tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7465606070059458008.post898124117445984650..comments2023-03-29T04:57:11.251-07:00Comments on David's Blog: My Response to Ron Paul SupportersDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09384819518493898957noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7465606070059458008.post-74684537818022969322012-01-27T04:03:33.696-08:002012-01-27T04:03:33.696-08:00Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul Is Right on Iran
...Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul Is Right on Iran <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrX9t9v3rYGrand Bullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110799319217101672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7465606070059458008.post-8771772086416510932012-01-26T10:10:12.091-08:002012-01-26T10:10:12.091-08:00Good stuff, Peter...very well stated.
Not only d...Good stuff, Peter...very well stated. <br /><br />Not only does Paul unite the young, he also unites Christians and Atheists! Everything that Paul believes in makes sense regardless of your religious background, and that’s the way government in a free country should work.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576938778006700080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7465606070059458008.post-33899507635831276402012-01-26T01:57:34.962-08:002012-01-26T01:57:34.962-08:00"Now, in regards to providing a national defe..."Now, in regards to providing a national defense, and specifically the threat of a nuclear Iran, this would cause me to probably keep me from voting against Barrack Obama if Ron Paul was nominated:"<br /><br />So you would vote for Obama (in truth or by not voting) if Paul was nominated solely because he's insufficiently hawkish? Obama, the man who has suspended habeas corpus and is openly assassinating American citizens? Really?<br /><br />We only care about Iran because they have oil and want to trade it in gold and not dollars. When was the last time you herd someone talking about invading Indonesia or Indonesian suicide bombers (the most populous Muslim country). The only reason Iran is against the US is because we're an empire that has been middling in their country for some 60 odd years and has turned the entire middle east into a protectorate. Going to war with Iran only makes us weaker and more vulnerable and does not benefit the common man, only the bankers and the international corporations. This is a modern version of pillaging. <br /><br />In truth Paul is the only candidate to support if you want a strong national defense. We have bases in 130 some odd countries. That is an empire. There is nothing Christian about that. Our empire meddling in other countries business is weakening us and is making enemies. Ron Paul is a believer in the Christian Just War theory, not pagaan empire building. He would bring the troops home and stop trying to police the world or engage in nation building (two things that were prime conservative viewpoints before Bush). That would reduce aggressive military spending and leave more money for defensive spending on rebuilding our capabilities and keeping troops at home. The troopes would be at home to get the rest they need after all the wars and the money spend on that defense would go into our local economies instead of into blowing things up overseas.<br /><br />Ron Paul would beat Obama in a presidential race. Oboma betrayed his base, hope change was a fraud. All the young people energy that was behind Obama is now going to Paul. Even back in 2008 the Paul supporters noticed that Oboma supporters are very easy to get to support Paul. In contrast Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and Obama are all part of the establishment and little different in truth. Obama governed much like Bush despite all his rhetoric and the same will be true of all the other non-Paul candidates.Grand Bullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110799319217101672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7465606070059458008.post-29714393381525246812012-01-26T01:56:48.540-08:002012-01-26T01:56:48.540-08:00The cheif role of the government is to protection ...The cheif role of the government is to protection our liberty. But right now the government is the chief abuser of liberty and the banks are using it to pillage this nation. Only Paul is not sold out to the bankers and only Paul can be trusted with the power of the president and to defend our liberty.<br /><br />This isn't a matter of Paul's politics overriding his private views on abortion. Its just he has a different approach to dealing with the issue and has a correct understanding of the law. 60 million dead babies later the Santorum approach isn't working, maybe its time for a different strategy. <br /><br />Under our form of government the several states are sovereign states which are members of a constitutional federation and not mere political subunits. The prosecution of crime (save treason and counterfeiting) is solely the relm of the states. This would include murder (such as abortion). Likewise any regulation of marriage is a state, not federal matter. The federal government is meant to deal mostly with interstate and international issues and things work best this way. If regulation of abortion were left to the states, then it would be illegal in many if not most of them right now and there would be a lot fewer babies dying. The federal government will not outlaw abortion until the morals of the country change. Once the people change the government will follow. But notice, until that happens, if abortion was left to the states, fewer babies would die. So your absolutist approach kills babies.