Posted on 11/06/2011 6:40:00 PM PST by Kurt Evans
My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don't speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate...
America became the greatest nation in human history because a dedicated band of Patriots believed their God-given rights were worth fighting for, even if it meant challenging the world's most powerful nation in what many deemed a "hopeless" cause...
Since I'm asking for your vote and your trust to lead this nation, let me tell you a little bit about my background and beliefs.
My parents raised my four brothers and me on a dairy near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where they set clear examples for each of us about faith, honest living, and individual responsibility. Their Christian values helped inspire two of my brothers to eventually enter the ministry, and provided me with the foundation I needed to practice medicine and one day become a U.S. Representative.
In addition to my time in Congress, I am proud to have delivered over 4,000 babies as a country doctor in Texas. As I trained to practice medicine, I became convinced without a doubt that life begins at the moment of conception. I never performed an abortion, and I never once found an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, I successfully helped women struggling with their pregnancies to seek other options, including adoption...
We must stand for life—not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government's approval.
We must follow the Biblical mandate of using honest weights and measures—not printing money out of thin air in almost complete secrecy and then handing it over to oppressive dictators.
We must only send our men and women to fight for our country when the mission is clear, every tool needed to win is provided, and we respect the Constitution by declaring war...
As President, I give you my word that I will only exercise my authority within the confines of the Constitution, and I will work every day to rein in a runaway federal government by binding it with the chains of that document.
Well put!
Well that was interesting. The Patriots' patchwork defense actually stood, the offense made fewer mistakes, and things worked out in our favor this week. I was shocked, quite frankly: usually the Jets have our number the second or third time around, especially at home.
Good game, in any event. Twas pretty tight there for awhile. Ninkovich's pick six made all the difference in the world.
And you are a dim-witted, tin-eared, slack-jawed, fat-fingered Johnny One Note whose main passions in life are two-fold: (1) creating labels for people and (2) foaming at the mouth in opposition to a particular political candidate. For someone who doesn't care much for Rep. Ron Paul, you certainly spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about him. Hell, I like the man and I don't spend much time thinking about him.
You know he's not going to win, right? You know you're "arguing" like a complete mental patient and writing retarded "opposition short stories" over a foregone conclusion, right?
Go ask your mother to change your diaper, and then move on to other things. Maybe Nick Jr. is on or something, or maybe you can play with some Legos. I cannot believe you're still responding to this inane thread.
Uh-oh! Looks like I struck another nerve. Pity.
As far as Jew hater RuPaul goes, why take a chance ?
Who the hell around here said anything even remotely resembling the notion that we "want the military to lose wars"? Are you insinuating that I would "want" the military to lose a war, or that I'm championing such a stance? Do you honestly feel that I want my friends, family members, and classmates killed in a war "just 'cuz?"
Were you in your right mind when you crafted this reply? Were you drunk?
Maybe Ron Paul can name Jerry Sandusky of Penn State infamy as his running mate to cement the libertoonian alternative lifestyle crowd. 10 year old victims can't vote. For the paleosurrenderman, its a win-win.
Oh, brother. Dear, sweet Jesus. Now you've resorted to lame Sandusky jokes. Hang your head in shame, Mighty Torquemada. You're officially done here.
If you were a member of the Class of 1992 at Annapolis, youngster, I was despising antiwar pestilential excuses for human beings when you are busy with the transition from Huggies to underwear. That will never change.
Whatever you say, gramps. Now have some nice tapioca pudding, the nice nurse will put on Judge Judy for you, then you can have a nice nap for a few hours, okay? We'll turn the heat up and bring you your cardigan sweater.
You couldn't strike the ground with a basketball given three tries and two mulligans.
“You couldn’t strike the ground with a basketball given three tries and two mulligans.”
Is that some of the “professional writing” you were bragging about, McGovernite ? You couldn’t string together a coherent sentence if I spotted you the subject and the predicate.
No kidding. Hypocrites.
Wow! Someone has taken the SATs!
Where's your shoeshine box?
Who are you ? Billy Batts ?
We lost the game in the first quarter when Nick Folk (The guy has been amazing all season) missed the chip shot field goal. I saw rex ryan’s face. And he was like “it’s not our night.
Hopefully we’ll see you again, but it might be in Foxboro!
They can dish it out, sure, but they can not take it.
Notice how fast they run for moderators when it comes back at them. We didn’t call the moderators because we believe in free speech. They remind me of liberals who if you disagree with Obama they call you a racist.
Perhaps In this case they might scream anti-semitic.Or “Paultard”. But what’s the difference. Its the same tactic employed by the liberals.
As if there was no position except their position and if you disagree,
something’s wrong with you. How condescending.
In a word: they are unreasonable.
If you want to pull the military out of the wars without outright and decisive victory, that necessitates that the military (courtesy of the usual band of Demonrat and peace creep politicians assisted by the crowd like you who pose as filled with allegedly "moral" angst over the military being deployed to actually kill our enemies and break their things) would be again FORCED to lose wars that were quite winnable. That would be whether or not the military killed in a war are your personal friends, family members or classmates.
This is getting to be a regular ritual: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I (in that Papa Bush has no problem leaving Saddam in power so long as his fellow elitists would not suffer moral qualms over actual, you should pardon the expression, VICTORY. To elect some groveling windtunnel quisling like Ron Paul would make such craven results inevitable. He is a "constitutionalist" poseur, an anti-American, neo-Neville Chamberlain, isolationist coward and jerk. Crackpot Paulie as POTUS would be an utter disaster. But, hey, don't let objective truth and the track record hinder your lust to see us withdraw yet again in humiliation, rendering all expenditures and casualties to date as wasted.
