# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Steve Deace

## SchleckBros

Listen Here: http://stevedeace.com/steve-deace-live/

Tweet (@SteveDeaceShow): 
"Tonight on the show...is Thomas Woods correct, should I endorse #Ron Paul? Call 877-655-6755 from 9-Midnight EST. http://www.tomwoods.com/steve/ "

Email: steve@stevedeace.com

----------


## Okie RP fan

Call the man

----------


## bluesc

CALL HIM! He is going to get a ton of negative calls from SoCons, but he wants to remain relevant in Iowa. Dammit someone call. 

I totally wish Ron did the interview now. "Sanoturm guy" 

Seriously, this guy has some pull with the Iowa SoCons.

----------


## trey4sports

I hope Steve would endorse him, but I'm not holding my breath.

----------


## sailingaway

I think he's not likely to from what he has said, but I see no reason he'd be hostile, either. I'd like him to, obviously.   He is concerned about foreign policy, so make sure if you call and it comes up that you make it clear Ron would protect America.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I hope so!  You think out-of-state people should call?

----------


## Fermli

There better be some damn good callers.

----------


## bluesc

> I hope so!  You think out-of-state people should call?


Sure. Might make him realize the power of Paulites. Iowans are preferable though.

----------


## musicmax

Why isn't Paul himself doing this interview?

----------


## bluesc

> I think he's not likely to from what he has said, but I see no reason he'd be hostile, either. I'd like him to, obviously.   He is concerned about foreign policy, so make sure if you call and it comes up that you make it clear Ron would protect America.


He loves Tom Woods. Maybe Tom should call in.

----------


## No Free Beer

Iowans...

YOU CAN DO IT!!!!

for force of freedom is with you

----------


## unknown

Whos this guy?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Call.

And do not be rude for goodness sake!!! No cussing, no conspiracies, none of that.

Bring up that fact that Ron has the only abortion solution. (if you don't know it, research it)

And make this clear on foreign policy: Ron will protect us from imminent attack, Congress will decide if we go to war, Ron will make the Navy stronger and secure the border, Ron voted for SDI

And on Israel: Paul was one of the few to defend Israel in 1981 after they bombed Iraq

----------


## bluesc

"I'm confident this is the first time (my endorsement) has been solicited by someone smarter than me"

Come on guys. He's talking up Tom Woods again.

----------


## bluesc

> Whos this guy?


Influential Iowa evangelical.

----------


## unknown

Ah oh, here we go.

----------


## Fermli

good show so far. He's playing a long Tom Woods video over the air.

----------


## wgadget

Are you guys listening? 

I just emailed him at steve@stevedeace.com


DO IT.

----------


## wgadget

> I hope Steve would endorse him, but I'm not holding my breath.


He's asking for your opinion. Give it to him!

----------


## evadmurd

Uh, the comments on the link above are weeks old?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...or-ron-paul-2/

----------


## SchleckBros

> Uh, the comments on the link above are weeks old?


Yes they are, but the show is live on the air in Iowa right now.

----------


## bluesc

> Uh, the comments on the link above are weeks old?


It's the live stream page. He's ASKING people ACROSS AMERICA to call in.

"Should I follow Tom's advice, should I endorse Ron Paul?"

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Talking point: Ron Paul is the only candidate that has an abortion solution and wants to give marriage back to the church. Everyone else wants to tell Israel what to do.

----------


## unknown

Appeal to emotion?  It was fact based...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Something weird with the live listening widget on his site.

----------


## Echoes

Tom Woods is an exceptional communicator.

----------


## bluesc

He's taking calls next. I hope some of you guys are calling in.

----------


## bluesc

> I hope so!  You think out-of-state people should call?


Follow up: He said people across America should call in.

----------


## wgadget

> Something weird with the live listening widget on his site.


Try this:


http://www.talk920.com/

----------


## wgadget

> Follow up: He said people across America should call in.


He's also taking Tweets and emails.

The email address is: steve@stevedeace.com

----------


## lucent

From my experience as a listener of Deace, it is best to argue from an economic point of view.

----------


## RestoreTheRepublic

I'm pretty removed the local media in Iowa, so does this guy have a pretty big audience?

Is he well-known/does he have clout among the Republican electorate?

----------


## SchleckBros

"He's crazy enought to do it."

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

CTRL-ALT-DELETE

----------


## AlexG

Is Ron Paul moral? lol he's the most moral guy running

----------


## bluesc

> I'm pretty removed the local media in Iowa, so does this guy have a pretty big audience?
> 
> Is he well-known/does he have clout among the Republican electorate?


If he endorses, we win. <<< My prediction and opinion, not trying to make people complacent

----------


## Matthew Zak

I emailed him. 




> His foreign policy is the most efficient in protecting America by concentrating it's purpose in defending this country and not acting as another nation's or organization's muscle. Furthermore, we need someone dependable in these dire times and Ron Paul is the most consistent and principled man who's run for president since the late 1700's. He's been married for 50 years, has raised generations of healthy and successful people, and has always been consistent in his voting record. If you could love someone you've never met, you would love Ron Paul. Thank you.
> 
> Matt, from MN.

----------


## unknown

> Is Ron Paul moral? lol he's the most moral guy running


So Steve spun that to mean that while he's consistent, is it a consistency that's moral...

----------


## Echoes

> Is Ron Paul moral? lol he's the most moral guy running


As if it's debatable...

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Chuck Baldwin Loves Ron Paul... enuff enuff

Have Chuck call in... now that would be "CRAFTY"

----------


## AlexG

Wait this guy is a social christian conservative and he has a "man-crush" on Tom Woods? He must be one of those "new, hip, edgy" christians

----------


## Echoes

He's sweating Nullification, bigtime.

----------


## unknown

Good question, 40%???

----------


## Fermli

even if he doesn't endorse, spending so much of his radio show on this is good publicity.

----------


## AlexG

I think this guy is leaning toward endorsing Ron Paul

----------


## unknown

WTH???

----------


## SchleckBros

> Wait this guy is a social christian conservative and he has a "man-crush" on Tom Woods? He must be one of those "new, hip, edgy" christians


You'd have to listen to his past interviews with Tom Woods to understand truly why he likes him.

----------


## unknown

> You'd have to listen to his past interviews with Tom Woods to understand truly why he likes him.


So what do you think, is it gonna be RP?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Good question, 40%???


 That was me   Did I sound good or stupid?

----------


## Kords21

Just tuned in, has he said what the 40% that he seems to have a problem with is? I'm guessing foreign policy

----------


## lucent

Deace wants big government solutions to abortion and gay marriage. Best to inform him that presidents do not sign constitutional amendments.

----------


## SchleckBros

> That was me   Did I sound good or stupid?


+rep

----------


## helmuth_hubener

He just told me that he would get to exactly what that 40% is later in the show, because it's going to suck all the oxygen out of the room.

----------


## bluesc

> Just tuned in, has he said what the 40% that he seems to have a problem with is? I'm guessing foreign policy


Probably DADT, abortion, Israel and Iran.

----------


## wgadget

I wonder if Deace has read "THE LAW" yet?

----------


## wgadget

> That was me   Did I sound good or stupid?


You done good!  Thanks, bro.

----------


## lucent

> Probably DADT, abortion, Israel and Iran.


DADT and abortion, I don't think he disagrees with Paul necessarily on Israel or Iran.

----------


## AlexG

> That was me   Did I sound good or stupid?


You were great, you didn't come off as a Paul fanatic. You brought up some valid points about the others and basically left him with "Ron Paul is our only hope"

----------


## Echoes

> He just told me that he would get to exactly what that 40% is later in the show, because it's going to suck all the oxygen out of the room.


You did excellent. As did the previous 2 callers.

----------


## unknown

> That was me   Did I sound good or stupid?


You sounded good.  

I was Bobby, howd I sound?

----------


## Jovan Galtic

My take - he already told Tom Woods he will endorse Ron Paul.

They are just making the show of it...

----------


## bluesc

> DADT and abortion, I don't think he disagrees with Paul necessarily on Israel or Iran.


Definitely did when Doug Wead or Tom Woods was on.

----------


## bluesc

> My take - he already told Tom Woods he will endorse Ron Paul.
> 
> They are just making the show of it...


And some money. If that's the case, it's fine by me!

----------


## unknown

Did RP "solicit" Tom Woods or has Tom gravitated to RP?

----------


## lucent

> Did RP "solicit" Tom Woods or has Tom gravitated to RP?


They are joking.

----------


## Kords21

Woods is laying the smackdown!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Thanks!  I've listened to myself on the radio afterwards before and thought I sounded kind of stupid and used filler words (umm) too much.

----------


## wgadget

> And some money. If that's the case, it's fine by me!


That's what I emailed him:  "Think of the ratings!"

----------


## unknown

No stupid.  States cant violate the Constitution.

----------


## AJ187

Who the hell was that guy?

----------


## Fermli

wow, first anti-Paul caller... quite the ignorant comments.




> No stupid.  States cant violate the Constitution.


the constitution does not apply to the states.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You sounded good.  
> 
> I was Bobby, howd I sound?


 Bobby.... which one were you?  I only heard two callers because the widget was repeating on me.

----------


## SchleckBros

I thought murder was a state law.

----------


## Okie RP fan

I just tuned in, are they making fun of Ron Paul's support?

People better be calling in. I can't at the moment.

----------


## AlexG

I dont think I've ever heard a radio show with so many commercials

----------


## bluesc

Need moar callers.

----------


## matt0611

> wow, first anti-Paul caller... quite the ignorant comments.
> 
> 
> 
> the constitution does not apply to the states.


There are parts in the constitution that say what states can't do...

States can't outlaw guns either. 

So...it does apply to the states right?

I'm pretty sure all the amendments apply to the state governments as well the federal government.

----------


## lucent

Someone want to tell him that the Constitution does not grant the presidency any enforcement powers and only gives Congress very limited enforcement powers.

----------


## TXcarlosTX

Is the show still on? Ill call in from TEXAS!  We dont play down here

----------


## Echoes

That caller was right. If the federal govt isnt gonna intervene in stopping a massacre of innocent life, then there's fundamentally really no reason to have a federal govt (which im open to).

----------


## unknown

> Bobby.... which one were you?  I only heard two callers because the widget was repeating on me.


I was the guy who said that we as an electorate have to judge politicians on actions not rhetoric.  I didnt wanna call them liars, so the broad said it.

----------


## ord33

Did that caller essentially say that Ron Paul wasn't strong on right to life? Even after Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which defines life as beginning at conception? Someone should bring this up to him on the air/e-mail in my opinion. 

Maybe I misunderstood the caller though regarding what he was talking about on the 10th amendment?

----------


## Fermli

BEST CALLER YET. THANK YOU THANK YOU!

----------


## Okie RP fan

Nice job, Dave.

----------


## zHorns

Awesome caller!

----------


## Kords21

I like this Dave caller

----------


## TXcarlosTX

what is the call in number!?! my audio isnt working.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Current caller did a pretty good job.

----------


## zHorns

Dave is my hero.

----------


## unknown

> what is the call in number!?! my audio isnt working.


877-655-6755

----------


## bluesc

Here comes the DADT talk.

----------


## undergroundrr

Last caller couldn't have been better.

----------


## Kords21

Another commercial break? This is worse than Hannity as far as breaks go and that's saying something

----------


## pauliticalfan

Major props to that last caller, whoever you are. Fantastic.

----------


## bluesc

Dave are you here? I love you.

----------


## evadmurd

Dave here...thanks guys.

----------


## wgadget

Dang, this society needs to become reacquainted with the Common Law theories. 

1.  I will do all that I agree to do.
2.  I will not encroach on other people or their property.

It's really pretty simple.

----------


## sailingaway

> Probably DADT, abortion, Israel and Iran.


there is no one more pro life than Ron, and Ron's solution vis a vis Iran is the right one.

----------


## Polskash

Mr. Deace,

I'll keep this sweet and to the point.

-Ron Paul has been married to his wife for over 50 years. He is a humble Christian man who demonstrates character of the highest order. He is a personal role model of mine and for many others. 

-Ron Paul follows in Christ's footsteps in opposing the use of coercion to solve moral problems such as gambling, drug abuse, and prostitution. Christ routinely dealt with these people during his ministry and never once attempted to save anyone through force. Only a fallible human race would presume to think that it could make immoral people moral through violence when the only infallible person to have ever lived never did even attempted to do so.

-Ron Paul's experience as an obstetrician who delivered 4,000+ babies speaks for itself. Ron Paul has the wisdom to understand that the abortion problem in this country (and around the world for that matter) is, at the root, a problem of godlessness and immorality.

-Ron Paul opposes the notion that marriage even falls under the purview of earthly governments. It is long overdue that the institution of marriage be restored as a covenant between a man, woman, and God and not a contract between a man, woman, and the State (or a man, man, and the State, or possibly a man, animal, and the State in the future). The tax code needs to be abolished in its entirety but the codes dealing with marriage need to be eliminated immediately. Other arrangements, such as guardianship in emergency medical situations, need to be handled through private arrangements.

I and many others support Ron Paul because it's the right thing to do. For Christians who adhere to natural rights ethics (as given to us by God), there are no other considerations that matter.

Kind Regards,

Peter

----------


## Okie RP fan

People who aren't calling in, email him! 

Does this Steve Deace guy have that much influence in Iowa?

----------


## wgadget

> Dave here...thanks guys.


You're awesome!

----------


## bluesc

> there is no one more pro life than Ron, and Ron's solution vis a vis Iran is the right one.


Tell Deace that!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

How can he be pro-nullification and anti-tenth amendment?  Does not compute.

Anyway, the last one I heard (I think it's close to live now) brought up that his issue with Paul is the Life issue, because he's a 10th Amendment guy, and if you live by the 10 Am. sword, you die by the 10th Am. sword.  That was the main point.

So I think the good point to bring up in reply to this would be "Ron Paul is the ONLY one who was actually presented and sincerely tried to repeal Roe vs. Wade.  He's the ONLY one who has done anything REAL in regards to being pro-life for the last 30 years.  Everyone gives good speeches about how pro-life they are, but where's the results?  Abortion is still legal.  With Ron Paul's bill, states will be able to ban abortion, without having to go through some decades-long process"  Somehow maybe you'd have to make it shorter.

----------


## bluesc

> Dave here...thanks guys.


You're an awesome person.

----------


## wgadget

I hope someone brings up the Christian Just War theory, if he wants to argue about Iran.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Dave here...thanks guys.


+rep

----------


## RDM

> People who aren't calling in, email him! 
> 
> Does this Steve Deace guy have that much influence in Iowa?


Very much. His listening audience is about 2/3 of the state.

----------


## unknown

> Dave here...thanks guys.


I was thinkin how I would have responded.  I woulda gotten tripped up on the whole God, freedom, DADT.

Man, I need to hear it again.     I need to get my rhetoric down.

----------


## AlexG

> Very much. His listening audience is about 2/3 of the state.


Iowa must not have TV

----------


## bluesc

> Iowa must not have TV


Iowa must have a lot of SoCons. He has a lot of influence.

----------


## rideurlightning

> There are parts in the constitution that say what states can't do...
> 
> States can't outlaw guns either. 
> 
> So...it does apply to the states right?
> 
> I'm pretty sure all the amendments apply to the state governments as well the federal government.


Originally, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Each state had their own. See Baron V. Baltimore. But yeah, the Civil War Amendments $#@!ed everything over.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Know your audience. This is an evangelical, pro-life, pro-Israel show. Dave did a good job with that. 

My one criticism is the remark about sending missiles into Iran. Probably best to avoid controversial areas like foreign policy, and focus on where this guy really agrees with Ron.

----------


## unknown

Airing Romney's dirt, nice.

----------


## bluesc

Wow, this guy hates Romney, huh?

----------


## unknown

Huckabee?  Mannn, come on.

----------


## Bruno

Huckster?  Hmmm....

----------


## Kords21

I somehow doubt that Huckabee will be pushing for a Ron Paul endorsement

----------


## bluesc

> Huckabee?  Mannn, come on.


