Steve Deace Iowa Undecided Evangelical Voters Focus Group

[realtonygoodwin]

http://stevedeace.com/forum/showthread.php?268-Held-a-Focus-Group-of-Undecideds-Tonight&p=1564#post1564



--It's Ron Paul's foreign policy views that disqualify him from getting the support of this group more so than his libertarian approach to social issues like life and marriage.

[rp08orbust]

--It's Ron Paul's foreign policy views that disqualify him from getting the support of this group more so than his libertarian approach to social issues like life and marriage.

They need to be told that nothing is more destructive of life and marriage than the foreign policy views of Ron Paul's opponents.

Edit: Never mind. Steve Deace is basically admitting that they love spilling Muslim blood more than they love life and marriage.

[realtonygoodwin]

They see radical Islam as an existential threat.

[Sola_Fide]

They see radical Islam as an existential threat.

The founding Christians knew that government was a greater threat than Islam. These people are statists who are not worthy of the American Christian tradition.

[Eric21ND]

Anybody living in Iowa want to forward this video to Mr. Deace? Step up Iowa!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk

[realtonygoodwin]

The founding Christians knew that government was a greater threat than Islam. These people are statists who are not worthy of the American Christian tradition.

I prefer to think they are well-intentioned but misguided. I was in their shoes not that long ago.

[airborne373]

So Paul will not satisfy their lust for human blood.

[Student Of Paulism]

Eh..

I think it is safe to finally say that Ron is just not going to get any support/endorsement from any kind of religious group. I have yet to see one that does. Many of them are affiliated as well, so when one doesn't support you, it is rare that the others will, and they tend to always follow suit like the sheep they are, because they don't want to be looked at as heretics or something :rolleyes:

Its really a no win situation with these people. Either they don't like his FP, or they will bitch and moan about his Libertarian views being 'too outside the mainstream'.

[LibertyEagle]

I prefer to think they are well-intentioned but misguided. I was in their shoes not that long ago.

I agree.

My question is, are they upset about his unwillingness to go to war for Israel, or is it they are scared of Iran harming us, here, or both? We first need to understand what their concerns are.

[The Free Hornet]

My question is, are they upset about his unwillingness to go to war for Israel, or is it they are scared of Iran harming us, here, or both? We first need to understand what their concerns are.

Their foreign policy concerns are total bullshit. These are progressives pretending to agree on domestic and budgetary issues. They can't abandon big government and terrorism is the boogieman used to control the populace. Why else would they not rollback a century, starting with the Fed, of socialist and corporatist policy?

[undirected rant]And why the fuck is it that a person has to agree with Ron Paul 100% before supporting him? How much do they agree with Romney? The reality is, since Romney has no core, it doesn't matter. Romney will blow with the wind. Unfortunately, the poor pathetic Republican primary bastards don't realize that their term of influence ends in June 2012. From that point onward, Romney would be beholden to the general populace and the Republican primary voters can just go suck a big fat one. There won't be a conservative or a Republican or a constitutionalist in office unless we elect Ron Paul. Foreign policy is being used as a distraction. The primary voters will have zero influence if they elect Romney or Newt. Of course, they have zero influence with Ron Paul but in his case he won't kowtow for votes and his devotion to principle is proven.

[Student Of Paulism]

Lol hornet, i see that crap all the time, yea.

Stuff like:

I SUPPORT RON 80% BUT I CANT GET PAST NOT SUPPORTING ISRAEL..

I SUPPORT RON 90% BUT NOT SURE ABOUT GOLD STANDARD!

I SUPPORT RON 99.999% x 3.14 SQUARED, BUT NOT SURE ABOUT TOO MANY DEPTS BEING CUT!

So much for the lesser of two evils (which Ron isnt anyway....) But if it's just one minor issue, some just instantly jump ship.

[sailingaway]

I think there are as lot who just say foreign policy because it is an accepted reason. We need to get his economic plan out with focus on his priorities protecting senior entitlements.

[seapilot]

I agree.

My question is, are they upset about his unwillingness to go to war for Israel, or is it they are scared of Iran harming us, here, or both? We first need to understand what their concerns are.

The irony is the evangelicals might have more in common with Sharia law in Iran than they do Israel. In Iran homosexuals and pornography are outlawed. In Israel they are not.

