edited)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#76. To: Rotara (#4)
(Edited)
Dissolving the Federal Reserve and everyone attached to it would be a great start! ;-)
#77. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
1. I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here.
Lord Acton
#78. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
"I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear."
#79. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
"It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary"."
#80. To: Old Friend, Ferret Mike (#78)
#81. To: scrapper2 (#58)
a. did I ask you?
#82. To: scrapper2 (#64)
We file income tax out of fear. That's a given but what exactly is your position on declaring as income tax deductible those donations given to foreign nations?
Lord Acton
#83. To: buckeye (#80)
I came to respect Ron Paul's position on federal capital punishment for one reason: the federal government can use it to intimidate people, and the central government already has too much power over life and limb. States should decide life and death issues, based on the Constitution, according to Ron Paul.
#84. To: James Deffenbach (#77)
#85. To: Old Friend (#78)
"No it is because I am being consistent. If one actually thinks abortion is murder as I know it is. Then you should support the death penalty for murderers. Especially if you support the death penalty for other crimes."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#86. To: Old Friend (#79)
#87. To: Old Friend (#84)
Hey good post. Your thoughts mirror many of my own.
Lord Acton
#88. To: Ferret Mike (#85)
No, you are being highly inconsistent. Either human life is precious, or it ain't. If human beings have no perogerative to end life in the womb, then it is a fool's errand to claim the ends justifies the means in killing captive, imprisioned human beings.
#89. To: Ferret Mike (#85)
We are not dogs and cats to put to sleep out of a blood thirty and self ingraciating sense of revenge, we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end.
#90. To: robnoel (#86)
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
#91. To: Old Friend (#88)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#92. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
WE all have our moments in this regard concerning a desire to be vengeful, but in acting upon it, we lower ourselves to the level of murderers, and create an environment which precipitates and encourages other unjust and blood thirty killings by other human beings and human entities such as governments elsewhere in the world.
#93. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
It never advances justice, creates irreversable injustices
#94. To: Old Friend (#90)
#95. To: Old Friend (#89)
Mike Obama is for killing babies making him the opposite of your point that "we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end."
#96. To: Old Friend (#90)
(Edited)
Elsewhere in Romans it does talk about civil authority
#97. To: robnoel (#96)
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.
#98. To: robnoel (#96)
.
.
.