He's gonna bash Ron hard. Probably heard this and called in to do exactly that.

----------


## matt0611

Who does Deace currently support? Santorum?

----------


## RDM

> Iowa must not have TV


What I meant to say is 2/3 of the state can tune into his show because they are in coverage area. Not saying everyone listens but he has huge following.

----------


## wgadget

Don't forget that GOD HIMSELF gave us free choice.  Having the government enforcing our "free choice" at the point of a gun is not really freedom.

----------


## evadmurd

> Probably best to avoid controversial areas like foreign policy, and focus on where this guy really agrees with Ron.


Yeh, I thought about that, but I felt it to be somewhat pre-emptive (how ironic is that), as I think the whole Iran thing is in his 40%.  I wanted to use it as an example of it not being ok to do what God hasn't given us the right to do.  Thanks for comment.

----------


## Bruno

Tom Woods - True Patriot

----------


## Okie RP fan

Is Huckabee calling in tonight? Or is that for a later segment?

----------


## bluesc

> Is Huckabee calling in tonight? Or is that for a later segment?


Tonight. He probably wanted to bash Ron to prevent the endorsement.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Tonight. He probably wanted to bash Ron to prevent the endorsement.


Right. I just wanted to make sure I heard that right. Let's just sit back and listen. 

In the meantime, thank you, Tom!

----------


## Kords21

Huckabee is going to come out with guns blazing, he has to try to stop the Paulmentum in Iowa

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I was the guy who said that we as an electorate have to judge politicians on actions not rhetoric.  I didnt wanna call them liars, so the broad said it.


 Oh yeah!  I did hear you.  You did really well, and gave them something to laugh about. 

"For a long time, the politicians have been doing something traditionally known as......"

"Lying?"

Ha, ha, ha!

----------


## tsetsefly

Did he endorse Paul? im too lazy to read all 13 pages...

----------


## Bruno

Do the right thing, Steve!

----------


## unknown

> He's gonna bash Ron hard. Probably heard this and called in to do exactly that.


ikr

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Did he endorse Paul? im too lazy to read all 13 pages...


Not yet. People are calling in trying to push for the endorsement. However, Huckabee is supposed to be on sometime soon.

----------


## TXcarlosTX

> 877-655-6755


gracias!

----------


## steve7

I sent him two emails. One letting him know to endorse Ron Paul and that I a veteran. Another with the picture of the group of marines deployed in afghanistan wearing veterans for ron paul tshirts.

----------


## sailingaway

> He's gonna bash Ron hard. Probably heard this and called in to do exactly that.


What he has been doing is calling Ron 'libertarian' implying but not saying that he is libertine, which is incredible when you know Ron's personal history.  Then he calls MB and S the 'real conservatives'.  But even though Deace was a huge force behind Huck's win, I'm not sure that influence goes the other way, now that there is a different slate of candidates.  Honestly, Huck doesn't have nearly the economic credentials Ron does.

----------


## bluesc

> What he has been doing is calling Ron 'libertarian' implying but not saying that he is libertine, which is incredible when you know Ron's personal history.  Then he calls MB and S the 'real conservatives'.  But even though Deace was a huge force behind Huck's win, I'm not sure that influence goes the other way, now that there is a different slate of candidates.  Honestly, Huck doesn't have nearly the economic credentials Ron does.


Huck has the influence over Deace's audience though. He'll be able to pressure him out of it.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I'd like to amend my previous post.

Snaggletooth is going to say that Ron Paul is a LibAtarian running as a Republican.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> I sent him two emails. One letting him know to endorse Ron Paul and that I a veteran. Another with the picture of the group of marines deployed in afghanistan wearing veterans for ron paul tshirts.


I sent an email with a few points and a link to the "Christian Just War Theory" link.

----------


## steve7

Did he endorse Ron Paul? I sent him two emails.

----------


## specsaregood

@SteveDeaceShow#RonPaul has swayed more young people to the pro-life cause than any other politician in my lifetime.

----------


## McChronagle

am i listening to a delayed stream? or did they just discuss abortion with caleb

----------


## TXcarlosTX

im on hold. i hope i dont $#@! it up

----------


## AlexG

Theological questions? ouch let's stay away from that

----------


## unknown

> am i listening to a delayed stream? or did they just discuss abortion with caleb


Live.  A few of us just called in.

----------


## bluesc

> im on hold. i hope i dont $#@! it up


Good luck dude! 

4000 babies! No abortions! Worked for church hospital!

----------


## AlexG

> am i listening to a delayed stream? or did they just discuss abortion with caleb


You have to refresh your browser or its gonna repeat.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> am i listening to a delayed stream? or did they just discuss abortion with caleb


"Owen" just finished.




> im on hold. i hope i dont $#@! it up


Don't be nervous, you're going to do great! Just watch out for the religious "gotcha" questions that this Deace guy is trying to pin on some people.

----------


## unknown

> im on hold. i hope i dont $#@! it up


Stick to what you know.  I get lost on constitutional/states/God.  

Steve seems to have some knowledge.  Wheres Tiom Woods?

Whys he like Tom Woods so much?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I must still be behind, I'm just barely getting to Dave...

Yes, Dave, nice calm voice.  Jen is helping out with the point about giving more aid to their enemies.  Good job knowing the exact figures, Dave (7 billion, 10 billion), that's impressive.  So the Israel Point was won, I'd say.  After that Deace was pretty tough on Dave, asking him unexpected questions veering off this way and that, but he held it together.

----------


## Canderson

> im on hold. i hope i dont $#@! it up


most military donations!!!!!

----------


## bluesc

> most military donations!!!!!


THIS. More than all other candidates, and Obama put together.

----------


## unknown

Use the term *"foreign welfare"*. Do it!!!

----------


## Canderson

supported israel by condemning the congress which passed a vote of condemnation against israel for bombing iraq in 1981

----------


## TXcarlosTX

I'm doing philosophy vs the status qou

----------


## steve7

All I hear are commercial ads.

----------


## bluesc

> I'm doing philosophy vs the status qou


If he moves to Israel or abortion.. Israel state-funded abortions, and we subsidize it.

----------


## specsaregood

> Use the term *"foreign welfare"*. Do it!!!


you mean us taxpayer money funding abortions in israel?

----------


## evadmurd

> im on hold. i hope i dont $#@! it up


Relax and speak from the heart.  Just talk about what you know.  Don't be like Ron and try to cram too much in!

----------


## TXcarlosTX

$#@!!!! its a bunch of church stuff. im going to get killed!!!! ehhhh

----------


## Canderson

> im on hold. i hope i dont $#@! it up


you cant legislate morality. Those who act immorally will be punished by god and fate, not the government

----------


## specsaregood

> If he moves to Israel or abortion.. Israel state-funded abortions, and we subsidize it.


bingo, every woman in israel is guaranteed a free or inexpensive abortion if they meet any 1 of 4 criteria.  and we help fund it with our foreign aid.

----------


## Canderson

> $#@!!!! its a bunch of church stuff. im going to get killed!!!! ehhhh


you cant legislate morality, immortality will be punished by fate and god, not by government

----------


## Canderson

> you mean us taxpayer money funding abortions in israel?


SAY THIS

----------


## matt0611

> you cant legislate morality, immortality will be punished by fate and god, not by government


Yeah, this is good.

----------


## pauliticalfan

If you don't think he'll like what you have to say, maybe don't reference RP explicitly?

----------


## pauliticalfan

Ugh.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> $#@!!!! its a bunch of church stuff. im going to get killed!!!! ehhhh


Do NOT argue from a non-religious perspective, please! That's his problem with Ron Paul and libertarians! You need to make a Christian, biblical case for Ron Paul.

"You can't legislate morality" is a bad approach!

(PS: Good luck )

----------


## specsaregood

> SAY THIS


Source:
hxxp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/abort1.html



> A 1977 law ensures a *low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion* to any woman who fills one of four criteria: 
> 
> She is under 18 or over 40 (cost to those in between: 1,500 shekels [$370]). 
> 
> She is carrying a fetus with a serious mental or physical defect (free). 
> 
> She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband's (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay. 
> 
> She shows that by continuing the pregnancy, her physical or mental health would be damaged (free). 
> ...

----------


## sailingaway

People who aren't socially conservative might not be the best ones to call in.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Oh man, I should have talked about abortion after all.  I hope someone can win the abortion point by the end.  Ron Paul is STRONGLY PRO-LIFE.  He's just not thinking rationally.  I would ask: what pro-life actions would any of the candidates take which Ron Paul would not?  There are no such actions!

----------


## lucent

Ask him if he wants a world government to ban abortion in Israel.

----------


## TomtheTinker

prediction:There will be no endorsement from this guy.

----------


## unknown

This guy's pro war?

----------


## pauliticalfan

Jesus and Ayn Rand? Are you kidding me?

----------


## Okie RP fan

If he brings up abortion, bring up Dr. Paul's experience in the hospital room. You should hopefully know what I am talking about.

----------


## evadmurd

@SteveDease;Libertarianism is not 'no gov't'-that's anarchism. Gov't's job is to protect our right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

----------


## pauliticalfan

Yeah, no endorsement from this guy.

----------


## AlexG

Oh boy here's the all muslims are evil rant

----------


## helmuth_hubener

We have crashed his live player!

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Yeah, no endorsement from this guy.


Yep... Here we go with homosexuality now.

----------


## Shane Harris

> prediction:There will be no endorsement from this guy.


yep. pronounced "lost cause". he said every government is a theocracy. and that government must reward good and punish evil, someone tell him to read "the law"

----------


## unknown

I would like to hear the tape of that.

----------


## evadmurd

> This guy's pro war?


As is most of the evangelical church.  Sometimes I'm embarrassed be part of it.

----------


## Kords21

I would be surprised if this guy endorses Paul. This just sounds like he's justifying why he's not going to endorse Paul.

----------


## bluesc

OK, we're done.

----------


## TXcarlosTX

they ran out of time, mike huck is next. at least they told me i wasnt going to make it

----------


## Okie RP fan

Game plan now?

Never mind, Huckabee is on next. 

Well, email and Twitter this guy with Ron's religious stand points!

----------


## AlexG

> Yeah, no endorsement from this guy.


He already said that there's 40% were he disagreed, I dont think he would spend all this time talking about Ron Paul just not to endorse him. I think he's going to listen to Huckabee but still endorse Paul

----------


## matt0611

There's no way he's endorsing Paul guys...

----------


## TomtheTinker

Rand Paul needs to call in..or doug weed.

----------


## LibertyEsq

Might have been a mistake to have people call in unprepared.

----------


## bluesc

> Rand Paul needs to call in..or doug weed.


Doug Wead wasn't great when he was on the show. Tom should.

----------


## SchleckBros

He needs to read this http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/governm...like-a-fiddle/

----------


## AlexG

I swear if Huckabee trashes Ron there will be hell

----------


## bluesc

> I swear if Huckabee trashes Ron there will be hell


Of course he will.

----------


## Kords21

The only reason the Mullah's stay in power in Iran is because they can use the US as a rallying point for thier people. If the US said "Okay Iran, you got oil, we'll buy it, do what you want", I think the mullah's power would crumble overnight. Our foreign policy keeps us hated and our enemies in power.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Rand Paul needs to call in..or doug weed.


Chuck Baldwin needed to call in...

----------


## Okie RP fan

> I swear if Huckabee trashes Ron there will be hell


We can't act in the manner they will be expecting. 

Let's take it in stride.

----------


## AJ187

I didn't realize war was such a pillar of Christianity.  What a waste of time.....

----------


## evadmurd

Don't think they are not watching this thread.

----------


## lucent

> His premise is wrong.  He buys into the propaganda.  They dont hate us "for our freedoms".  Come on man.  
> 
> Now F*ckabee...


He's not saying that all. He is saying they hate us because we aren't Muslims.

----------


## ord33

In response to Steve Deace's comments about DADT and homosexuality I wrote this in an e-mail:





> Hi Steve,
> 
> I’m really enjoying the show so far.
> 
> I would like to make a follow up comment if I may regarding the last caller when you asked him about repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. You may have noticed that he mentioned the Senate already voted (93-7) to allow such despicable acts such as beastiality in Senate Bill 1867. 
> 
> This was part of a bigger bill that had at its core the ability for the government to detain US citizens on US soil for “suspicion of terrorist activities” without a right to a trial, any evidence being shown, and be held indefinitely. In the Republicans (and Democrats) haste to push through this legislation they failed to realize there was a provision in the bill that repeals Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)     which: not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.
> 
> Senator Rand Paul was one of only 3 Republicans voting against this bill – the others being Tom Coburn and Mike Lee. I have no doubt that Ron Paul would have voted the same way – as he as already spoken out against the bill.
> ...

----------


## bluesc

> He's not saying that all. He is saying they hate us because we aren't Muslims.


Same thing.

----------


## matt0611

> Chuck Baldwin needed to call in...


This.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> Chuck Baldwin needed to call in...


Yea...+1 to that

----------


## Bama Boy

Santorum endorsement  wouldn't hurt us.  Split up newts vote more

----------


## Bruno

40%?  Really?  You weight those issues that heavily?  

1) Ron Paul would go to war with Iran if the Congress authorized it or we were attacked.  

2) Why do you care if Ron Paul thinks homosexuality is a sin as the President of the United States?  What are you looking to do to homosexuals that you need a Presidential authority to do?

----------


## Echoes

Hucks gonna trash ron.

----------


## bluesc

> Hucks gonna trash ron.


Don't listen.

----------


## RDM

> Might have been a mistake to have people call in unprepared.


It's always a mistake. I wish people would understand their weakness and strength when calling into these shows and not do it without being prepared. Does more harm than good.

----------


## unknown

> He's not saying that all. He is saying they hate us because we aren't Muslims.


Either way he's wrong.  Theres no reason why we cant trade and dialogue in peace...

----------


## Bruno

> Hucks gonna trash ron.


Yeah, as someone said earlier, this was almost a set up for the inevitable decision he has already made.  

And I'm leaning towards, "I'm going to vote for a war monger who hates gays instead."

----------


## Canderson

If I had long distance on my phone plan Id call in now that the segments over and say:

"Hi Steve, I just wanted to call in and tell you thank you for discussing him seriously. Its nice to see someone in the media address Paul rather than ignore or immediately write him off. Thank you for the substantive discussion."

----------


## evadmurd

> In response to Steve Deace's comments about DADT and homosexuality I wrote this in an e-mail:


+rep

----------


## helmuth_hubener

No, there were no real mistakes made.  I basically knew what he disagreed with Paul on (he played the homosexuality is not a sin clip when Tom Woods was on last time) but I figured I'd "build on common beliefs".  Should have attacked right to the heart of the abortion/homosexuality/etc. issues.  Because he just is not thinking clearly.  What pro-gay actions would Ron Paul take as President?  What pro-abortion actions would Ron Paul take?  There just are no such actions.  He'd be as pro-life, pro-traditional values, pro-family, as any candidate, and I would say much more so!  He wouldn't just be satisfied to say "oh, I'll appoint some good justices to the Supreme Court.... IF any retire.... and then MAYBE, in 20 YEARS they'll overturn Roe vs. Wade" like every other supposedly pro-life FAKE since the 60s.  He would actually do something pro-active to stop abortions immediately, via pushing his remove-the-jurisdiction act.

He just isn't thinking about the reality of what being president actually entails.

----------


## unknown

TPTB woke Huckabee up to have him call in.  This thread probably alerted them.

----------


## matt0611

I still don't get what his problem with Ron Paul is.

Does he want to outlaw homosexuality? If so, I don't see what his point is.

Ron is pro-life and is open to a constitutional amendment defining life at conception. So I don't see what his problem is here either.

Is it the non-interventionism? Does he just want to war on the whole religion of Islam? I don't get it...

----------


## TomtheTinker

So basically this guy believes Christians should be in a constant state of war with Muslims because in his mind they(Muslims) want to replace anybody different. As if every little Muslim worker bee wakes up in the morning with the goal to destroy groups of people they have never even seen before.

