Paul not endorsed by the Family Leader (sponsored Iowa forum with Luntz)

[european]

As for Paul, Vander Plaats said: “I think he let his libertarian view trump his moral compass.”
Paul is staunchly pro-life, but he was often a dissenter on issues such as legislating morality — he doesn’t support it — or having the federal government overrule states on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/21/vander-plaats-post-forum-take-on-gop-candidates/

RON PAUL (A U.S. representative from Texas): Each individual of the seven member voting Board of Directors expressed many positives of Ron Paul. The stumbling block for the board regarding Paul dealt primarily with “States’ Rights” as it pertains to the sanctity of human life and God’s design for marriage.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/22/the-family-leader-narrows-endorsement-to-four-possibilities-gingrich-bachmann-santorum-and-perry/


Summarzied: they like Paul, but they want the Federal Government to deal with State issues.
Maybe the official campaign can contact them and ask them some time to explain the views of Dr. Paul and that it is patriotic to uphold the constitution. And that Iowa can deal with these issues without interference of the federal government, so they will have a bigger influence on the outcome!

[gls]

Waste of time IMO. These people will never support Paul. Fortunately "social conservatives" are becoming less and less relevant even within the Republican Party.

[mczerone]

Headline: People who want to impose their moral views on you from out of state don't support Ron Paul.

[european]

Maybe they just havent looked upon the issue from that angle. I can very well imagine they just want the best for the whole of USA. But if they learn more about the constitution and what a republic is all about, they might get a change of heart. I think most of us have that experience.

[tremendoustie]

As for Paul, Vander Plaats said: “I think he let his libertarian view trump his moral compass."

Vander, It's morally wrong to threaten aggressive violence against people simply because their personal lives don't match your preferences.

You're the one who is showing a lack of moral direction, even from a Christian perspective, because you resort to violence instead of seeking to help people understand Christ's love, and change their lives because of internal conviction and the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Would it be right for you to go down to the local McDonalds, and threaten to shoot an obese person, or lock them in a cage, in order to prevent them from buying a big mac? Would it be right for you to lock a person up because they said something prideful, or gossiped? Did Christ take this tack, or instruct his followers to do so -- to lock the pharisees, tax collectors, or adulterers in jail?

As I recall, he spent time with them instead, showing them love, pointing out that it's not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

There are many immoral behaviors to which a violent response would be just as immoral. You've lost the plot, and the point, my friend.

[matt0611]

Vander, It's morally wrong to threaten aggressive violence against people simply because their personal lives don't match your preferences.

You're the one who is showing a lack of moral direction, even from a Christian perspective, because you resort to violence instead of seeking to help people understand Christ's love, and change their lives because of internal conviction and the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Would it be right for you to go down to the local McDonalds, and threaten to shoot an obese person, or lock them in a cage, in order to prevent them from buying a big mac? Would it be right for you to lock a person up because they said something prideful, or gossiped? Did Christ take this tack, or instruct his followers to do so -- to lock the pharisees, tax collectors, or adulterers in jail?

As I recall, he spent time with them instead, showing them love, pointing out that it's not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

There are many immoral behaviors to which a violent response would be just as immoral. You've lost the plot, and the point, my friend.

Exactly, did Jesus call the Roman centurions when he encountered a prostitute?

I really dislike how many conservative Christians confuse society with government.

[Sola_Fide]

You're the one who is showing a lack of moral direction, even from a Christian perspective, because you resort to violence instead of seeking to help people understand Christ's love, and change their lives because of internal conviction and the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Good point. This guys "moral compass" is that sanctification comes from legislation rather than the Holy Spirit changing men's hearts.

[280Z28]

The group is very hypocritical if they would not also eliminate candidates for a view that states should be able to prosecute murderers.

[low preference guy]

Tom Woods responds (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?331964-Tom-Woods-to-Family-Leader-The-left-got-the-government-involved-in-marriage!&p=3769396#post3769396).

