Skip to comments.Ron Paul: A New Beginning
Posted on 11/11/2012 5:29:55 PM PST by Renfield
click here to read article
“Wow you utterly miss the point — which is that it is not the government’s place to enforce morality, that way was already tried and doesn’t work, the only thing that does work is the transformative power of Jesus Christ...”
In America, the government is the people. The people ARE responsible before God to enforce moral behavior in themselves and others in their country or face the “temporal judgement of God as a people (individuals face eternal judgement). So, the government, IS responsible to enforce standards of behavior (AKA Morality). Old Testament concepts are NOT gone by Jesus Christ’s advent...they are fulfilled. However, the concept that allowing “Molech” to continue will cause the land to “vomit you out” remains true today.
Now is being “moral” make one a Christian? No, of course not. Nor can I by law make one inwardly “moral.” Of course not again. However, I can MOST CERTAINLY restrain wickedness in behavior under the penallty of law. That IS RIGHT AND PROPER. In fact to fail to do so is to invite God’s judgement on the land as I have previously stated.
The ONLY thing you have said that was proper is that only Jesus Christ can “transform” a man internally. All the laws, even well enforced, can save a soul.....only the Lord Jesus Christ can do that.
Bu, I am NOT trying nor advocating to use government to save souls, but to restrain evil doers that are unsaved (unregenerate) to make this country worth living in - and safe for the rest of us. Libertarians create a “sewer world” by allowing such vile things as prostitution, etc. I don’t one my child or grandchildren to have to be exposed to pornography, prositution, etc. etc. etc. that libertarians would allow. I know GOD AGREES.
>This must be why Ron Paul voted to destroy the integrity of the United States military by helping to pass the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, aye?
I seem to remember the *implementation* of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” being a step forward for the homosexual-agenda — because it was grounds to keep them in.
>Libertarians like RP represent the libertine agenda. The libertine agenda is destroying America.
No, there are two elements: one is the government and it should be concerned with good stewardship (fiscal conservatism), the other is the American people (or rather God’s Church in America) that should be concerned taking care of people — once the church starts loving the people, real love not ooy-gooy ‘feeling’ but the sort that Jesus showed, then the people as a whole will change, because God is in the business of changing people.
How many votes did open borders Johnson and former democrat lawyer Goode receive?
Do you remember the refusal to seat delegates?
Yes and it is totally irrelevant as indicated by the number of votes cast for other party candidates.
Maybe Rand will strike up a Third Party, now that everyone is on to the Rove-Romney Socialist Republican Party. At least I am.
I agreed with so much of what Ron Paul had to say. He is dead on right about US money, fiscal policy and the Fed, and certainly he was on target regarding the Constitution, liberty and the LIMITS of the federal government.
He is arguably the most serious of the candidates on the facts alone, but his voice problem made him sound daf. Rand Paul is surely a little less anti-Semitic and more reasonable on the military question, concerning his father’s severe take. I thought Paul was so unmercifully ragged on for some of his foreign policy or philosophy that he was never able to elaborate on the reasons for some of these policies before being cut off or driven to distraction.
Have you been living under a rock since 1950? Everything you listed is basically what we have in this country today — except you forgot to mention massive taxes, massive debt, massive regulations...
All of which has been brought to you courtesy of the Democrat Party. Oh, yeah... and the Republican Party, too.
I don’t recall the Libertarian Party controlling to much lately.
Might be watching Gilligan’s Island, but who’s in the White House, Mr. Mainstream Republican?
/Getting tired of these losers bashing Ron Paul
//Did NOT vote for RP
Sorry, I misunderstood.
I thought that you were a libertarian, but you clearly disapprove of their agenda and goals.
- I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
- The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
- The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
- [Political] offices are as acceptable here as elsewhere, and whenever a man cast a longing eye on them, a rottenness begins in his conduct.
- Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.
- The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
- A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
- Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.
- Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.
- Fear is the foundation of most governments.
- There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
- A government of laws, and not of men.
- In politics the middle way is none at all.
- Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.
I'm sure I could find more, but the Founders really were more about liberty than any previous government that I'm aware of. It is a disservice to say that they were not libertarians (words have actual meanings), though I will admit the Libertarian-party didn't exist then and likely wouldn't have been popular... but then again, the founders were, under England, freer than we are today as Americans.
RPs mantle of Mr. Constitution does not square with the founding fathers of this nation.
So long as he encourages people to read and understand the Constitution, I'd say he's a sight bit better than many in office... and I would include Justice Roberts in that list of people.
Obama will appoint 3 supreme court justices. He will do damage that will last for decades while people worried about Mitt not being conservative enough. Absolutely mind numbing.
>>there were other candidates one could vote for
>How many votes did open borders Johnson and former democrat lawyer Goode receive?
Johnson got 1% of the general vote — there were about 2% total third-party votes.
> Do you remember the refusal to seat delegates?
> Yes and it is totally irrelevant as indicated by the number of votes cast for other party candidates.
What, are you kidding? 1% for a third-party is huge nowadays — ever since Ross Perot ran 3rd party, got a big chunk of the general vote, and the Big Two changed the rules so to undermine any 3rd party, that is.
What you also have to consider is how many people believe that there are only two [viable] parties — if you believe that and think there’s no real difference in the Republican and Democratic candidates, then you’ll stay home (after all, in that case your vote really doesn’t matter).
That helps explain at least some of the greater than 50% of eligible voters not-voting.
Rand has no more chance of getting elected than Ron did.
If Ron Paul is for limited government, why would he endorse a statist like Romney?
Obama will appoint 3 supreme court justices.
And Romney has a horrible track record for his judicial nominations, at least as bad as Obama's.
He will do damage that will last for decades while people worried about Mitt not being conservative enough.
They were right: because Mitt Romney isn't conservative, never was.
BULLSQUAT! Perot received nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992, including mine. There hasn't been a viable alternative party candidate since.
That helps explain at least some of the greater than 50% of eligible voters not-voting.
That is an admission on your part that there wasn't an alternative party candidate worth voting for. You must be content having the anti-American POS occupying the WH for another 4 years.
Why does something said by a "delusional, raving lunatic" bother you so much?
Perhaps Winston Churchill has the answer:
"A little mouse a little tiny mouse! of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic."
When did Romney nominatet someone to the USSC?
When did Romney nominate someone to the USSC?
Hm, might have helped to read the rest of the sentence: ever since Ross Perot ran 3rd party, got a big chunk of the general vote, and the Big Two changed the rules so to undermine any 3rd party, that is.
>>That helps explain at least some of the greater than 50% of eligible voters not-voting.
>That is an admission on your part that there wasn't an alternative party candidate worth voting for.
Or, like I said: how many people believe that there are only two [viable] parties[?]
You must be content having the anti-American POS occupying the WH for another 4 years.
Nope, but then again I realize that I am utterly powerless and lack any sort of legitimacy (standing, they call it). [/bitter-sarcasm]
>>And Romney has a horrible track record for his judicial nomination
>When did Romney nominatet someone to the USSC?
He was Governor, he nominated in that capacity, those are also judicial nominations.
(That is, not all judicial nominations are to the USSC.)
If you can't present a viable candidate, you are going to get exactly the attention that the alternative parties have garnered in the last few elections. Rules or no rules.
like I said: how many people believe that there are only two [viable] parties
I don't know, do you? Why didn't that 50% vote for one of the alternatives? They were on the ballot.
Which is a helluva long way from being the POTUS nominating USSC justices and federal judges nationwide!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.