----------


## unknown

Wish God would send down a bolt of lightning at this dude for the commercials alone.

----------


## evadmurd

More abortions than ever???  Abortions are legal now thanks to Roe vs Wade!  WTH is he talking about.  Come on Huckster, make some sense when you speak.

----------


## pauliticalfan

Huckabee about to talk about the candidates and his forum. Oh boy.

----------


## specsaregood

> I still don't get what his problem with Ron Paul is.
> Does he want to outlaw homosexuality? If so, I don't see what his point is.


I suppose he thinks there needs to be a law against it otherwise he might be unable to resist the temptation to try it.  That is all I can figure; but it is confusing.  I know I don't need a law to keep me from doing it.

----------


## RDM

How can you be pro life and blow up innocent babies with drones over someone's religious beliefs if there is no imminent attack or threat?

----------


## unknown

How would getting rid of Roe v Wade be worse?  It legalized abortions...

WTF is Huckabee babbling about?

----------


## malkusm

> 40%?  Really?  You weight those issues that heavily?  
> 
> 1) Ron Paul would go to war with Iran if the Congress authorized it or we were attacked.  
> 
> 2) Why do you care if Ron Paul thinks homosexuality is a sin as the President of the United States?  *What are you looking to do to homosexuals that you need a Presidential authority to do?*


Plus. Freaking. Rep.

----------


## Echoes

> How can you be pro life and blow up innocent babies with drones over someone's religious beliefs if there is no imminent attack or threat?


The world is full of hypocrites, mainline republicans lead the pack.

----------


## specsaregood

> How would getting rid of Roe v Wade be worse?  It legalized abortions...
> WTF is Huckabee babbling about?


If you removed the abortion argument from the federal level, all those so-called pro-life politicians and organizations wouldn't be able to fundraise as effectively.  So ya know, it would be worse for those guys.

----------


## Tod

It sounds like Steve wants the US to be a theocracy, not understanding that if you create a theocracy, the people in control WILL force THEIR beliefs on people and it won't take long before Steve finds himself living under a religious tyranny that doesn't share his particular religious views.

THAT is something that the founding fathers understood.

----------


## malkusm

> How can you be pro life and blow up innocent babies with drones over someone's religious beliefs if there is no imminent attack or threat?


Someone should make a T-shirt which on the front says:

*100% Pro-Life*

And on the back says:

*=
50% Anti-Abortion
50% Anti-War*

----------


## evadmurd

Too bad this has turned into a Huckster-fest.

----------


## unknown

"Gotcha" questions.  Whatever.  A "gotcha" question is one that exposes Newt's lies and flip-flops.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I still don't get what his problem with Ron Paul is.
> 
> Does he want to outlaw homosexuality? If so, I don't see what his point is.
> 
> Ron is pro-life and is open to a constitutional amendment defining life at conception. So I don't see what his problem is here either.
> 
> Is it the non-interventionism? Does he just want to war on the whole religion of Islam? I don't get it...


 Yes, of course he wants to outlaw homosexuality.  The thing is, it's already illegal on a state level, and Ron Paul as President would take the let-Iowa-jail-gays-if-they-want position.  So what's the problem?

And as you say, Paul would be OK with the amendment, but more importantly the President is irrelevant to a constitutional amendment anyway!  So again, what's the problem?

There is no problem.  Ron Paul will accomplish actual *results* for his agenda better than anyone.  But Deace actually doesn't care so much about that.  What's the problem?  Paul doesn't give him the right *rhetoric*.  Paul doesn't spew forth the correct talking points and rhetoric and actively promote Christianity by wearing his religion on his sleeve.  Deace cares more about the posturing, the speeches, and the overall image of the candidate than the actual results in policy and culture.  That's it.  He values talk over walk, words over reality.

----------


## Inkblots

So, were there many good callers? I don't really have time to read 24 pages, but skimming through I saw some mentions of people being unprepared or trying to argue for Ron's positions from a secular point to an evangelical audience.

I wish I'd know this was happening, I would have liked to take a crack at calling in.  There are a lot of great arguments for Ron from a Biblical and Scholastic perspective.

----------


## AlexG

Mitt Romney, consistent? LMAO

----------


## Fermli

You're damn right, we're devoted!

----------


## LibertyEsq

"devoted followers" Huckabee didn't rip Ron and he had a chance. I don't think Huck is such a bad guy, he just doesn't agree with Ron on everything

he even ripped Perry

----------


## hammy

Huckabee just said Mitt Romney was CONSISTENT?

----------


## Okie RP fan

Ron Paul: "Devoted followers."

For Mitt Romney: "Consistent" as in consistent in his campaign... 

Santorum and Bachmann getting major props...

----------


## bluesc

> Huckabee just said Mitt Romney was CONSISTENT?


The people of Iowa disagree. It's fine. Deace HATES Romney, apparently.

----------


## AlexG

Rick Perry: "Nice try bud.." lol

----------


## SchleckBros

OMG. They're playing word association and these are the Hucksters answers...

Ron Paul - devoted followers

Mitt Romney - *consistent* 


The one word he uses to describe Romney is consistent

----------


## LibertyEsq

he meant consistent in terms of polling

----------


## RestoreTheRepublic

Yeah he said consistent for Mitt in terms of poll numbers, not in convictions

----------


## AJ187

> Huckabee just said Mitt Romney was CONSISTENT?


His consistency is his inconsistency.

----------


## ord33

Devoted followers - Huckabee on Ron Paul. Could have been much worse!

Said of Gingrich: "Surging" Romney: "Consistency (in polling) Perry: "Nice try" Bachmann: "Underestimated" Huntsman - I can't remember exactly but essentially meant no chance in the world.

----------


## Bruno

"Devoted followers"???  Huck, you suck.  

And Bachmann gets "underestimated"?  

Yeah, right!  Overestimated.  She has plummeted since her Randy Travis win.

----------


## hammy

Man I should've called in... dang it. I really thought someone was going to bring up Matthew 5:9 and the just war theory. And nobody mentioned the military donations?

----------


## AlexG

> Devoted followers - Huckabee on Ron Paul. Could have been much worse!
> 
> Said of Gingrich: "Surging" Romney: "Consistency (in polling) Perry: "Nice try" Bachmann: "Underestimated" Huntsman - I can't remember exactly but essentially meant no chance in the world.


Jon Huntsman: "Might as well go home"

----------


## Inkblots

> "Devoted followers"???  Huck, you suck.


What?  That's not insulting, it's true!  No need to be rude...

----------


## unknown

Thank God this is almost over.  G-damn commercials.

----------


## SchleckBros

We need to call in tomorrow.

----------


## bluesc

> "Devoted followers"???  Huck, you suck.  
> 
> And Bachmann gets "underestimated"?  
> 
> Yeah, right!  Overestimated.  She has plummeted since her Randy Travis win.


She's moving up in Iowa. With a Deace endorsement, along with Beck pushing her, she could be a threat to us in Iowa.

----------


## Echoes

Rofl @ his Perry comment

----------


## matt0611

> Yes, of course he wants to outlaw homosexuality.  The thing is, it's already illegal on a state level, and Ron Paul as President would take the let-Iowa-jail-gays-if-they-want position.  So what's the problem?
> 
> And as you say, Paul would be OK with the amendment, but more importantly the President is irrelevant to a constitutional amendment anyway!  So again, what's the problem?
> 
> There is no problem.  Ron Paul will accomplish actual *results* for his agenda better than anyone.  But Deace actually doesn't care so much about that.  What's the problem?  Paul doesn't give him the right *rhetoric*.  Paul doesn't spew forth the correct talking points and rhetoric and actively promote Christianity by wearing his religion on his sleeve.  Deace cares more about the posturing, the speeches, and the overall image of the candidate than the actual results in policy and culture.  That's it.  He values talk over walk, words over reality.


I'd have to say I agree with you. It makes perfect sense.

----------


## Feelgood

You know this whole abortion thing COULD be summed up this way....

What would you call what God did to the planet when Noah was cruising around in his little wooden yacht?

What would you call what God did to Job's family and friends?

Then of course there was Sodom and Gomorrah? 

And my all time favorite, the 10 plagues of Egypt. Number 10 was especially entertaining. 

Lastly, how bout what God *allowed* to happen to HIS own son? Granted, he cheated and brought him back, so that's a bit of a sticking point. 

My point is, even though abortion is horrendous and disgusting, retro-active abortions on a planetary scale et al, IMO, are as equally offensive. 

Just sayin'

----------


## Jovan Galtic

About war "against Islam" - ask him why the US helped, in fact - directly created two Islamic states in the heart of Europe? Here are American "allies" from Bosnia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJrNeZgnj7Y

It was not very "against Jihad" there... Is it anywhere?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So, were there many good callers? I don't really have time to read 24 pages, but skimming through I saw some mentions of people being unprepared or trying to argue for Ron's positions from a secular point to an evangelical audience.
> 
> I wish I'd know this was happening, I would have liked to take a crack at calling in.  There are a lot of great arguments for Ron from a Biblical and Scholastic perspective.


I didn't hear everyone, but those I heard did well.  If I would have been smart, I would have talked about nothing but abortion, preempting that ridiculous, ridiculous non-reason.  Ron Paul isn't pro-life enough?  Get real.

----------


## SchleckBros

We're "smart listeners"

----------


## matt0611

Randian == Anarchist? 
Uhhh no...

----------


## Inkblots

Skimming some more, I see this fellow was trying to hit Ron for saying homosexuality isn't a sin.  Did anyone point out to him that it ISN'T?  The homosexual sex act is indeed deemed sinful in Leviticus, but homosexuality is the condition of having a sexual attraction to members of the same sex; it's distinct from the act.  So, homosexuality is a _temptation_ to sin, but not a sin itself.

This is key: feeling tempted is not a sin.  Even Our Lord was tempted by the Enemy in the desert.  As a man, Jesus felt all the temptations and weaknesses we all experience.  But he did not sin, and subjected Himself to his Father's will in all things.

Therefore, Ron is Biblically correct, *homosexuality is not a sin*.

----------


## unknown

Calvanists and who?

----------


## SchleckBros

He said the only candidates he could vote for are Ron Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum.

----------


## zHorns

Wow.. decent closing!

We can't expect him to completely submit himself to Paul.

----------


## TomtheTinker

what did he just say at the end????

----------


## unknown

What a nut.

----------


## Bruno

> What?  That's not insulting, it's true!  No need to be rude...


I'm not going to apologize for being rude to Huckabee.  

It is true.  He didn't mean it as a positive, imo.  He chose to say Bachmann was "underestimated.  He meant to tie in with the "crazy supporters" meme.

----------


## LibertyEsq

well the ending sounded good to me.

----------


## RDM

You 50% that are the crazy supporters. Come out come out. Identify yourself.

----------


## evadmurd

> Calvanists and who?


anarchists

----------


## AlexG

> what did he just say at the end????


He said "before the Iowa Straw poll he would have voted for Paul because we need something extreme to fix our country but we also need to handle extremists in Iran. Ephesians 5:11"

----------


## pauliticalfan

Well color me confused.

----------


## TomtheTinker

^^^^

----------


## Canderson

did he just say hell probably vote for RP?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Skimming some more, I see this fellow was trying to hit Ron for saying homosexuality isn't a sin.  Did anyone point out to him that it ISN'T?  The homosexual sex act is indeed deemed sinful in Leviticus, but homosexuality is the condition of having a sexual attraction to members of the same sex; it's distinct from the act.  So, homosexuality is a _temptation_ to sin, but not a sin itself.
> 
> This is key: feeling tempted is not a sin.  Even Our Lord was tempted by the Enemy in the desert.  As a man, Jesus felt all the temptations and weaknesses we all experience.  But he did not sin, and subjected Himself to his Father's will in all things.
> 
> Therefore, Ron is Biblically correct, *homosexuality is not a sin*.


 Yes, Tom Woods hinted at that when he trotted out the clip.  Steve and the girls weren't impressed.

----------


## PeteinLA

I think that was good. I'm not really sure what that was. Wow, that is one crazy radio show. I'm originally from Iowa and I had no idea this thing even existed.

----------


## AlexG

> did he just say hell probably vote for RP?


He said he's down to Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul but he's open to hear the cases from Perry and Gingrich

----------


## bluesc

> He said the only candidates he could vote for are Ron Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum.


Just means we need to do more work. I'll write him a nice email with plenty of sourced info. I was gonna thank him for giving Ron a chance whether he endorsed him or not.

----------


## TomtheTinker

I think he said something about before Ames Ron was prob. his choice..but now its between Ron Bachmann & Santorum.

----------


## bluesc

> I think he said something about before Ames Ron was prob. his choice..but now its between Ron Bachmann & Santorum.


Probably the Iran comments.

----------


## Okie RP fan

So... 

He said his endorsement is down to Paul, Santorum, and Bachmann, and is willing to hear Gingrich and Perry? Why is he even willing to hear Gingrich after his morality talk? 

What the heck is this Deace guy about?

----------


## Bruno

> She's moving up in Iowa. With a Deace endorsement, along with Beck pushing her, she could be a threat to us in Iowa.


She would never be another threat to win, but I don't disagree that she could be a threat to make Ron Paul not get first, or even second.  But she really isn't getting enough traction, and I can't see the media trying to push her back again.  Been there, done that, and moved on for the most part.

----------


## ord33

I think that ending was pretty great myself. Steve definitely has areas he disagrees with Ron Paul, but I don't think anything he said at the end was out of line. Had a lot of praise about the intellectual Ron Paul supporters and their kindness. Also, about the "crazy" supporters. I can't really knock him too much on that. He was honest and spoke of his opinion and I don't think he bashed Ron Paul too much really. Between Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum according to him. My family (very strong Christian Conservatives) and I had this same exact discussion among those three candidates. One voted for Huckabee in 2008 and we talked for hours and now she is supporting Ron Paul over Santorum. The rest of my family came to the conclusion that Ron Paul has the best chance of those three. Talk about turning things upside down - using the Ron Paul most electable route!

----------


## RDM

Well Bachmann and Santorum are pro-life and pro-war and don't mind blowing up babies. They are probably closer to his hypocritical thinking.

----------


## unknown

> He said "before the Iowa Straw poll he would have voted for Paul because we need something extreme to fix our country but we also need to handle extremists in Iran. Ephesians 5:11"





> Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.  Ephesians 5:11 (NIV)


It doesnt say bomb Iran...

This dude forgot about Iraq already?

----------


## AJ187

My opinion is endorsements are nice but they are really just for people that can't do their own research due to laziness or plain ignorance.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I come to my anarchism from a moral perspective.  So there, Mr. Deace! :P

----------


## AJ187

> I come to my anarchism from a moral perspective.  So there, Mr. Deace! :P


I'm positive this guys doesn't understand the meaning of the word like you or I....

----------


## Inkblots

> I come to my anarchism from a moral perspective.  So there, Mr. Deace! :P


Ah, but are you a Calvinist?  Then you'd qualify under both of Mr. Deace's criteria.

----------


## tsetsefly

> About war "against Islam" - ask him why the US helped, in fact - directly created two Islamic states in the heart of Europe? Here are American "allies" from Bosnia:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJrNeZgnj7Y
> 
> It was not very "against Jihad" there... Is it anywhere?


This ^^^^^^^^^

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, of course he wants to outlaw homosexuality.  The thing is, it's already illegal on a state level, and Ron Paul as President would take the let-Iowa-jail-gays-if-they-want position.  So what's the problem?
> 
> And as you say, Paul would be OK with the amendment, but more importantly the President is irrelevant to a constitutional amendment anyway!  So again, what's the problem?
> 
> There is no problem.  Ron Paul will accomplish actual *results* for his agenda better than anyone.  But Deace actually doesn't care so much about that.  What's the problem?  Paul doesn't give him the right *rhetoric*.  Paul doesn't spew forth the correct talking points and rhetoric and actively promote Christianity by wearing his religion on his sleeve.  Deace cares more about the posturing, the speeches, and the overall image of the candidate than the actual results in policy and culture.  That's it.  He values talk over walk, words over reality.