[Feeding the Abscess]

EDIT: Beaten by lpg.

[zach]

Moral Society is only Moral if Society imposes that Morality.

ಠ__ಠ

[georgiaboy]

I thought Ron favored a constitutional amendment defining that human life began at conception.

[PastaRocket848]

yet another reason why organized religion is the purest form of evil. these people have no principles. well, they do, until they conflict with what their preacher told them their imaginary friend instructed them to believe.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I thought Ron favored a constitutional amendment defining that human life began at conception.

It's been passive, mostly. He said in the hourlong interview with some Iowan newspaper that he does NOT want an amendment to the Constitution, that he wants the issue at the state level. He's said similar things in other interviews, even saying on CNN once that we shouldn't use force of government to deal with abortions.

In short, I think he puts forward the moral argument when dealing with abortion, which is a good idea in a GOP primary.

[Sola_Fide]

yet another reason why organized religion is the purest form of evil. these people have no principles. well, they do, until they conflict with what their preacher told them their imaginary friend instructed them to believe.

That's a pretty dumb statement. I might even agree with you depending on what you mean by "organized religion". But overall, its a dumb statement.

[bunklocoempire]

You're the one who is showing a lack of moral direction, even from a Christian perspective, because you resort to violence instead of seeking to help people understand Christ's love, and change their lives because of internal conviction and the influence of the Holy Spirit.
...
...You've lost the plot, and the point, my friend.

+ rep

He and others like him have not only lost the point, but are also encouraging others to trade faith in God for faith in government.
That's a whole mess of 'woe be unto thee'. :mad:


Bunkloco

[Student Of Paulism]

Sheesh, this was really painful to sit through. While it was definitely different and tried to show a more personal side of the candidates, which it mildly succeeded on here and there, as well as not having buzzers and timers for the questions, it was just really cheesy and pretty much done for fluff. The whole abortion and gay rights nonsense just really annoys me, because when it comes down to it, there is no stance you can take that is going to please everyone. And when you bring religion to it (as with most causes) it just complicates it more and leads to 908232390 other issues that have been debated since the beginning of time. RP does his best on this issue to try and please both sides, rather than be a suck-up to just one side and pander to them like most of the others did throughout this phony charade. In the end, that is all one can do, is just try to make both sides as satisfied as possible.

This Vander Plaats is just one giant phony and apparently doesn't listen or f'n read either, since he now proves he obviously kisses Newt's ass and doesn't know the difference between what a libertine is, and what libertarian is, and both Rick S. and Newt kept alluding to Ron being a libertine and also alluding that he believes liberty to being libertine as well. Newt is very smart and not a moron and obviously knows the difference between the two, so why intentionally be a douche for no reason? I mean, really, what a joke that all was, and Plaat's statement about Ron's moral compass is just downright ignorant. That doesn't even make any sense, wtf!? I don't see how him following the constitution to the letter like he always has shown, has some negative effect on his 'moral compass'. While i do respect all religions and whatever people decided to practice throughout their lives, it is phony, contradicting, pandering, and mask wearing hypocrites like this who cower behind it to suit their agendas and use it to bolster their image among a specific constituency.

I really don't even know why Dr Paul showed up for this crap. Now i can see why Mitt bowed out (knowing they would never endorse him anyway), because in the end, it was waste of time, and Dr Paul could have used all that time elsewhere in Iowa or NH to help his rising numbers a lot more, rather than having to sit there for 3 hours doing an 'after school xtian special' or a 'JC of latter day saints commercial'.

I loved how when Frank Luntz (who i just wanted to smack more than anything) asked them to point out some profound 'awakening' in their lives or a major downfall they had, Newt was the only one who dodged it by bringing up 'a friends traumatic experience' rather than talk about his wayward affairs and his cancer stricken wife. Like jee, how convenient. I actually would have respected Newt a lot more if he had aired that out, especially considering the atmosphere they were in. I am sure Mr Vander Putz will put his foot in his mouth even further too by endorsing Newt as well.