What joke? Sandusky is apparently one of America's leading practitioners of a perversion that is conveniently ignored and, in effect therefore, supported by the Galveston birdbrain. He is every bit as nutty as paleoPaulie but brings an additional emphasis and, ummm, constituency to the Paulistinian effort.
Slogan: Paul/Sandusky in 2012. Never leave your little buddie's behind.
If you like the paleosurrenderman and his policies, then it is YOU who are insinuating, etc. An analogy would be: You don't wsnt you kids injured by cars but you do want them to play in the driven path of the interstate. Color me: skeptical. If your friends, family and classmates are killed in war by the disciples of Muhammed el Kaboomski because (thank God that El Run will never actually be POTUS) the paleosurrenderman sent them fleeing in terror from the the enemy, probably without weapons lest we offend our Islamofascist brethren, do you think they would die, confident that your heart had been in the right place?
Sandusky is also likely to be trending in a genuine civil libertarian direction in the last week or so on matters of criminal law enforcement that will fit in well with Paulie and his fans. Paulie could promise to defer to Sandusky on SCOTUS appointments before it is too late for Sandusky personally.
The Paulistinian is about more than being just the paleosurrenderman on foreign and military policy. He is also a conscientious objector to any war on perversion or abortion even if he fraudulently poses for holy pictures as a social conservative. No one cares what Paulie thinks after we notice his constant habit of doing NOTHING about anything that counts other than holding press conferences and, maybe, his worship of money almighty, assuming that he isn't lying about that as he does on most issues.
I am a lot younger than paleoPaulie, don't like tapioca, Wouldn't wear a cardigan on a bet. You can turn up the heat, though. You are like the stopped clock...twice a day, etc., but apparently not on issues. Remember, you have to keep that shotgun in good shape and a handy supply of shells to imitate Hemingway in the sincerest form of self-criticism.
Oh. Oh my! GHe used the dreaded liberal H word! I am soooo intimidated!
jd777/HG:
I was so fast to "run for the moderators" that it took me many thousands of posts and nearly eleven years here to make my first complaint and it was against jd777.
Anti-semite! Paultard! Paulistinian! Peace creep! Paleopacifist! Isolationist! Neo-Neville Chamberlain!
Anything that reminds you of liberals reminds you of you two.
There may be several respectable opinions on any given subject but certainly not jd777's or HG's when it comes to war, foreign policy and military policy. You two and palePaulie and Obozo and Billy Jeff and Mondale and Cahtuh and Mittwit and John F'n Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam before allying with Uncle Ho?) AlGore and Margaret Sanger and LogCabin"Republicans" and many other folks have disagreed but those named did so because there WAS something verrrry wrong with each and every one. Apparently you think it reasonable for folks who know better to abandon reason to make believe that you have opinions on the matters in controversy which merit respect or consideration. That's another thing wrong with you two.
BTW, "free speech" is something not to be suppressed by government. FR is JimRob's parlor (private property) and FReepers are guests here and can be zotted for any reason or none. Total strangers do not have the "right" to change their crankcase oil on your private driveway or "walk" their dogs in your backyard or on your patio.
Take a cold, hard look at what you've done. Appropriate of nothing, you've introduced into this thread on Ron Paul's religious sentiments the wholly unrelated issue of a pederast involved in a scandal at a football college. What good did you think this would bring to your argument (to wit: calling Ron Paul juvenile names)? Did you think that just by writing "Sandusky" and "Paul" in the same sentence you could link them together logically to make a sane, coherent point?
Are you really this retarded? Are you really this child-like in your logic skills?
Seriously old man . . . step away from the keyboard and hide your head in shame. You are not doing yourself, your reputation, or your cause any favors on this thread.
No wonder you try to defend Torquemada. It's not that you have any great historical perspective or insight; you're just not very bright.
You're a thin-skinned infant; that's why you ran to the moderators. I've seen stuff far worse than anything jd777 posted on this thread. Far worse.
In my opinion there's one and only one reason to run to the moderators: when someone takes an internet argument to the next level and threatens to bring it into the real world on a personal/vendetta/road rage/roid rage level. And that's it. jd777 did nothing of the kind here; just replying in kind to the verbal fisticuffs being launched by both sides on this thread.
Toughen up, BlackElk. Of course this is Jim Robinson's forum, and he can do as he pleases here. And that includes banning you as well, of course.
I love how you need to call out the cavalry, too, every third or fourth time you post. It's really precious. It's just me and jd777 here, man, and we're just a couple of Paul-tards . . . but you keep on putting out that call to the cavalry for reinforcements.
And what did I say?
Can you even remember?
Wan’t it much the same as your joke about Ron Paul and Jerry Sandusky?
Wasn’t it?
And didn’t it have as much basis in reality. None.
It was a joke. Plain and Simple.
Except mine was funny.
Yes. Black Elk. You can dish it out. Oh, But you can’t take it.
And to your friends - who you seem to call so frequently. Read his post #353 - And ask yourself - would a man with the truth on his side ever lose his cool this badly? Would he? Would he really get that angry if he knew- for certain - he was right. Is this divine rage - the wrath of righteousness - or something else?
Is there a trace of fear in this man? Something that agitates him. Fear.
Yes, That’s whats behind his bluster.
A trace of fear that he might not be on the right side?
and it drives him to say things - without thinking.
IS that what drives him to fury?
Is that the real truth?
Just some simple questions.
No need to reply.
We’re playing the old school two man game here.
LIke Stockton to Malone.
Wow, it smells like Burnt Elk in here....
Here’s a video to watch while waiting for Tourqemada to call the Mods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20S_kwNb4rg
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.