Um, no, I do not believe it is 'illegal', I believe the question has to do with governmental sanction of gay marriage, not gayness being illegal.

----------


## sailingaway

I'm thinking of sending him that piece the Anti-Ron paper did about why Ron Paul would be missed at the Jewish forum.  It does point out that Ron would defend the country, just differently.

----------


## RonPauledbyYoutube

My e-mail to Steve, perhaps a little late though:

Subject: God & Israel, and Ron Paul

Hi Steve,

First off let me say that I am a Child of God and a citizen of His kingdom first then an American. I will always put the spiritual reality before this virtual reality we live on. Also, I want to make it clear that I support Ron Paul 100% for POTUS.

As a mature Christian, I have come to the realization that that the church has depended more on government to spread and impose morality by promoting laws and voting into office "decent" men instead of relying on the Power of the Holy Spirit that inhabits His church to spread the gospel to the lost and be the light in this dark world. I believe that by having Ron Paul in office and enforcing the constitution, the church would be pressed to show the Glory of God to the world by example and not by force. It would be up to the church to seek a revival of the fire of the Holy Spirit in the church, and by God, I know we can have a transformation to better the morality in this nation. Just like Ron Paul puts it, laws reflect a culture but a culture does not reflect the laws. The bible puts it this way in Galatians 3:19 "Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions...". And the church should understand this, Galatians 3:10 "Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” Do we want a righteous nation??? We must live by faith in God and not on the laws! I have come to understand that the world, the system, the beast, this Godless machine has gotten some Christians by the throat. It has got a stranglehold and the church is about to sophisticate in it.

Regarding foreign policy, it seems that to many Christians, foreign policy is defined by rhetoric on Israel (which is not our position as explained later). I wouldn't imagine any God fearing Christian advocating the killing of hundreds of thousands of human being and potentially brothers and sisters in Christ amongst them in order for us to maintain our "standard of living" (think oil). I wouldn't imagine any God fearing Christians advocating the funding of tyrannical regimes around the world by the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions of our hard earned dollars (can anyone say Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, China... the list is endless). I wouldn't imagine any God fearing Christians advocating the separation of fathers of children and sons and daughter of parents to have a military presence in over 150 nations in over 700 military bases for what, to maintain stability? I wouldn't imagine any God fearing Christians advocating the indiscriminate murder of American citizens living abroad because of "suspected" ties to "terrorism" (whatever that means anymore) without any sort of civil or military trial. Is that true??? Well it just happens that Ron Paul would work fearlessly to stop all this things. Ron Paul's foreign policy would stop all this foreign funding to tyranical regimes. Ron Paul would bring home our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, grandparents, and friends from all the corners of the world. Ron Paul will respect every human being (muslims, arabs, orientals, latinos, blacks, anglos) and would never ever order the assassination without offering them a fair trial (of course, when it is outside a theatre of DECLARED war). Now, I would imagine that God fearing Christians would advocate all of these things. So...

Here is where many Christians are turned off by Dr Paul's, his stance on Israel. I often hear God's promise on Israel: I will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel; implying of course that by remaining neutral (Ron Paul's policy) somehow that is equivalent to cursing Israel. I think the opposite has been true for decades now! And Ron Paul is right by pointing out that all our intervention in the middle east has done more harm than good to Israel. First off, the US sends more money to Israel's enemies than it does to Israel. In second place, our intervention in Israel's foreign policies has only emboldened her enemies because to often do we tie Israel's hands and incapacitate them militarily. I often wonder with the US messing with Israel, on what side of the equation are we going to end up? We might as well be working against Israel. I conclude so! I just pray God doesn't see that way, or we will end up in big trouble (not that we are not already!).

Now we know what prophecy says about Gog & Magog (Russia, Iran and axis of evil). The nations of the north, east, and south will gather to do war against Israel but who will save them? Who does the bible say will save them? God Himself will destroy the fighter jets, the missiles, the tanks, the carriers, the battleships, and the nations of the earth will fall because God Himself will strike them with His power? Now the question is, is the bible reliable? Is His prophecy reliable? Is God Himself reliable?  It seems to me that, as it is with many of our priorities in this world of vanity and lies, many Christians have forgotten who fights for Israel and have opted for US "protection" over His protection.

I think it is time for Christians to abandon this materialistically virtual experience we are so succumbed to and take a spiritual approach to what is happening to us as a nation morally, financially, and with our dealings with Israel.

In Christ,
Ruben

----------


## Jovan Galtic

As a devoted Christian, why doesn't Mr. Deace support persecuted Christians in Kosovo:




Should American Christians support and defend fellow Christians or just Israel/Jews...?

Will God bless the US for that?

----------


## evadmurd

From _The Message_, Ephesians 5:8-16.  A little context of a letter written to believers to encourage them to act like Christ.




> You groped your way through that murk once, but no longer. You're out in the open now. The bright light of Christ makes your way plain. So no more stumbling around. Get on with it! The good, the right, the truethese are the actions appropriate for daylight hours. Figure out what will please Christ, and then do it.
> 
> *Don't waste your time on useless work, mere busywork, the barren pursuits of darkness. Expose these things for the sham they are.* It's a scandal when people waste their lives on things they must do in the darkness where no one will see. Rip the cover off those frauds and see how attractive they look in the light of Christ.
> 
>    Wake up from your sleep,
>    Climb out of your coffins;
>    Christ will show you the light!
> So watch your step. Use your head. Make the most of every chance you get. These are desperate times!


5:11 is bold.  Not quite an endorsement to bomb Iran.

----------


## Esoteric

bump. important.

----------


## Okie RP fan

We need to email him throughout the rest of the week as well. Even if they are duplicates.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Well Bachmann and Santorum are pro-life and pro-war and don't mind blowing up babies. They are probably closer to his hypocritical thinking.


 Why do you think he's hypocritical?  He really does think we should be belligerent strong abroad, and there's not necessarily any hypocrisy with believing that and simultaneously believing abortion should be banned.

No, I have heard Mr. Deace enough that I do not think he is a hypocrite, I think he is sincere in his beliefs.  But I think that he is very very concerned about what the candidates say in their campaign and not too concerned about what policy and cultural changes will actually take place in the nation under that candidate.  

I am the opposite: I absolutely, positively DO NOT CARE about anything any candidate says.  I don't believe any of them.  I don't believe Ron Paul, for that matter, I only believe his track record.  All these words are just words.  I 100% solely and only care about the reality of what would happen were they elected.

If Ron Paul were elected, I think his good example would be a great thing for strengthening the respectability of marriage and family.  He is very traditional in his personal beliefs and lifestyle, so to the extent the President's character shapes the culture, everything he says and does and stands for as President will enhance the kind of culture Mr. Deace wants.  As for policy, there is nothing that any of the other candidates would do to be pro-moral-values or anti-sin that Paul wouldn't do.  There just isn't.  Unless Mr. Deace is hoping that Santorum will issue an Executive Order to electrocute all gays or shut down the internet because of porn or something off-the-wall _insane_!  I don't think that's the case; I think Mr. Deace would agree that such executive orders would be unrealistic.  Even Santorum would never do it.  So again, it boils down to that I think his problem with Paul is that Paul doesn't say the right words on the campaign trail, and also that Deace doesn't really care all that much about real results.  If Mr. Deace _does_ care about results, then his problem is that he hasn't thought through realistically what the role of the President is, what specifically a President does, and in what specific ways Paul would fall short of his standards.  Because other than inadequate international belligerence, there are no ways!  *There is absolutely no socially conservative thing any of the other candidates could conceivably be expected to do that Paul would not do even better.* 

Unless your priority is to have your President holding prayer meetings Rick Perry-style.  

Which I kind of think is exactly what Mr. Deace wants.

----------


## sailingaway

I think he is sincere as well. I think he should stop focusing on other people's sins and cut to whether Ron would ever let government impose on a church what its sacraments should be or mandate against conscience because there, Ron is head and shoulders above anyone.  He simply would not allow it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> 5:11 is bold.  Not quite an endorsement to bomb Iran.


He ends every show with that.  He just likes Eph. 5:11.  Nothing to do with Iran.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Um, no, I do not believe it is 'illegal', I believe the question has to do with governmental sanction of gay marriage, not gayness being illegal.


 Well, you may be right.  We'd have to ask him: Do you think homosexuality should be outlawed?  I'm betting his answer would come down to: Yes.

----------


## matt0611

> Well, you may be right.  We'd have to ask him: Do you think homosexuality should be outlawed?  I'm betting his answer would come down to: Yes.


If homosexuality should be outlawed, why not blasphemy? why not worshippping the devil? why not sex outside of marriage? why not outlaw "greed" ? outlawing burning the bible? etc etc

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If homosexuality should be outlawed, why not blasphemy? why not worshippping the devil? why not sex outside of marriage? why not outlaw "greed" ? outlawing burning the bible? etc etc


 Well..... some of those things maybe should be banned!  Not according to me, according to Mr. Deace.  I think he would have good moral reasons to advocate such sin-banning.  If opposes banning these things, his opposition would be purely pragmatic, I think, as in the ban would not be effective or would be impossible to enforce.  But this is all just speculating and putting words into his mouth which probably isn't fair.

----------


## Eric21ND

> The only reason the Mullah's stay in power in Iran is because they can use the US as a rallying point for thier people. If the US said "Okay Iran, you got oil, we'll buy it, do what you want", I think the mullah's power would crumble overnight. Our foreign policy keeps us hated and our enemies in power.


There's many ways to skin a cat, people get tunnel vision when it comes to foreign policy.

----------


## evadmurd

> He ends every show with that.  He just likes Eph. 5:11.  Nothing to do with Iran.


I guess I blurred/combined two of his final comments.  My bad.  Thanks for the correction.

----------


## ronpaultag

> My opinion is endorsements are nice but they are really just for people that can't do their own research due to laziness or plain ignorance.


Which is unfortunately a LOT of people

----------


## cavalier973

> Well..... some of those things maybe should be banned!  Not according to me, according to Mr. Deace.  I think he would have good moral reasons to advocate such sin-banning.  If opposes banning these things, his opposition would be purely pragmatic, I think, as in the ban would not be effective or would be impossible to enforce.  But this is all just speculating and putting words into his mouth which probably isn't fair.


The tact to take is to ask, "Is God's law good?"  The obvious answer is "Yes".  Then ask, "Is God's law superior to man's law?"  Yes.  Then, "Can God's Law make a person moral?"  The answer here is a resounding "NO!", not because God's law has failed, but because it is impossible for fallen man to keep it.  Then ask, "If God's law, which is good, cannot make a person moral, why would we expect inferior man-made laws to do so?"  The government is as effective in promoting a moral society as it is in establishing economic growth, which is to say, "Not at all".

----------


## Eric21ND

> So basically this guy believes Christians should be in a constant state of war with Muslims because in his mind they(Muslims) want to replace anybody different. As if every little Muslim worker bee wakes up in the morning with the goal to destroy groups of people they have never even seen before.


He needs more Michael Scheuer in his life.  The Neo-conservative basis for intervention abroad hinges upon Muslims being inherently irrational, and terrorism being irrational, as if its genesis was spawned from some mysterious unintelligible void.  The trick is showing the perpetrators rationale behind committing acts of terrorism.  Now where people get lost upon hearing this is that they emotionally feel like its justification of terroristic acts, which isn't the case at all, this only getting into the mind of the perpetrator in a clinical way.  Everyone from Sun Tzu to Robert McNamara understands the importance of understanding your enemies motivation, or as McNamara reiterated it in his eleven lessons of war, "Empathize with your enemy."  What seems completely like an illogical atrocity to Western eyes, is likewise, completely rationally justified in the mind if the suicide terrorist.  What is it in their thinking that makes a suicidal act, seem like a reasonable choice.  We do ourselves an incredible intellectual and strategic injustice blithely and simplistically passing this off as "crazy Muslims acting out" or spinning this into some large scale cultural war against Islam.  The cultural war only becomes a reality if continually fail by prodding along with the same foreign policy interventions.  

Does this mean everything would be solved and terrorism would end completed worldwide?  No, but I do believe it would help stem the vast majority of it.  You will still have lone wolf activity, such as the D.C. Snipers, that guy in Norway, the Virginia Tech massacre, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shooting.  You will still have the more irrational actors carrying out terrorism, especially the homegrown variety.  Its very difficult to protect against these irrational actors, its just an inevitability you will have a certain number of Charles Whitmans or Jared Loughners in a society of 300 million people.  We have to categorize rational, perpetrator-reasoned out terrorism and the irrational, spree-killing variety, largely carried out by the severely mentally unstable.  We have to step back and re-categorize Muslim suicide terrorists and differentiate between them and mentally defectives.  If we continue to treat them as mentally defectives, devoid of reasoning, we will not win and will be attacked endlessly.  I would also state that irrational actors of violence on some conscious or subconscious level illicit an increased level of fear, that is why there is a visceral, knee-jerk reaction when discussing Muslim suicide terrorism with many people because Americans as a whole have categorized them as such.  They are perceived as fanatic and suffering from psychosis; crazed Muslims without the ability reason.  There are very few people on the scene with nation media reach who are trying to smash these preconceived notions.  Simultaneously, the populace of this country are continually bombarded with media misrepresentation that feeds into this worldview; namely modernity, western values, rationality vs. backwards, middle eastern superstitions, irrationality.  It's a programing in a sense, that is extremely difficult to deprogram.

----------


## bluesc

> He needs more Michael Scheuer in his life.


Didn't Scheuer advise 3 presidents on the Middle East? Along with leading the Bin Laden unit. The campaign needs to use him more. He gave an open invite on the Lew Rockwell show saying he would help the campaign in any way he could. The CAMPAIGN needs more Michael Scheuer in their lives.

----------


## undergroundrr

Listening to this show last night was my first exposure to Deace.  So maybe I'm lacking context.  But after his 40% rant, it became clear that he's a standard-issue chickenhawk evangelical who reads dimestore biblical commentaries as a hobby.  He certainly hasn't encountered Augustine.  

It sounds like Deace would have endorsed Santorum by now.  But, like every other talking head whose ratings trump their purported belief system, he feels like he has to pick somebody he thinks will win.  I guess he wouldn't have had this "Should I endorse Ron Paul" show if he didn't think Ron Paul had a good chance of winning Iowa.  I'm sure Tom Woods' commendable outreach to Deace was a very positive move and resulted in a small part of this show audience reassessing Paul.  But the only way this guy would endorse Paul is if he was polling 20 points above Newt.

Also, Obama won Iowa by 10% in 2008.  Would association with Deace be a net negative in the final battle there?  It just looks like a bunch of wasted energy for Paul or supporters to try to court Deace.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Please remember that anything you post in here is a reflection on Ron Paul, and people deciding whether to endorse him will be reading it.

----------


## wistfulthinker

Eric, thank you for posting the videos and for your thoughtful commentary.

----------


## specsaregood

Well looks like he is pushing Bachmann.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...in-or-will-we/

Not even a mention of Dr. Paul.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> "These people"?  Really?


Well, yeah, those who use religion to position themselves as pro-life while supporting an aggressive foreign policy are despicable people. I wouldn't have much of an issue calling them degenerates and false witnesses.

----------


## georgiaboy

I wonder, did Doug Wead talk to this guy?

----------


## Eric21ND

> Eric, thank you for posting the videos and for your thoughtful commentary.


Thank you for the kind words.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

As I think about it more, I decide we did right.  We were not going to convince Deace.  You can't convince the talk show host on his talk show.  He's not even *thinking* about being convinced of anything in that context; he's stressed out thinking about keeping the conversation moving, keeping things entertaining for ratings, when the next break is coming up, etc. etc.  Plus, he controls the format.  He decides when to stop taking calls and begin his soliliquy.  If we would have all talked to him about abortion and gays, he would have likely won those points, and we would have never got across the "60%" that he agrees with Ron Paul on, which for normal people, some of which may be among his audience, is more like 95%.