<br /><br />Come on now. Did we have anarchy in the first century of this countries existence when the fed's kept their nose out of the states business? Of course not. The states will always deal with local crime, thats not going to change. To the contrary, what we have now is actually anarchy because the banks have corrupted the federal government and the rule of law no longer matters. You can't claim to be for law and justice while being for federal involvement in these matters because that position violates the constitution and the 10th amendment. So if you want the federal government to prosecute murder or regulate marriage it can legally only be done via a Constitutional amendment and any attempt to ignore that and just pass a law is hypocrisy and a violation of the law. To pass a federal law on murder is just as much a violation of law (the constitution) as for someone to rape, rob, or murder. <br /><br />"I'm in believe that the government should maintain moral laws in keeping with the Biblical role of government"<br />contradicts<br />"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”<br /><br />The point Adam's as making was the constitution only works for a people who are moral and religious. This is the idea that we will either be ruled by our conscience or ruled by the government. The constitution assumed the former and did not try to force morality on the people. Which is good, because it doesn't work. The enforcement of laws against people on moral issues does not work in either the short or long term because the law can not change the heart. That is the realm of Christ.Grand Bullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110799319217101672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7465606070059458008.post-91644425292877271102012-01-24T11:24:03.754-08:002012-01-24T11:24:03.754-08:00"I like Ron Paul, except for his Foreign Poli..."I like Ron Paul, except for his Foreign Policy.<br />I Like Jesus, except for that Love Your Neighbor Stuff."<br /><br />The Iran nuke problem is a fantasy. Our own State Department and DOD, in 2010 and again this year, said that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon and seeks to do so for defensive purposes (I wonder why?). The notion that Iran would wipe out Israel with a nuclear weapon is absurd, Israel would turn them to glass in a heart beat. Where have we heard this weapons boogie man before? Iraq? Mission accomplished? 100,000 dead (4800 US military) 500,000 refugees, infrastructure destroyed, authoritarian pro Iranian government left in place, oil contracts going mostly to the Chinese, 2 billion in lifetime medical costs for wounded vets, etc etc etc...mission accomplished?mitch52https://www.blogger.com/profile/15694597427596657303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7465606070059458008.post-67016887157936486492012-01-22T18:01:35.314-08:002012-01-22T18:01:35.314-08:00Your John Adams quote is very interesting, but I t...Your John Adams quote is very interesting, but I think you took it out of context and perhaps you're misinterpreting it.<br /><br />You wrote the following:<br /><br /><i>I believe that the government should maintain moral laws in keeping with the Biblical role of government (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17). [...] I also agree with John Adams "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”</i><br /><br />What you believe and what John Adams believed are actually contradictory. The form of government that I favor is actually closer to what John Adams is describing. The two sentences that preceded that Adams quote are helpful to understand the type of government that he is describing:<br /><br /><i>"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."</i><br /><br />He is basically saying that our Constitution does not legislate morality nor is it designed to legislate morality. Morals come from the people, not from our laws. Our Constitution has no means to stop "avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness", therefore our system of government is wholly dependent on the morals of the people to temper those human tendencies.<br /><br />Our laws allow people to make either good or bad choices about their lives. That is what freedom is all about. The Constitution can not and should not stop people from making bad choices. It depends on a moral and religious people to use their freedom to make good choices.<br /><br />Consider avarice (greed) for example. Jesus tells the rich that they should "go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor." (Matthew 10:21) Isn't that exactly what the Democrats, with their many social programs, are advocating? What would you think if Obama used these words of Jesus to justify a tax hike on the rich in order to give more money to the poor?<br /><br />Isn't it preferable that the government keeps their hands out of our pockets, and instead let us decide on our own how much money we want to give away and to whom? That's what I prefer. And I think that's what John Adams preferred too, which is why he says that our chosen form of government "was made only for a moral and religious people." It should not be the responsibility of government to enforce morality. The government should protect our freedom to choose and it is up to the people to use these freedoms to do the right thing.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576938778006700080noreply@blogger.com