Judge Napolitano Endorses Ron Paul, Slaughters Romney And Santorum-FoxBusiness.mp4

[manofreedom]

"The Judge" should be Ron Paul's running mate!!!!

[sstrunks5555]

(By the way just in case, that "one man" is Ron Paul) ;)

[wldeanml]

Who the fuck cares about marriage? Thats church and personal belief shit; has nothing to do with national law. Ban marriage from government and politics.

Ron Paul doesn't care about who gets married or not; he has more important shit to worry about.

('Diebold 1-Minute Hack' the only way to beat Ron Paul2012)

[DillonDee1]

Paul believes in leaving the question of gay marriage to the states.

Romney wants a US Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages in all states as that's what the Mormon Church wants

[charles43110]

Keep saying, (pass it on) YOU GOT RP GEAR? ON DAILY?  Are you seen in public daily in RP GEAR? Mall, stores, karaoke, bike rides, restaurant, events, SIGN WAVING? I go to BZ commercial intersections W/corn broom (sign on handle) & sweep sidewalks as PPL stopped at light see me. USA needs to SEA to SEA be seen RON PAULing. a MASSIVE NATIONAL PUBLIC PRESENSE so @ State PRIMARY Elections public will know PAUL's ELECTABLE

[GordonWayneWatts]

@charles43110 'RP' gear, 4 those that don't know = 'Ron Paul' gear, which (I would imagine) included things like shirts, hats, signs, etc. (But, more importantly: VOTES and our humble prayers & blessings.)

[christo930]

I like paul, but I disagree with him on his anti-abortion stance and his gay marriage stance. The last thing this country needs are scapegoats.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 What about Paul's gay marriage stance is bad to you? He not only supports 1-man-1-woman personally, but he also wants the Federal Government OUT of marriage altogether, which I infer you would agree with. (Right?) Also, since I infer you're a Christian like me, you accept Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44, which define an unborn person as a 'baby,' (KJV: 'babe'), not a blob of tissue. Killing is ONLY ok if in self-defense: Other then ectopic pregnancies, the unborn threatens no one's life.

[christo930]

@GordonWayneWatts He wants the states to have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation which is a problem with equal protection under the law. In a perfect world, I might agree with the anti-abortion views, but an unwanted pregnancy can ruin a woman's life and she should decide when and if she wants to have a baby. For the first trimester, at minimum, it is not a baby. Anyway, we have bigger problems than this.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 Re discrimination, I don't agree: If a state says they won't recognise gay marriages, it's no more offensive than if they say they won't recognise polygamy. But to say Paul is prejudiced or discriminates isn't correct: He doesn't hate gays, and (as a doctor) probably knows they were born with a tendency 2B gay (even if not born gay per se) After all, who would want to be gay & discriminated against: So no: Gays have some (but not much) choice in their sexual orientation / preference.

[christo930]

@GordonWayneWatts I agree with you on the polygamy thing, and I recognize that all of the arguments that can be made for gay marriage can be made for plural marriage, however, we aren't talking about plural marriages. I think we should draw the line of marriage at 2 human beings. Marriage has important legal consequences, it is the state that has made gay marriage necessary.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 - BTW, even tho I didn't reply to your 3rd abortion comments, I did want to let u know that I was able to read it -- as I get email notification of comments -- which I say as a courtesy -- Lastly, if you're so inclined (and agree that Dr Paul is the 'lesser of all evils' or what-not), remember: Today is 'Primary Tuesday,' -- at least in my state, so, if u concur, ... VOTE PAUL in the Primary and (if it gets this far) in the general election.

[christo930]

@GordonWayneWatts My primary isn't until March, if he is still in the race, I will most likely vote for him. Honestly, I think he could win every single primary and still not get the GOP nomination. The GOP would rather lose the election than back Paul.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 - Thank you for your support of the most sensible candidate. I do, however, (sadly) agree with you: The GOP probably WOULD rather lose than back Ron Paul, and Republicans are not the only evil people in our country, which is a chief reason why I am sure our country is in deep trouble with GOD Almighty for our sinful, greedy, selfish ways.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 Re abortion u make a good point that our world isn't perfect & that protecting life (as we'd do in a perfect world) isn't as easy. Indeed, population might soon be a threat to those that live & abortion might then justify legitimate self-defense of the world if it gets overpopulated. But as yet, overpopulation isn't a threat, so self-defense isn't a legitimate defense 4 abortion except maybe in ectopic pregnancies. In fact, abortion is usually a THREAT to the mother's life: RISKY!!