The normal people of Iowa do not consider gay marriage to be 20% of their top issues list, with Iran being the other 20%.  The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll confirms what I've found in my phoning from home: the top issues are the jobs and economy and the debt. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ll_120411.html

So I now think it's OK I was all about "small government" in my call instead of social issues.  Since that's the top issue with Iowans, though not with Deace, some undecided (which is most of Iowa) audience members may have been persuaded.  Persuading the audience members is important too, and persuading the host while on-the-air is just not realistic.

Deace had his storyline all prepared as far as what was going to happen on the show: he was going to take calls, be polite, then poo-poo Paul for not talking tough on sin.  We could have messed up the perfection of his storyline somewhat by all talking about how strong Paul is on social issues, but that wouldn't have changed the storyline, because the fact is Ron Paul doesn't talk tough on sin and no argument we can make can change that.

----------


## 1836

You realize these folks CAN be our allies?

----------


## Badger Paul

_"then poo-poo Paul for not talking tough on sin. "_

Apparently Deace's preachers in Iowa can't do this well enough so he needs politicians to do so.

----------


## specsaregood

> You realize these folks CAN be our allies?


Really? You should read his endorsement of Bachmann then.  Says she is the only consistent candidate without flipflops.  Doesn't even mention Dr. Paul.  And you think he is an ally?

----------


## jcarcinogen

> "These people"?  Really?


Their kind.

----------


## Eric21ND

Why did Bachmann vote for the Nancy Pelosi Economic Stimulus then?

----------


## undergroundrr

This is about the time in 2007 when Huckabee took a strong lead in the Iowa polls.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._huckabee.html

I'm curious.  Did Deace contribute to that rise, or did he endorse Huckabee after the lead was already established?

----------


## matt0611

> Why did Bachmann vote for the Nancy Pelosi Economic Stimulus then?


Because she has very weak principles, they will fold easily under political pressure, unlike Ron Paul who has never once done something against his principles.

It saddens me that people can be so gullible.

----------


## unknown

His war mongering at the end of the show bothered me a lot.  

I wanna e-mail or text him about it.  Anyone got his contact info?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> _"then poo-poo Paul for not talking tough on sin. "_
> 
> Apparently Deace's preachers in Iowa can't do this well enough so he needs politicians to do so.


 Ha, ha!  

To him, government is something that God ordained and set up, and is thus essentially part of the ecclesiastical structure.  This is what he meant, I think, when he said "All governments are theocracies, it's just a question of who or what the 'theo' is".  The 'theo' is supposed to be God.  The government is supposed to be part of God's promotional apparatus and part of His righteous plan for humanity.

So the government should be part of the Church, one arm in the Church structure, just as necessary as missions, congregations, and all the rest.  This view has a certain consistency within the Evangelical framework.  The goal is to stamp out sin, and God Himself has already said via Paul, Augustine, Luther, and every other authority that the government is a God-ordained and perfectly acceptable way of pursuing this goal, so to neglect that avenue of sin-stamping would be a waste, a shame, and probably sinful in itself.

I'm just glad I'm a Mormon.  We have additional light and revelation contradicting this authoritarian line of reasoning.  "Mind Your Own Business", that is the Mormon Creed.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

dup

----------


## Xenophage

> Ha, ha!  
> 
> To him, government is something that God ordained and set up, and is thus essentially part of the ecclesiastical structure.  This is what he meant, I think, when he said "All governments are theocracies, it's just a question of who or what the 'theo' is".  The 'theo' is supposed to be God.  The government is supposed to be part of God's promotional apparatus and part of His righteous plan for humanity.
> 
> So the government should be part of the Church, one arm in the Church structure, just as necessary as missions, congregations, and all the rest.  This view has a certain consistency within the Evangelical framework.  The goal is to stamp out sin, and God Himself has already said via Paul, Augustine, Luther, and every other authority that the government is a God-ordained and perfectly acceptable way of pursuing this goal, so to neglect that avenue of sin-stamping would be a waste, a shame, and probably sinful in itself.
> 
> I'm just glad I'm a Mormon.  We have additional light and revelation contradicting this authoritarian line of reasoning.  "Mind Your Own Business", that is the Mormon Creed.


"Mind Your Own Business" is a good creed.  Concerning Deace, he's worse than a liberal.  When someone uses their religion to justify a position, their position becomes unwavering and secured by faith.  You can't argue with faith.

----------


## wgadget

> Really? You should read his endorsement of Bachmann then.  Says she is the only consistent candidate without flipflops.  Doesn't even mention Dr. Paul.  And you think he is an ally?


She was on during Obama's speech yesterday (Fox News) saying she was the ONLY CONSISTENT candidate.  WOW. I felt like punching her lights out. 

What a liar. 

Take that, Deace.  I hope you're reading.

----------


## wgadget

> His war mongering at the end of the show bothered me a lot.  
> 
> I wanna e-mail or text him about it.  Anyone got his contact info?


email:  steve@stevedeace.com

----------


## wgadget

> Ha, ha!  
> 
> To him, government is something that God ordained and set up, and is thus essentially part of the ecclesiastical structure.  This is what he meant, I think, when he said "All governments are theocracies, it's just a question of who or what the 'theo' is".  The 'theo' is supposed to be God.  The government is supposed to be part of God's promotional apparatus and part of His righteous plan for humanity.
> 
> So the government should be part of the Church, one arm in the Church structure, just as necessary as missions, congregations, and all the rest.  This view has a certain consistency within the Evangelical framework.  The goal is to stamp out sin, and God Himself has already said via Paul, Augustine, Luther, and every other authority that the government is a God-ordained and perfectly acceptable way of pursuing this goal, so to neglect that avenue of sin-stamping would be a waste, a shame, and probably sinful in itself.
> 
> I'm just glad I'm a Mormon.  We have additional light and revelation contradicting this authoritarian line of reasoning.  "Mind Your Own Business", that is the Mormon Creed.


Someone needs to play him Ron's CPAC speech. Someone also needs to direct him to the book of Samuel, where the Israelites were demanding a king, and God told them, basically, "YOU'LL BE SORRY."   What an idiot shill.  Where is Ben Swann when you need him?

----------


## wgadget

> Well, yeah, those who use religion to position themselves as pro-life while supporting an aggressive foreign policy are despicable people. I wouldn't have much of an issue calling them degenerates and false witnesses.


Well, ya know...God only loves Americans with bomb capability.  Brown people, not so much.

/sarcasm

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> What the....??? Warmongering fascist? Thug?
> 
> You realize these folks CAN be our allies to some extent, can be helpful, lurk on this very forum?


Yes, those who advocate using the state to force their view of morality and impose their vision of the world on others are fascists, and cheerleaders of war are warmongers. Advocates of force are thugs.

----------


## PastaRocket848

ok tl;dr.  did he endorse him or no?

----------


## LibertyEagle

Take the high road, people, and please remember that we are Ron Paul's ambassadors.  The way we act and react, *does* reflect upon Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Has anyone contacted Chuck Baldwin and asked him to talk with Deace?

----------


## specsaregood

> Has anyone contacted Chuck Baldwin and asked him to talk with Deace?


Why bother? The guy is clearly a lying shill.  A wolf, lying with sheep.  And I mean that in the most high-roady, nice, ambassadorially way possible.

----------


## undergroundrr

Based on what I heard, we'll get Medved to support the Dr. before we get Deace.

----------


## PastaRocket848

why?  wasn't deace cool to ron in the past?  what did he say/do?  i thought he was an ally....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Why bother? The guy is clearly a lying shill.  A wolf, lying with sheep.  And I mean that in the most high-roady, nice, ambassadorially way possible.


I guess because I never lose hope that something someone says will reach a person like Deace.  I think Baldwin would be the perfect person to try.  I don't see how it would hurt.

----------


## undergroundrr

> why?  wasn't deace cool to ron in the past?  what did he say/do?  i thought he was an ally....


He may be nice to Ron.  And I don't have any trouble with people being nice to Deace.  But the way I heard it he basically trashed the 10th amendment and said he couldn't support Ron if he didn't push Iran sanctions and a federal ban on sodomy, among other things.  And his exclusionary Christian theocracy stuff (literally!) is never going to sync up with an individual liberty candidate.

----------


## specsaregood

> I guess because I never lose hope that something someone says will reach a person like Deace.  I think Baldwin would be the perfect person to try.  I don't see how it would hurt.


I don't know,  I feel like last night he was screwing with us and Mr. Woods.   If you read his post in favor of Bachmann it is obvious to me that he never had any intent of endorsing or supporting Dr. Paul.  in fact, he mentions everybody except the doc in his post.  Claiming she is the only consistent one that you can trust.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Has anyone contacted Chuck Baldwin and asked him to talk with Deace?


Been saying it over and over, if there's anyone that can reach through the Deace, (besides Tom), it would be Chuck. Chuck's writings over the past couple of years have been outstanding.

If Deace blows off Chuck, that confirms he's a phony BS artist. 

The timing of the Flim-Flam artist Mike Huckabee after this is a cancer, just like the huckster's post "HUCKABEE debate" comments to the Attorney Generals of basically supporting everyone, except Ron Paul. AnyHooo, if the Huckster was so dedicated to America and his "Crusade To Save" plus, he commented about how he would be in the GOP lead 2012... then he should of dropped that multimillion dollar deal with NewsCorp, to make a difference. He did not, he pawned his book across the nation first, then he took the cash, just like he did with Kenneth Copeland  incorporated.

I think they're all manipulative phonies.

----------


## 1836

I frankly think it is ridiculous, some of the nasty things that are said here about someone like Steve Deace. Give me a break.

Here is a guy who has at least aired our ideas, put Tom Woods on, talked about Ron Paul and not always in a negative light, taken Ron Paul callers, and some here are quick to jump all over the guy.

We're not going to win people over with that kind of attitude.

----------


## PastaRocket848

> He may be nice to Ron.  And I don't have any trouble with people being nice to Deace.  But the way I heard it he basically trashed the 10th amendment and said he couldn't support Ron if he didn't push Iran sanctions and a federal ban on sodomy, among other things.  And his exclusionary Christian theocracy stuff (literally!) is never going to sync up with an individual liberty candidate.


the dude seriously said "a federal ban on sodomy"?  is that even part of mainstream discussion at this point in time?  that seems amazing to me.  talk about being the party of individual liberty lol.  do anything you want on wall street, but feel free to regulate my bedroom.

that's a hard argument to make, and frankly, seems very backward.  like something you'd read about in a 50's newspaper or somewhere with shari'a law.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> I don't know,  I feel like last night he was screwing with us and Mr. Woods.   If you read his post in favor of Bachmann it is obvious to me that he never had any intent of endorsing or supporting Dr. Paul.  in fact, he mentions everybody except the doc in his post.  Claiming she is the only consistent one that you can trust.


It was a major tease and obviously a promotion for something. I know most of us emailed him with some good substance, and a couple people made great points last night. It is now seeming that that was a major waste of time. Especially because at the end, he charged out his "40%" of Ron Paul he doesn't like.

----------


## ord33

It is a little bit strange to have Steve Deace as a guest commentator on hxxp://whitehouse2012.wordpress.com/staff/ based on Steve Deace's strong adherence to Christian principles. The founder of the site (Kempite) probably has some things that Steve Deace has fundamental differences with after listening to Deace's show last night.




> I am a guy who was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. There I helped to get Republicans elected. In a town that is 5 to 1 Democrat, that is no easy task. Yet, on many occasions I was successful at it.
> Over time I have migrated to New Jersey.     Here too, getting a Republican elected can be an uphill battle but as a campaign manager for the New Jersey Republican Assembly and Senate Republican campaign committees I successfully helped to elect red candidates in a dark blue state. My life revolves around politics. Not the game of it but the policy and sincerity of public service that is often overlooked in politics.
> Health considerations have held back my political activity but better days are ahead.
> When not involved in real politics or the online politics of  U4Prez.com, *I spend my time with my partner Nick. He is a DJ and artist…..a starving artist, with talents that far exceed the deserving financial profit that any mere mortal could possibly make.  He is also the most generous, considerate and at times dizzying guy that one could ever know. I often take him for granted but I also know that my life would be empty without him*.


 hxxp://www.u4prez.com/ProfileView.aspx?UserID=480

Just thought it was an odd combination considering Deace's strong comments on his faith. I got led to this after reading this uncalled for question/article: hxxp://whitehouse2012.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/is-ron-paul-antisemitic/

(Note: I don't have any issue at all with Kempite's personal life - its his to live. However, he has been pretty fiercely against Ron Paul as have others on their site.

----------


## ord33

That being said, I truly believe Steve Deace is open to considering Ron Paul: http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...ing-the-field/

Also here is a guest post he did on the site I mention above: hxxp://whitehouse2012.wordpress.com/...re-held-today/ (I agree with what he said about Ron Paul and the students. We need to overcome this!)

----------


## Fermli

We should all Deace not for an endorsement of Paul, but for an endorsement for media fairness in covering Paul and the other conservatives in the race.

You know.. Ben Swann style. We could tell him that the media needs to cover the candidates factually and respectfully like Swann did. Then, the people can decide whose policies are best.

Thoughts?

----------


## ord33

Tonight, Steve Deace is talking up Michelle Bachmann and saying at least give her a chance and listen to her. Says to look at all candidates and their positions. He mentioned the only issue he has with her is the Patriot Act. He seems pretty honest throughout all of this and does stick by his convictions.

Talking about how she wins contested elections while still holding her principles.

Next up he is going to be talking about the "frontrunners ads and comparing and contrasting". I think this next segment isn't going to fare very well for Dr. Paul in the eyes of Mr. Deace. Rick Perry came out with a very strong faith ad, Gingrich his positive message, Mitt Romney with is consistency in marriage/personal life ad, and then you have Ron Paul which was essentially on the defensive and attacking. Not sure how he will see it, but that is my prediction.

----------


## ord33

Going to talk about Ron Paul now again:

http://stevedeace.com/steve-deace-live/

----------


## wgadget

> Going to talk about Ron Paul now again:
> 
> http://stevedeace.com/steve-deace-live/


Ya know what I have to say about that?  Screw him.

----------


## wgadget

> It was a major tease and obviously a promotion for something. I know most of us emailed him with some good substance, and a couple people made great points last night. It is now seeming that that was a major waste of time. Especially because at the end, he charged out his "40%" of Ron Paul he doesn't like.


Maybe it's Arbitron ratings season?

----------


## wgadget

> Tonight, Steve Deace is talking up Michelle Bachmann and saying at least give her a chance and listen to her. Says to look at all candidates and their positions. He mentioned the only issue he has with her is the Patriot Act. He seems pretty honest throughout all of this and does stick by his convictions.
> 
> Talking about how she wins contested elections while still holding her principles.
> 
> Next up he is going to be talking about the "frontrunners ads and comparing and contrasting". I think this next segment isn't going to fare very well for Dr. Paul in the eyes of Mr. Deace. Rick Perry came out with a very strong faith ad, Gingrich his positive message, Mitt Romney with is consistency in marriage/personal life ad, and then you have Ron Paul which was essentially on the defensive and attacking. Not sure how he will see it, but that is my prediction.


This is where, if you can stand to listen to it, you call in and tell Deace that Bachmann is lying about being the ONLY CONSISTENT CANDIDATE.

----------


## ord33

> This is where, if you can stand to listen to it, you call in and tell Deace that Bachmann is lying about being the ONLY CONSISTENT CANDIDATE.


That is a good point!

He is just now starting to talk about Ron Paul's ad. She is saying "It takes guts. I love Ron Paul's ads"!!!!

Say both are homerun ads.

Saying Newt's ad is decent too, but completely different. Ron Paul's is "Ctrl Alt Del". Says it will be interesting to see which one wins.

Asking for call ins!!!! Call 877-655-6755

Note: He was comparing/contrasting Newt's feel good ad versus Ron Paul's "Big Dog" ad I believe. He said completely different and wants to know which plays better with voters.

----------


## lucent

Call in and tell him that Bachmann has said she would consider Trump as a running mate and Trump is pro-choice.