[realtonygoodwin]

In 2008 I voted for Ron despite his foreign policy.

[bluesc]

In 2008 I voted for Ron despite his foreign policy.

Do you agree with him now?

[realtonygoodwin]

I would say my own foreign policy has shifted from a Giuliani/McCain type to about halfway between Ron Paul and John Huntsman.

[Sola_Fide]

To the peeps neg repping me left and right for what I said, let me explain myself a little.

I AM an evangelical Christian and I have been following grassroots Christian conservative activism for years. So I think that gives me somewhat of a justification for being able to stand back and judge the movement where I think it is wrong.

Modern evangelicals are theological liberals who have rejected some of the key doctrines of orthodoxy. And when we look through history, we can see that theological liberalism in the culture always accompanies statism. Modern Christians should be ashamed for how different they are than our founding forebears.

[realtonygoodwin]

But you have to understand that most people who support these wars view them as defensive wars, right?

[bluesc]

I would say my own foreign policy has shifted from a Giuliani/McCain type to about halfway between Ron Paul and John Huntsman.

Leaning Paul or Huntsman? Huntsman is WORSE than the others. He wants to stay in Afghanistan INDEFINITELY.

[Justinfrom1776]

In 2008 I voted for Ron despite his foreign policy.

I supported him despite his foreign policy, and as a supporter I came to understand his foreign policy, he got my vote in full confidence.... Now my primary reason for supporting him is because of his foreign policy. I've gone from being a 9/11 hawk to being full blown anti war and pro non-interventionist.

[Eric21ND]

But you have to understand that most people who support these wars view them as defensive wars, right?
That's why we have to put that video into the hands of everyone that believes that.

[Sola_Fide]

But you have to understand that most people who support these wars view them as defensive wars, right?

Yeah, I see that. But neo-evangelicalism has been socialistic for decades now. Instead of fearing a king, they have embraced the idea of a king totally, and given this earthly king messianic powers to use American troops as world social workers.

This isn't Calvinism. This isn't the just war of Augustine. This isn't the freedom of conscience of Luther. This isn't the Puritans or the Prebyterians or the particular Baptists or the Dutch Reformed. This kind of state-messianism does not come from the Reformed tradition.

This kind of state-messianism is much more in the tradition of the Roman state-church. But evangelicals have mostly rejected the sovereignty of God and justification by faith alone anyway...so it is no wonder that their compromises in theology have led to their compromises in liberty.


Check out:

Conservatism: An Autopsy, by John Robbins
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ZOPqOrEyVYkJ:www.mmisi.org/ir/06_01_02/robbins.pdf+anatomy+of+fonservwtism+john+robbins&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj-3q53GbGVWVeeaRhyCkk52SfO-NmiI_Blgf613vFZZ_I9j33gEo5tnZ0WenKbQ325WRjRoUflS_N 5exErd1iIDtIjsM7Aemscw8Ng2BOY1bTP8gaUEFzu2H8Trve_n TiVd9o0&sig=AHIEtbSAIXiVU4SI4Ck37Y5ywvD24bqzLw

[squirekyle]

They need to be told that nothing is more destructive of life and marriage than the foreign policy views of Ron Paul's opponents.

Edit: Never mind. Steve Deace is basically admitting that they love spilling Muslim blood more than they love life and marriage.

Nice. Thought of that too. Nobody cares about the Constitution obviously... because probably 95% of Americans haven't read it.

[realtonygoodwin]

Leaning Paul or Huntsman? Huntsman is WORSE than the others. He wants to stay in Afghanistan INDEFINITELY.

Well, I would disagree that he is worse, but to answer the question, leaning toward Paul. I would say I am probably near the same level as Rand...

[bluesc]

Well, I would disagree that he is worse, but to answer the question, leaning toward Paul. I would say I am probably near the same level as Rand...

Staying in Afghanistan indefinitely is worse than setting a timetable. He also wants war with Iran, which means he has no difference in that department. There is nothing good about his foreign policy, he just makes his hawkish views sound nice.

[realtonygoodwin]

My big issue is with nation-building. He has made it clear he is opposed to nation-building. I don't have a big problem with war just because it is war. Sometimes I believe it is justified. (I'm not saying war with Iran is, btw)