[christo930]

@GordonWayneWatts Giving birth has much more risk than abortions, that is not my opinion, it is a fact. The world is already over populated. Desertification, huge dead spots in the ocean, habitat loss, climate change, all of these are pointers that there are too many of us. In 1900, humans and their livestock made up 2% of vertebras on the earth, now it's 98% humans and their livestock.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 What about Paul's gay marriage stance is bad to you? He not only supports 1-man-1-woman personally, but he also wants the Federal Government OUT of marriage altogether, which I infer you would agree with. (Right?) Also, since I infer you're a Christian like me, you accept Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44, which define an unborn person as a 'baby,' (KJV: 'babe'), not a blob of tissue. Killing is ONLY ok if in self-defense: Other then ectopic pregnancies, the unborn threatens no one's life.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 What about Paul's gay marriage stance seems bad? He not only supports 1-man-1-woman personally, but he also wants the Federal Government OUT of marriage altogether. I infer you would agree with this. (Right?) Since I infer you're a Christian like me, you accept Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44, which define an unborn person as a 'baby,' (KJV: 'babe'), not a blob of tissue. Killing is ONLY ok if in self-defense: Other then ectopic pregnancies, the unborn threatens no one's life.

[christo930]

@GordonWayneWatts I am not a Christian, though I used to be. Leaving marriage to the states would involve too many problems and there would absolutely HAVE to be a federal marriage law concerning taxes, wills and other federal matters.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 - Thx 4 being honest, Christo, but honestly, who else was able to be a perfect role model & example other than Jesus of the Bible? Also, while people did write the Bible, it seems both historically, archaeologically, prophetically, and scientifically correct -as well as having good, solid common-sense morals in it -- and I would trust God would protect the Bible enough to make it usable to us. Even if you don't deserve Jesus, HE deserves YOU, so, for *His* sake & ours,... have faith.

[christo930]

@GordonWayneWatts I think that Jesus is an excellent example (most of the time) and I follow his example way more than most modern Christians. One of the reasons I moved away from Christianity was how UN-Christ-like the modern church is. From "prosperity gospel" to "faith healing" to how violent the Christian right has become, these were the first chinks in the armor of my faith. But I still try to follow the example set by Jesus, I wish Christians would do the same.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 In fact, Gandhi is said to have rejected Christianity -NOT because of Jesus (whom he admired, as do you), but because so-called 'Christians' DIDN'T follow Jesus --which I mention because you too reject the religion (on moral principle) because of its followers. However, I do believe you when you say you follow Jesus' example more so than 'Christians' (in quotes: They really AREN'T) --I'm sure you would take in homeless people as Isaiah 58:6-7 & Matthew 25:31-46 say --MOST would NOT.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 (part II) To clarify: If we're 2 believe Matthew 7:20-23 even so-called 'Christians who actually perform REAL miracles (not their claim here: I'm sure they wouldn't say they did if they didn't) even *those* miracle-working so-called 'Christians' DON'T get in to heaven obviously because their works (evil: They DIDN'T help the needy, homeless, hungry, naked, nor visit those in prison). I think you WILL make it 2 heaven. But why'd u say u'd only follow Jesus' example 'most' of the time?

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 typo -- i meant to ask: Why'd you say that ""I think that Jesus is an excellent example (most of the time)"" -- Is there something He did on occasion that was questionable?

[christo930]

@GordonWayneWatts Off the top of my head, I would say the scapegoating of the pigs. But overall I think Jesus is an excellent figure to try to emulate.

[GordonWayneWatts]

@christo930 ((""... scapegoating of the pigs."")) Huh?? You mean when Jesus gave permission for demons to enter a herd of pigs, thus making them go crazy & commit suicide (I mean: PIG-a-CIDE), when they went crazy & ran off a cliff??

But yes, thank you for giving Jesus credit where due: ((""@GordonWayneWatts Off the top of my head, I would say the scapegoating of the pigs. But overall I think Jesus is an excellent figure to try to emulate.""))

[wonderming1]

@christo930 RP is under fire from NOM on his stance on gay marriage.

[shadzrob123]

@christo930 he is not against gay marraige at all, he believes that it should be left to the individual to decide. He does not involve religion what so ever. He has a personal belief in marraige between man and women but he also infers that it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do in their personal life, including marraige!

[GordonWayneWatts]

@shadzrob123 Thx - worth repeating! -- You said, and I quote:

((""@christo930 he is not against gay marraige at all, he believes that it should be left to the individual to decide. He does not involve religion what so ever. He has a personal belief in marraige between man and women but he also infers that it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do in their personal life, including marraige!

shadzrob123 3 hours ago""))

[christo930]

@shadzrob123 That isn't true, RP believes the individual states have the rights not specifically granted to the federal government and that would include marriage. He has specifically stated that a state should have the right to define marriage within it's borders. We can't have a hodgepodge of laws like this, we need 1 law for marriage.

[shadzrob123]

@christo930 Fail. It is the right of the individual to decide. The Bill of Rights and the American Constitution do not accliam one specific religion, nor does it specalise faith to marraige. It is for the people to decvide on marraige. You do not need one law for marraige, if you believe in freedom and liberty than you cannot possibly believe in one law defining marraige, totally unrealistic!

[christo930]

@shadzrob123 Let's say NY has legal gay marriages and DE doesn't. A nyc gay couple gets a credit card, but the bank is headquartered in DE. The way it works for banking is that the laws of De are applied. The NYC couple divorces, can they go after the spouse who isn't legally a spouse in DE? This is just 1 of a million probs of having a different definition of marriage in every state. I am also very much against polygamy (it causes violence in society), so do we want polygamy legal in a state