----------


## ord33

Pretty good point to send him an e-mail: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...rump-santorum/

BE NICE THOUGH...PLEASE I URGE YOU. He is saying that most Ron Paul people are thoughtful and ask the questions people should have been asking for 30 years. Great discussion now!

----------


## lucent

Call in and tell him that Newt loves Lincoln and would probably start a second Civil War before he would allows a State to secede.

----------


## bluesc

> Call in and tell him that Bachmann has said she would consider Trump as a running mate and Trump is pro-choice.


Good idea.

----------


## lucent

Gingrich is a liar. Who would ever believe him?

----------


## messana

They really liked Ron's ad. Had to play it twice.

I still not sure what he sees in Gingrich's ad.

----------


## ord33

I'm guessing someone in here is Mike?

----------


## SchleckBros

It's going good so far.

----------


## ord33

I agree! It is definitely going well.

In Newt's ad it is so general, trying to be uplifting, and typical of any campaign. On Ron Paul's ad its I'm going to do cut all of these specific departments. Bam!

----------


## lucent

lol @ the caller that called Newt a USB port.

----------


## hammy

Somebody needs to call in and say there is NOTHING specific addressed in Newt's ad. It doesn't address anything and tells you nothing about the candidate.

----------


## SchleckBros

More Ron Paul discussion next hour. I'm enjoying this

----------


## RDM

Oh Oh. Feedback from last night is next. I hope you were all good boys and girls who emailed him.

----------


## ord33

Going to be talking about the e-mails and correspondence about Ron Paul he had after yesterday's show after the break (coming up in just a few seconds). I hope nobody sent any extremely abrasive e-mails! He is going to respond to them - I am guessing on policy differences?

----------


## bluesc

Lol, I love this anti-Romney segment he constantly plays.

He's back on now.

----------


## matt0611

Has someone pointed him to that Ron Paul interview on Israel recently released?

----------


## ord33

Wow...I'm liking Steve Deace more and more!

----------


## ord33

This is going to be real deal, substantive stuff.

----------


## hammy

I don't even know what he's saying. He's not getting it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

He does grow on you, doesn't he?  It's probably the most entertaining well-designed "Christian" talk show I've heard, and I've heard a lot, being out in Wyoming where half the stations are Evangelical Christian Radio.

----------


## bluesc

> I don't even know what he's saying. He's not getting it.


That was hard to listen to. He's so confused.

----------


## seeknshare

Has Steve Deace endorsed Dr Paul yet?

----------


## matt0611

So if we outlaw homosexuality things will magically be better? I don't see his point.

Ron Paul is for getting the government out of marriage...so the church will marry who they want.
If two homosexuals live together and call themselves married what do you want to do about it? Lock them up?

I don't get how this gets us anywhere.

He's just not getting it, I wish I was more articulate so I could convince him.

----------


## RDM

Here we go. I could care less about devalued money. I could care less about being in 10-15-20 wars. I could care less about innocent babies being blown up, even though I'm pro-life. I could care less about the constitution being abolished. I could care less....I could care less...The only thing I care about is morality and homosexuals and gay marriage...that's why I can't support Ron Paul.

----------


## ord33

> I don't even know what he's saying. He's not getting it.


I think he is basically saying that even if you "End the Fed" at a base level you still need to have people of moral character and strong integrity in place or else it would be replaced with something just as bad. I can somewhat understand his point here. The political arena and the population in general is on such a downward spiral as far as the character of people that you must worry about what will replace the system when you do a "Ctrl Alt Del".

The original e-mail he was referencing basically just referenced why didn't he focus more on economic matters rather than speak against homosexuality. Well, it is a Christian Radio show, so I think the reason why is quite clear.

However, he does talk quite a bit about economic issues and aligns with Ron Paul on so many issues.

----------


## hammy

Holy hell dude, this guy acts like homosexuality is the end of the world. How about the killing of children? Like our foreign policy does right now. I think that's a lot more serious. Jeez.

----------


## bluesc

Michael Scheuer plug!

----------


## hammy

This is like nails on a chalkboard.

----------


## messana

180.

----------


## bluesc

"Scheuer knows more about terrorists then me, but I know more" 

wat

----------


## Fermli

lol islam hating.

----------


## SchleckBros

> Michael Scheuer plug!


Let's hope he actually reads the book. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about right now.

----------


## hammy

Yeah because those countries are doing so well. This guy is an idiot.

----------


## bluesc

He literally just compared the terrorist problem to fixing a car. "Michael Scheuer may be the mechanic, but I can just grab the user manual"

----------


## bluesc

He's arguing for Ron Paul's foreign policy without even knowing it.

----------


## hammy

WE ARE BOMBING THEM AND KILLING THEM. HOW ABOUT WE STOP AND SEE HOW IT GOES. I CAN'T TAKE THIS GUY.

----------


## mstrmac1

someone tell me why an endorsement is important? He sounds like a duche bag. But if it helps then we will take it. I just dont understand how it helps?

----------


## bluesc

Uh oh. Now this guy is turning crazy.

----------


## matt0611

If these people "don't leave us alone" Ron Paul would be for going after them, so....

----------


## bluesc

> someone tell me why an endorsement is important? He sounds like a duche bag. But if it helps then we will take it. I just dont understand how it helps?


Influential with Iowa evangelicals.

----------


## bluesc

How this guy can hear Scheuer's credentials, not look him up, and try to act like he knows more and is the expert just $#@!ing angers me. Scheuer should go on the show. I'm turning this crap off.

----------


## mstrmac1

I guess? so when is the endorsement?

----------


## RDM

Radical Islam = a religion that wants to take over the world and wants to force themselves upon you.
Radical USA Gov.= a government that wants to take over the world and wants to force themselves upon you.

----------


## bluesc

> Radical Islam = a religion that wants to take over the world and wants to force themselves upon you.
> Radical USA Gov.= a government that wants to take over the world and wants to force themselves upon you.


Shhh. Don't tell Deace that. He is forcing the _correct_ views on you.

----------


## bluesc

> I guess? so when is the endorsement?


Not happening. The guy is crazy.

----------


## ord33

> How this guy can hear Scheuer's credentials, not look him up, and try to act like he knows more and is the expert just $#@!ing angers me. Scheuer should go on the show. I'm turning this crap off.


I bet that Steve Deace does go and at least look into him. Steve seems to be pretty intellectual in a lot of ways and does like to learn and talks about issues and policy, not just a typical talk radio host getting into the normal media who's doing what stuff. Whether Scheuer can influence him about Blowback and things of the sort is yet to be known, but I bet you he does look him up.

----------


## mstrmac1

> Not happening. The guy is crazy.


Then why do we care about it? It's been the top thread for a week or so?

----------


## The Magic Hoof

Will he finally endorse him?

----------


## ord33

> Then why do we care about it? It's been the top thread for a week or so?


He has said it is between Paul, Santorum, and Bachmann. He has spoke very favorably to Paul on a lot of things, yet disagrees with him on others. It *may* come down to electability.

----------


## hammy

This... this guy isn't going to get it. The emailer was obviously saying that Jesus didn't try to force his view onto other people. This... this is grating...

----------


## bluesc

> Then why do we care about it? It's been the top thread for a week or so?


This thread has been here since yesterday. I had no idea he was like this until now. I care because an endorsement from him would mean that Ron wins Iowa.

----------


## matt0611

The government is for protecting people's rights, its not for punishing immorality Steve.

I can't take much more of this guy.

----------


## RDM

> Will he finally endorse him?


*NO...HE WILL NOT.*

----------


## PauliticsPolitics

I just checked in on this.
It really seems like he will not endorse Ron Paul.
He has been ripping through points of disagreement for the past 20 minutes.

----------


## hammy

This guy will NEVER get it. He thinks that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MIDDLE EAST WANTS US ALL DEAD. 

Here's what doesn't make sense:

Our country is no longer Christian because there's homosexuals.

Islam wants us all dead because we are Christian. 

What?

What?

WHAT?!

----------


## matt0611

> This guy will NEVER get it. He thinks that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MIDDLE EAST WANTS US ALL DEAD. 
> 
> Here's what doesn't make sense:
> 
> Our country is no longer Christian because there's homosexuals.
> 
> Islam wants us all dead because we are Christian. 
> 
> What?
> ...


He'd say its because we're not Muslim, we're infidels. They want us to convert or die.

----------


## ord33

He is distorting Ron Paul's position a little on abortion. Ron Paul defines life at conception, introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, would support a Constitutional amendment, etc. He doesn't want it to be a 10th amendment issue because life is a God given right. At least that is the way I understand Ron Paul's position.

----------


## Fermli

he said he got 60 emails. Figured it would have been more. I wonder how many are due to this thread =)

----------


## The Magic Hoof

I thought Paul wouldn't support an amendment for abortion? Maybe I'm wrong.

----------


## hammy

THEN WE FIGHT BACK?!?!?! WHAT?!?!? I HATE THIS GUY

----------


## matt0611

If they don't want peace we go to war Steve!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh my god this guy is an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## hammy

WHAT IS HE EVEN SAYING!??!?!?!?!

----------


## Fermli

haha Deace is strawmaning Paul's position on the military so hard.

----------


## hammy

Then... we... fight... back. How simple is this. WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT.

----------


## RDM

In this guy's twisted theological interpretations of the Bible, he believes we must eradicate Islam off the face of the map, even it meant a 100 year war and thousands and thousands of deaths and endless wars. Forget this guy's endorsement. Not worth it.

----------


## hammy

What the hell. Is he literally complaining about the order of his points? This guy is a DOUCHEBAG.

----------


## mstrmac1

> This thread has been here since yesterday. I had no idea he was like this until now. I care because an endorsement from him would mean that Ron wins Iowa.


$#@!.. your right! Sorry.

 I do think if we all know he's not going to endorse RP then let the thread die and let more productive ones get to the top. But what do I know? Have fun talking about something thats not going to happen.

----------


## The Magic Hoof

Would Paul support an amendment for abortion? I don't know his position on that.

----------


## matt0611

We go to war Steve...

my god....

----------


## RDM

Don't kill our kids....but it's ok if we kill other people's kids in other countries that have posed no extreme threat to us. OK, I get it. Thanks Steve. You idiot.

----------


## ord33

Well, we now know what it takes to get his endorsement. Now lets write to him and explain what Ron Paul would do. Ron Paul really has said what he wants to hear, we just have to put it together.

Download his podcast tomorrow, go through the last 30 minutes of the show and answer his questions he had on the air in a well sourced detailed e-mail without being hateful. Ron Paul's answers are right and do go along with his views about defending itself/national security and abortion. He just doesn't know it yet.

Getting someone like Chuck Baldwin (as others have mentioned) MIGHT be decent.

----------


## PauliticsPolitics

Segments like this depress me. If this is how a large percentage of social conservatives think; I believe we will have better luck converting Obama supporters.

----------


## wgadget

Damn he's stupid. Has he not heard Ron say he would have the Congress declare war, go to war, and get it over with??What a freaking disingenuous moron. And he calls himself a Christian. 

Steve, I'm sorry, but you're giving Christianity a bad name.

You've lost credibility.

----------


## VonDerBerg

This guy... "What do we do!? What do we do!? What do we do!?" Didn't Paul introduce a bill to define life as beginning at conception?

----------


## ItztehBean

I never believed Steve Deace to endorse RP. Now I know why.

----------


## matt0611

> Segments like this depress me. If this is how a large percentage of social conservatives think; I believe we will have better luck converting Obama supporters.


This is how they think, yes.

----------


## VonDerBerg

Or is that marriage that I'm thinking of?

----------


## RDM

I don't know whose more radical.....this guy or Islam. I'll take my chances with Islam.

----------


## matt0611

Ron Paul has the answers to this guy's concern but he just doesn't comprehend it, makes it so frustrating to listen to.

----------


## wgadget

The guy is a theocrat who doesn't understand that he's just as radical as those damn Muslims he hates so much. I'm sure Jesus would be proud. Feel the love.

----------


## specsaregood

You guys are getting trolled, stop giving his advertisers listeners.

----------


## hammy

Sent this to him:
Mr. Deace,

What do you do when the country is obviously ignoring our constitution and biblical values that abortion is morally and ethically wrong?
You use everything at your disposal to overturn it. And I truly believe this is Ron Paul's position. The quickest way to start defending the defenseless is by allowing the states to rule on abortion. He wants to start defending them AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. You seem to be angry about this, I'm really not sure why. However, Mr. Paul has said many times that he wants to push a "Sanctity of Life Act" to establish "personhood" at conception. You seem to be indicting Mr. Paul for telling you the truth. It's difficult to pass things like this. It's not an automatic occurrence. It's nice to hear Santorum and Bachmann say things like "I'll take care of abortion right away!" but how many republican presidents have said that? It's easier said than done. And where the blame SHOULD be placed on is the church. It is our responsibility to direct the moral current of our nation. Why isn't the church devoting all of its efforts to ending this? 

And I see a bit of hypocrisy here when it comes to your position. You say all life is valuable. We are all made from a creator and all have a right to life. However, you seem perfectly fine with bombing the middle eastern nations and killing hundreds of thousands of children. Things we have done for many decades. These kinds of actions PUSH people to Islamic extremists, because they are the ones with the means to protect them. I understand the activity of killing men, women, and children took place in the old testament (so don't try and spin that on me), but these actions took place when there was an imminent threat and the Israelites were actively engaged in warfare. War is to be used as an absolute last resort. Your preemptive strike theory is not only illogical but unbiblical. I don't recall the bible saying that "Blessed be the Warmakers," the ones that strike without provocation or imminent provocation. 

And you say that "ending the fed" is rather unimportant. I recall that one of the most heated moments in the New Testament was when Jesus attacked the money lenders for their corruption. And what is the fed? 

What happens when they don't take our peace talks?
You weren't very clear on this but let me give you some details. 92% of Afghans have never heard of 9/11. And most have no idea that we landed on the moon. Most are starving and living in deplorable conditions. I think it would be very difficult for me to care about a nation 5,000 miles away if I was wondering where my next meal was coming from. But I digress, I don't think bombing them would make the case better, but I guess that's my opinion. 

But if they don't respond to our peace talks, and want to attack us. The answer is pretty simple... we FIGHT BACK. 

And you seem to be confusing the idea here with isolationism and non-interventionism. As many people do. In Ron Paul's policy we would not roll over and forget about the world. We keep our intelligence exchange between our allies strong, we keep our DEFENSE spending high. Ron Paul has said many times that he wants us to develop and use MORE submarines. Our submarines are easily the best in the world. They are nuclear capable, can hit targets hundreds of miles away, and can travel incredibly quickly. 

Watch this video, and I don't see how you can be unsatisfied with this answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ATmUE8TCmjE

Non-interventionism means we stay out of other countries and keep our troops HERE. So we can defend US. Imagine if someone actually did attack our country right now. We would be almost defenseless. Our military is spread AROUND THE WORLD. You argue that keeping our military in hundreds of different countries makes us stronger? That makes no sense. What it DOES do is spread us so thinly that we couldn't respond to an imminent attack quickly enough if something DID happen. 

I encourage you to keep asking questions, however I feel as though you get caught up in the semantics of our wording far too often. I'd love to call in and discuss this with you head-on. 

Thanks, 
Matthew

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, we now know what it takes to get his endorsement. Now lets write to him and explain what Ron Paul would do. Ron Paul really has said what he wants to hear, we just have to put it together.
> 
> Download his podcast tomorrow, go through the last 30 minutes of the show and answer his questions he had on the air in a well sourced detailed e-mail without being hateful. Ron Paul's answers are right and do go along with his views about defending itself/national security and abortion. He just doesn't know it yet.
> 
> Getting someone like Chuck Baldwin (as others have mentioned) MIGHT be decent.


^^^ THIS.

Look guys, Paul may not get his endorsement, but I remember when Rand was running and Dobson endorsed Rand's competitor.  Later, he found out the truth about Rand, changed his endorsement and derided the competitor.  So, it CAN happen.

Let's see if we can connect the dots for Mr. Deace.  Remember that most of us have been following Paul for a long time and have read all kinds of stuff he has written.  Others have not, so they are probably going to need some help.  It won't hurt to try.  But, if you do it, please, please, be polite and respectful.

----------


## bluesc

> You guys are getting trolled, stop giving his advertisers listeners.


You think Tom Woods is being trolled? We may be mundanes, but Tom Woods is a genius, and Deace gushes over him.

----------


## bluesc

> ^^^ THIS.
> 
> Look guys, Paul may not get his endorsement, but I remember when Rand was running and Dobson endorsed Rand's competitor.  Later, he found out the truth about Rand, changed his endorsement and derided the competitor.  So, it CAN happen.
> 
> Let's see if we can connect the dots for Mr. Deace.  Remember that most of us have been following Paul for a long time and have read all kinds of stuff he has written.  Others have not, so they are probably going to need some help.  It won't hurt to try.  But, if you do it, please, please, be polite and respectful.


I sent a PM to AquaBuddha asking him to email Deace. If we have any other people who can send a good "Christian case for Ron Paul" email, feel free.

----------


## matt0611

> I sent a PM to AquaBuddha asking him to email Deace. If we have any other people who can send a good "Christian case for Ron Paul" email, feel free.


Someone mentioned Chuck Baldwin a while back in this thread, I've heard him give really good speeches and I bet he could make a pretty good "Christian case for Ron Paul" if he were to call in. But how do we get that to happen I'm not sure.

----------


## bluesc

> Someone mentioned Chuck Baldwin a while back in this thread, I've heard him give really good speeches and I bet he could make a pretty good "Christian case for Ron Paul" if he were to call in. But how do we get that to happen I'm not sure.


Email him and request it. I'm sure he's a busy man, so it may not be possible. It's a great idea though.

----------


## RDM

@hammy     +rep on letter. Send it.

----------


## hammy

> @hammy     +rep on letter. Send it.


Sent. I wouldn't say anything if this guy just didn't like Ron Paul, however, he's twisting and distorting his message. That ticks me off.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Someone mentioned Chuck Baldwin a while back in this thread, I've heard him give really good speeches and I bet he could make a pretty good "Christian case for Ron Paul" if he were to call in. But how do we get that to happen I'm not sure.


http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=351

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> He is distorting Ron Paul's position a little on abortion. Ron Paul defines life at conception, introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, would support a Constitutional amendment, etc. He doesn't want it to be a 10th amendment issue because life is a God given right. At least that is the way I understand Ron Paul's position.


 Yes, he distorted it last night too.  It would be nice if one of these nights someone called up to explain that *Ron Paul is the ONLY one who haws attempted to do ANYTHING REAL WHATSOEVER for pro-life on the national level in the past 30 years!*  Virtually every Republican elected in that time frame has given really good speeches about pro-life.  We've got a whole treasury of speeches that social conservatives can listen to for thousands upon thousands of hours.  If they're satisfied with that, cool.  But if they actually want babies to STOP GETTING ABORTED, like, in real life or something, then maybe someone besides Ron Paul should have voted for his bill to remove jurisdiction for Roe vs. Wade.

But no, apparently they just want the speech treasury.  

They want empty promises and far-off dreams.  No hurry, after all.  Just a million abortions per year, what's a few decades.  Maybe we can get a President who can appoint a pro-life judge or two, IF any retire, which I'll tell you if Bachmann or Santorum are President they will NOT, and then the next President can appoint another, and in 50 years they can finally hear a case and overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Or we can go through a Constitutional Amendment process that will take at least a decade.  Or they could pass Paul's bill, which would take a few days.  If ANY of these clowns were serious about pro-life, if any were not just using it as a cynical political get-out-the-vote ploy on gullible Christians, they would do this.  A few days later, states would be free to immediately ban abortion again.  But then the politicians would lose that valuable get-out-the-vote ploy.  No, it's in the best interest of "pro-life" politicians to make sure Roe vs. Wade is never, ever repealed.  The "pro-lifer" pols will do everything they can to make sure abortion continues.

They'll keep that speech treasury alive and growing, though, and that's all that matters.  Right?

And by the way, the President has no say whatsoever in a Constitutional amendment, so even if Paul had the "wrong" position on the amendment Deace wants it would be irrelevant.  But in fact he has the "right" position.  So where's the big disagreement on abortion between Steve Deace and Ron Paul?  All in Steve Deace's imagination and nowhere else.

----------


## lucent

I emailed Deace a few weeks ago. It was a decently long letter about the Constitution.

They read three or so lines of it on air, completely out of context, and then tried to argue against those three or so lines. It was disgusting and not very Christian of them.

----------


## lucent

I emailed Deace a few weeks ago. It was a decently long letter about the Constitution, specifically the 10th amendment and family values.

They read three or so lines of it on air, completely out of context, and then tried to argue against those three or so lines. It was disgusting and not very Christian of them.

----------


## Fredom101

Who the hell is Steve Deace?

----------


## hammy

> Who the hell is Steve Deace?


Ignoramus of the year apparently.

----------


## specsaregood

> You think Tom Woods is being trolled? We may be mundanes, but Tom Woods is a genius, and Deace gushes over him.


Yes, he got trolled last night, we all did.

----------


## bluesc

> Yes, he got trolled last night, we all did.


Nah, I don't think so. He has had Tom on the show a few times in the past. Regardless, having an open conversation about Ron with a huge Iowa Christian audience listening is good no matter what way you look at it.

----------


## WD-NY

> ^^^ THIS.
> 
> Look guys, Paul may not get his endorsement, but I remember when Rand was running and Dobson endorsed Rand's competitor.  Later, he found out the truth about Rand, changed his endorsement and derided the competitor.  So, it CAN happen.
> 
> Let's see if we can connect the dots for Mr. Deace.  Remember that most of us have been following Paul for a long time and have read all kinds of stuff he has written.  Others have not, so they are probably going to need some help.  It won't hurt to try.  But, if you do it, please, please, be polite and respectful.


This. FTW.

The dobson 180 on Rand was incredible. And the trigger appears to have been letters from OB/GYNs that Dobson knew? Hmmm.. I wonder if a little more due-diligence into this Deace fellow could reveal a few close/personal contacts whom we could persuade to write on Ron's behalf? I haven't read through the thread but has Doug Wead made any inroads?




> *Dobson: GOP misled me on Paul
> *
> Christian conservative leader James Dobson withdrew his endorsement of Kentucky Senate candidate Trey Grayson Monday, switching his support to Rand Paul’s campaign and accusing “senior members of the GOP” of misleading him about Paul’s record on abortion.
> 
> Dobson said in an audio recording that he made an “embarrassing mistake” as a result of misunderstanding Paul’s position on abortion.“
> 
> I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent,” Dobson explained. “But now I've received further information from OB/GYNs in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”
> 
> Dobson’s reversal is an embarrassment for Grayson’s campaign, which touted the religious leader’s support last week and had planned to highlight an endorsement from Republican Rep. Hal Rogers Monday. Grayson, who serves as Kentucky’s secretary of state, has struggled in the polls against Paul, an ophthalmologist, with the primary just weeks away.
> ...

----------


## Eric21ND

> This guy will NEVER get it. He thinks that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MIDDLE EAST WANTS US ALL DEAD. 
> 
> Here's what doesn't make sense:
> 
> Our country is no longer Christian because there's homosexuals.
> 
> Islam wants us all dead because we are Christian. 
> 
> What?
> ...


That's why everyone needs to send him Michael Scheuer videos.  I think he would respect Scheuer's experience and expertise....might get the gears turning.

----------


## bluesc

> That's why everyone needs to send him Michael Scheuer videos.  I think he would respect Scheuer's experience and expertise....might get the gears turning.


Someone sent him an email telling him to look up Michael Scheuer and he read it on air. What did he say?

"Say my car is broken down.. This Scheuer is the mechanic, but what if I have the user manual?" then went on to say "If he was the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, he must know more about this than me, but.." then went on to explain his BS theory of the entire Middle East conflict. I doubt this guy can be reasoned with on foreign policy.

----------


## Eric21ND

> So if we outlaw homosexuality things will magically be better? I don't see his point.
> 
> Ron Paul is for getting the government out of marriage...so the church will marry who they want.
> If two homosexuals live together and call themselves married what do you want to do about it? Lock them up?
> 
> I don't get how this gets us anywhere.
> 
> He's just not getting it, I wish I was more articulate so I could convince him.


How does locking up homosexuals do any good?  Does this guy even have a clue what goes on in America's prisons?  Prison is a homosexuals smorgasbord.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I care because an endorsement from him would mean that Ron wins Iowa.


I respectfully disagree.  I believe it's the other way around.

I think he endorsed Huckabee because he knew from the polls (straw poll and scientific) that he was going to win.  The fact that Huckabee was a preacher and they were almost completely in sync on social issues was gravy.

You could say "Ron Paul wants a federal ban on homosexuality and will round up all people in turbans and send them to the gas chambers" and Deace would go "that's interesting."  The only thing that will get him to endorse is "electability,"  i.e. Ron Paul being 20 points up in the polls and unassailable.

He would have long ago endorsed Santorum if he had any conviction in his beliefs.  They're intellectual twins.  The fact that he hasn't shows that Deace's true god and savior is Arbitron.

----------


## bluesc

> I respectfully disagree.  I believe it's the other way around.
> 
> I think he endorsed Huckabee because he knew from the polls (straw poll and scientific) that he was going to win.  The fact that Huckabee was a preacher and they were almost completely in sync on social issues was gravy.
> 
> You could say "Ron Paul wants a federal ban on homosexuality and will round up all people in turbans and send them to the gas chambers" and Deace would go "that's interesting."  The only thing that will get him to endorse is "electability,"  i.e. Ron Paul being 20 points up in the polls and unassailable.
> 
> He would have long ago endorsed Santorum if he had any conviction in his beliefs.  They're intellectual twins.  The fact that he hasn't shows that Deace's true god and savior is Arbitron.


I didn't say the guy wasn't an opportunist. I just said that an endorsement from him would give us the bump to go over the top in Iowa. He has a big evangelical following.

Is he likely to endorse unless Ron is already guaranteed to win? Unlikely. Would it help if he did endorse? Absolutely.

Ron doesn't need much help at all to win, and Deace would provide enough.

----------


## wgadget

Ugh. The last thing I heard this guy say was that the ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PUNISH PEOPLE.  

Wow.  He showed his true colors as a statist with that statement. He has proven he agrees with Obama, who wants to "tax the rich" and be "fair." 

 O ye of little faith.

----------


## wgadget

> I didn't say the guy wasn't an opportunist. I just said that an endorsement from him would give us the bump to go over the top in Iowa. He has a big evangelical following.
> 
> Is he likely to endorse unless Ron is already guaranteed to win? Unlikely. Would it help if he did endorse? Absolutely.
> 
> Ron doesn't need much help at all to win, and Deace would provide enough.


I wonder what kind of damage his rants can do to the momentum.  What a slimeball. Just my opinion.

----------


## hammy

Does anybody know if this loser did anything or not?

----------


## trey4sports

as long as he doesnt endorse romney or newt he can do no damage.

----------


## wgadget

I think his favorite hymn is Onward, Christian Warmongers.

----------


## hammy

Just turned on his live broadcast. He just said that he would vote for Bachmann if it was today, but he most identifies with Santorum. Shows you how much he's worth. Won't vote on principle. 

And I have to agree, everything he has said has been "kill anything moving in the middle east." But he's "pro-life." What a joke.

----------


## SchleckBros

He appeared on CNN today. I think he said that Ron Paul could win Iowa but I wasn't paying much attention.

----------


## ord33

He was on CNN today during Wolf Blitzer's show at 5:00. He essentially said something along the lines of "Ron Paul's support is strong in Iowa. Perhaps even stronger than the polls show because of the landlines, young people, and in general Ron Paul people just want to be left alone and don't answer the phone". That is definitely NOT a direct quote, but I think it gets the basic message across. It was a pretty quick blip.

He had Rick Santorum on his show tonight. I've said this before, but he is down to Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum. He had Bachmann's campaign manager on last night, Santorum on tonight, and talked in depth about Ron Paul twice this week. As much as I know a lot of you probably don't like him. I think he does give his honest opinion and is intelligent. He favors a candidate with integrity obviously and a strong faith. He is very upfront with issues he disagrees with about a candidate. For example, he said he doesn't like Michele Bachmann's stance on the Patriot Act. He's definitely no dummy and he really has dug in deep on the issues. He loves Bastiat's "The Law" and Tom Woods' "Nullification". He isn't your typical commentator lacking substance. Think of him, kind of like the Huckabee Forum with the attorney generals asking questions. It is on that level in a lot of respects in my opinion.

He agrees on several things on foreign policy with respect to Nation Building. I might not be correct in this, but I THOUGHT I heard him say we shouldn't be in Iraq/Afghanistan. I gathered that Ron Paul needs to come out and say emphatically that he wants a strong national defense and if we are attacked then he will fight back with extreme force. I think that would go a long way in advancing his opinion on Ron Paul. Which Ron Paul definitely believes and has said before, but does so rarely and its not broadcasted much/if any. Also, I think Ron Paul would agree that some Special Forces (or Marquee and Reprisal) could be used on a small scale, individual basis in some circumstances. This may be able to appease Steve Deace with regard to preventing attacks. Steve definitely sees Islam as a threat though. i don't know where he will end up. 

I've listened to his shows the past week. He's probably aligned more with Bachmann/Santorum with respect to Foreign Policy and they obviously wear their religion on their sleeve more. I wouldn't totally count Ron Paul out though. I think one thing we may have on our side is I really believe that Steve Deace will research Ron Paul's foreign policy in more depth and analyze it himself. Whether he gets the proper sources could be up to us in some manner and how he evaluates it is anybody's guess.

Please, just don't slam him and attack him without knowing a lot about him. Please do advance coherently Ron Paul's message in a non combative manner to him if you like. He has said he gets tons of e-mails (especially the past few days when he was talking about Ron Paul at length). I'm thinking about crafting a detailed response, but I'm not the most eloquent writer for sure!

----------


## ord33

Below is what Steve Deace said on his show on the 7th about what he wants answered by Ron Paul to secure his vote. These quotes might not be exact, but are very, very close if not exact. I can try to formulate my own response, but if you would like to help any I'd appreciate your input.




> When commander in chief is faced with an opponent that doesn't want peace and wants to replace our way of life. What do we do?
> 
> When you take an oath of office, so help me God, to uphold and defend the Constituion. A constitution that says no person shall be denied life and property without due process of law and we kill 4,000 babies a day. What do you do?
> 
> When you can answer me those questions you'll get my endorsement. But there aren't any answers to those questions. There's really specific answers to what we outta do to our monetary policy. What we outta do to create jobs. To not tax and spend as much. But those things aren't going to sustain this civilization. Defending ourselves against all enemies. foreign and domestic and upholding our inalienable rights will. Give me the answers to those questions and you'll get my vote.


Here is what was said just after that as a little background/follow up:



> How do you know what the Constitution means. Filter to read it - Declaration of Independence. Declaration Articulates what is the vision of America. Its the foundation. The constitution is the clarification/application. here is how we will carry out the belief system that is articulated in our founding document. Rights come from God. We are accountable to God. Governments exist so that your rights are protected. Tyranny is not acceptable. Among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the purpose of government. So it is correct that the Federal Government has no power to regulate the killing of children. And why doesn't the Constitution provide that power? Because Governments don't have a right to kill children period. There is no need to regulate something the Government has no right to do. (Woman says: and it was just a default position that it would protect the life of its citizens). 
> 
> They gave us a blueprint and they were brilliant men. But you know what they still were: Men. I don't go to the church of the Founding Fathers. I go to the church of Jesus Christ. And when the founding fathers align with Him they're right. And when they don't - they're not.


The quick and easy responses I would think would be:

1. That question is so much more difficult because it is pretty vague. The Ron Paul response on it would be something like. Evaluate all the information/intelligence. If there is a threat go to congress. Declare War and have strong objectives. Go fiercely and strong. Win war. Bring troops home.

2. Ron Paul tried consistently to pass the Sanctity of Life Act. Over and over again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_6VvQAmVk (This Chuck Baldwin video is about as straight up as it gets. But it does call out Tony Perkins and James Dobson, so it might not be the best to send to Steve Deace. But you know what. It definitely calls it like it is and advances Ron Paul as the person who has consistently tried something that would actually WORK).

I think that Steve Deace is looking for a lot more though. More in-depth. As President what would Ron Paul's role be?

He could certainly try his absolute best to get the Sanctity of Life Act to get through committee and the leadership so they could get a vote on it. If passed, this would accomplish a lot of what Steve Deace wants with respect to the abortion issue.

More depth on the first question would be great.

----------


## Okie RP fan

I wonder if Deace read half of our emails? It's not seeming as if he did, because I know most of us sent some pretty good information for Deace to really ponder over. 

It seems to me, however, that Deace has a pure hatred for Muslims and will not let anyone or anything deter him from believing as such.

----------


## wgadget

> I wonder if Deace read half of our emails? It's not seeming as if he did, because I know most of us sent some pretty good information for Deace to really ponder over. 
> 
> It seems to me, however, that Deace has a pure hatred for Muslims and will not let anyone or anything deter him from believing as such.


Yeah, I'm thinking his questions were rhetorical.  How can a CHRISTIAN broadcaster HATE people for their religion?

----------


## tbone717

> Yeah, I'm thinking his questions were rhetorical.  How can a CHRISTIAN broadcaster HATE people for their religion?


Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"
Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."
Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."
Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

----------


## wgadget

Big article on Steve Deace on Yahoo News today:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/m...163524462.html

----------


## Polskash

He's going to endorse Bachmann. Forget him.

----------


## LatinsforPaul

> Big article on Steve Deace on Yahoo News today:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...141033919.html


Wrong link...

Meet Steve Deace: Iowa radios Christian conservative hitmakerand hitman

----------


## wgadget

> Wrong link...
> 
> Meet Steve Deace: Iowa radio’s Christian conservative hitmaker—and hitman


Whoops. Thanks for the correction!

----------


## wgadget

Did anyone else notice that he has evil Bachmann eyes?

----------


## Okie RP fan

I think Glenn Beck is endorsing Bachmann as well.

----------


## ord33

Check out the latest from Steve Deace. I think Ron Paul definitely helped himself tonight in Deace's eyes:

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...-debate-recap/




> Winner—Ron Paul
> This was perhaps the best overall debate performance Paul has had in either this or the previous presidential cycle. He was alert, avoided rabbit trails, on message, and even dare I say at times charming. He did a good job of deconstructing Gingrich without coming across as angry in their lone exchange. His linking marriage fidelity with the oath of office was one of the best answers he has ever given in a debate. Paul buoyed his improving chances to win on January 3rd.


 (Note: He didn't pick Ron Paul as the ONLY winner - see article. But one of two that advanced their position. It is clear he isn't going to support Gingrich for the nomination though. Down to Paul, Santorum, and Bachmann for his vote/endorsement he has said.

Which leads to this facebook comment:




> Based on what I saw tonight, I think continued snipping at each other by Christians supporting either Bachmann or Santorum is a moot point. Neither candidate seems poised to distinguish themselves from the other and emerge as the conservative alternative, though both are fine people. All this will do is just make life tougher on January 4th and beyond for those of us still living here after the circus leaves town.





> Some quick analysis on the debate (will have more details later): Bachmann started strong but faded (final answer invoking Cain was especially weak). Santorum non-existent. Perry good at times, goofy at others. Paul was solid and helped himself. Romney was out-classed by Gingrich, who I think went a long way towards closing the sale.


So don't give up hope yet! All of you Deace haters, I suggest that he calls a spade a spade from his point of view. He isn't going by some formulated media opinion. He truly tries to be objective. Although he certainly sees Islamic Extremists as a larger threat than Ron Paul. Or at least in some of the ways to handle it.

----------


## ord33

At this point, it's not looking good to get Steve Deace's endorsement (if he gives one). He is going to pretty much write off Dr. Paul if he doesn't sign this pledge (like Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum have). Here is his facebook comment:




> I used every ounce of persuasion, begging, etc. I could to get Ron Paul to sign this pledge the past few days, and his campaign chose not to. At first I was told he doesn't do pledges, but he signed the Susan B. Anthony pledge. I'm sorry, but if you're a pro-lifer supporting Ron Paul this is a disturbing development. Not to mention inexplicable and inexcusable. There is nothing in the pledge that is immoral, unbiblical, or unconstitutional.


Here is another:



> The arguments people are making here to try and defend Ron Paul not signing this pledge are killing Paul. You're cannibalizing your own cause, by attacking the standard as opposed to upholding it, which only helps to confirm what Paul's detractors say about Paul and his supporters. This will look even worse when another signer to the pledge is revealed tomorrow.





> What will be funny to see is what happens if Ron Paul signs the pledge. Suddenly people will talk about how great the pledge is, because it becomes great by obtaining his signature, not on the objective merit of the issue. Sad. No more cults of personality please, the country is burning.





> Here's a better strategy then attacking the integrity of a pledge that articulates the basic right to life: how about contacting Dr. Paul and asking him to sign the pledge? What's wrong with asking someone to act on that which they believe? If they believe it, shouldn't be too much to ask. My wife knows I love her, but do I just stop telling her that because my record on loving her is so clear? Issues before personalities please. No more cults of personality, the country is burning.


I hate to say this, but I feel this is the beginning of the end for Iowa. This is a lot bigger deal than a lot of people realize. Dr. Paul may have a principled reason why he can't sign the pledge (not sure where in his policy?) and I can't blame him for being honest. However, I think it is going to have a very negative impact if he doesn't.

Anybody have a reasonable explanation why he doesn't sign it? Here is a link to the pledge: http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...vs-conviction/




> I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
> I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.
> I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings.
> I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited.
> If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human being at every stage of development are person with the unalienable right to life.


On another note, there is one vile person that attacks Ron Paul like it is his sole existence in life that regularly posts and says terrible things about Dr. Paul. He is along the same lines of Jeffrey Lord I would guess. http://www.facebook.com/jonathan.philbeck (Look at his activity and all of it is devoted to try to tear down Ron Paul).

----------


## Eric21ND

What use is a pledge from three unelectable candidates?

----------


## Sola_Fide

The issue is probably the 14th Amendment issue for Dr. Paul.  I myself, as extremely pro-life, go back and fourth on this issue.

----------


## Echoes

Obviously Steve is turned off by the small but vocal block of Randians and libertine anarchists who leech on to the RP movement, he's mentioned this a few times. They give Ron an awfully bad name and are by far the biggest drag on the campaign. 

I dont fault him for this, im scared $#@!less of their views too (pushing open-borders, abortion, globalism, gay agenda, etc.)

----------


## RM918

I'm really getting to the point of not caring about abortion anymore even though I side pro-life because of how obviously engineered an issue it always become. It is entirely hypocritical to stand against abortion and simultaniously not give a damn while aborting children who have already been born in the Middle East by dropping bombs on them.




> Obviously Steve is turned off by the small but vocal block of Randians and libertine anarchists who leech on to the RP movement, he's mentioned this a few times. They give Ron an awfully bad name and are by far the biggest drag on the campaign. 
> 
> I dont fault him for this, im scared $#@!less of their views too (pushing open-borders, abortion, globalism, gay agenda, etc.)


I really, really do not care about them. You know who I am scared of? The people who want to go to war with goddamned China. Who's more likely to get my ass nuked along with millions of other human beings? Newt Gingrich or someone who wants 'Heather Has Two Mommies' read to Kindergarteners? One of these is clearly a luxurious problem that we do not have when we're in the state we're in.

----------


## joshnorris14

> I hate to say this, but I feel this is the beginning of the end for Iowa. This is a lot bigger deal than a lot of people realize. Dr. Paul may have a principled reason why he can't sign the pledge (not sure where in his policy?) and I can't blame him for being honest. However, I think it is going to have a very negative impact if he doesn't.
> 
> Anybody have a reasonable explanation why he doesn't sign it? Here is a link to the pledge: http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...vs-conviction/


I'm fairly certain RP isn't against euthanasia or assisted suicide.

----------


## sailingaway

> Obviously Steve is turned off by the small but vocal block of Randians and libertine anarchists who leech on to the RP movement, he's mentioned this a few times. They give Ron an awfully bad name and are by far the biggest drag on the campaign. 
> 
> I dont fault him for this, im scared $#@!less of their views too (pushing open-borders, abortion, globalism, gay agenda, etc.)


globalists leech onto the RP movement?

Because I know some here only agree with him in spots, and just give those spots priority, but any globalist supporting Ron is seriously confused.

Maybe an anti-war, pro-civil liberties globalist?

----------


## joshnorris14

> Obviously Steve is turned off by the small but vocal block of Randians and libertine anarchists who leech on to the RP movement, he's mentioned this a few times. They give Ron an awfully bad name and are by far the biggest drag on the campaign. 
> 
> I dont fault him for this, im scared $#@!less of their views too (pushing open-borders, abortion, globalism, gay agenda, etc.)


One can say that Ron Paul leeched onto Rothbard and Rockwell's movement. Why be divisive? We're all trying to get Paul elected. I'm an ancap and I'm not running around spouting off about my views when I speak of Paul

----------


## specsaregood

> I hate to say this, but I feel this is the beginning of the end for Iowa. This is a lot bigger deal than a lot of people realize. Dr. Paul may have a principled reason why he can't sign the pledge (not sure where in his policy?) and I can't blame him for being honest. However, I think it is going to have a very negative impact if he doesn't.


So, if you bestow personhood at the moment of conception, does that mean the federal government needs to inspect every single period a woman has to make sure it wasn't conceived and failed to implant?  Will that warrant a police investigation?  So if you do that, then I guess you would have to outlaw birth control pills.

----------


## ord33

> I'm fairly certain RP isn't against euthanasia or assisted suicide.


I'm not 100% certain, but from this quote it looks like he against it:




> In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:
> 
> “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”


http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

----------


## ord33

I agree with the sentiment someone said about bombing and killing innocent people. The others signing the pledge (Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich) certainly would likely violate something in the pledge if they were to implement their foreign policy:




> I pledge to the American people that I will *defend all innocent human life*. Abortion and the *intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited*.


One could POSSIBLY argue that it wouldn't be "intentional", but it would certainly be "inevitable". How can these candidates signing the pledge say they are going to defend all innocent human life across the Globe? So if you take this pledge literally, one would have to go over and try to defend the slaughter going on in Africa and who knows how many other countries across the globe, meanwhile fighting other wars and not killing any innocent human being (even though it is inevitable to happen in war).

----------


## joshnorris14

> I'm not 100% certain, but from this quote it looks like he against it:
> 
> 
> http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.

The Pope's commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html


Would like some clarity on that.

----------


## Student Of Paulism

I think it is irrelevant at this point. After what the guy said, it's obvious he wont endorse him now and if Ron wound up doing it, then it would look too much like pandering, so it's just best to let it go and let em endorse Bachmann. 

 Ron simply doesnt want to sign it, because he doesnt want to put himself in  some hole if some huge issue came up afterward. There are a lot of variables on this issue, and as pointed out, being against the 'intentional killing of all human life' can be enormously taken out of context and stretched way past abortion issues. So yea, some civil war breaks out in Africa, and since Ron signed the pledge, welp, guess we have to march in there to stop it, because ya know, pregnant women might be getting killed  Than you have death penalty issues. What about 9/11 and how the plane was talked about being shot down if it were possible? Let's say we knew of a plane being hijacked and knew of the passengers before hand and where it was going to crash and we know 4 pregnant women were on board. Do we shoot it down, or let it crash and burn and kill 1000+ people instead of maybe 100? 

This is what i mean, these pledges are very ambiguous and can be easily misconstrued and Ron doesnt want to wind up boxing himself in by signing it.

And wtf, who the hell is this guy anyway, why are some making him out to some king maker? Is he really that influential?

----------


## ord33

> I think it is irrelevant at this point. After what the guy said, it's obvious he wont endorse him now and if Ron wound up doing it, then it would look too much like pandering, so it's just best to let it go and let em endorse Bachmann. 
> 
>  Ron simply doesnt want to sign it, because he doesnt want to put himself in  some hole if some huge issue came up afterward. There are a lot of variables on this issue, and as pointed out, being against the 'intentional killing of all human life' can be enormously taken out of context and stretched way past abortion issues. So yea, some civil war breaks out in Africa, and since Ron signed the pledge, welp, guess we have to march in there to stop it, because ya know, pregnant women might be getting killed  Than you have death penalty issues. *What about 9/11 and how the plane was talked about being shot down if it were possible? Let's say we knew of a plane being hijacked and knew of the passengers before hand and where it was going to crash and we know 4 pregnant women were on board. Do we shoot it down, or let it crash and burn and kill 1000+ people instead of maybe 100?* 
> 
> This is what i mean, these pledges are very ambiguous and can be easily misconstrued and Ron doesnt want to wind up boxing himself in by signing it.
> 
> And wtf, who the hell is this guy anyway, why are some making him out to some king maker? Is he really that influential?


I bolded the very good point I thought you made. I hadn't thought of something like that, but it is very true.

----------


## hammy

I KNEW this douchebag would malign RP somehow. I knew it. If I know RP, I'd say that if there's even one word he doesn't like in a document, or he finds unconstitutional, he won't sign a pledge/bill/anything. He is so strict to his values it's literally impossible to waver him. I haven't really read the pledge that closely, but it looks like one of those political meaningless forms. Newt Gingrich can sign that, but support federally funded abortions in the 90's. I don't buy this bs. 

I have a terrible feeling about this...

----------


## unknown

What pledge?

----------


## hammy

> I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited.
> If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human being at every stage of development are person with the unalienable right to life.
> I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
> I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.
> I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings.
> I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited.
> If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human being at every stage of development are person with the unalienable right to life.


//

----------


## unknown

> This pledge


Newt signed it?  He supported funding for stem cell research and certain types of abortions...

----------


## wgadget

Ron wouldn't sign any pledge unless he meant to keep it.  AS SHOULD ANYONE WITH INTEGRITY.

----------


## sailingaway

I don't know. It will depend on how Ron interprets it.

----------


## hammy

Sorry... I flew off the handle... stressed out by finals and this just makes me even angrier...

----------


## RDM

"I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited."

I like to Deace sign his own Damn document, knowing he already made it clear on the airwaves he's pro-war. How can he just innocent babies getting blown up from drone strikes? He can't. These people need to be ignored at all costs based on their hypocritical views. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

----------


## hammy

> "I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited."
> 
> I like to Deace sign his own Damn document, knowing he already made it clear on the airwaves he's pro-war. How can he just innocent babies getting blown up from drone strikes? He can't. These people need to be ignored at all costs based on their hypocritical views. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


Yeah I agree. If RP signed that document, he'd have to oppose war and birth control. Just based upon the vague wording it could apply to almost anything.

----------


## ord33

Steve Deace sure is getting his panties in a wad about not signing the pledge. Some of his Facebook comments:




> So why would someone sign a raw milk pledge but not a pledge that uphold the Biblical and Constitutional unalienable right to life?





> Ron Paul has close ties to the family that is one of the largest abortion providers in California.http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...life-problems/


It's an all out assault now - especially over this pledge.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Ron Paul does not want an amendment, he's said so on many occasions, and as recently as the Des Moines Register editorial interview.

Steve Douche is an idiot and it's not worth trolling for that loser's endorsement.

Oh, and since Steve Douche wants the federal government to get involved with people's lives, perhaps we should push for a ban of cheeseburgers and sloth. He's a little overweight, and since I am now on the hook for his healthcare, I demand that he take better care of himself.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Ron Paul does not want an amendment, he's said so on many occasions, and as recently as the Des Moines Register editorial interview.


 His thoughts on the matter are also, as it happens, IRREVELVANT, because Presidents play no part in the Constitutional amendment process.  This amendment is a pie in the sky, would likely take decades to go through, if it ever did, which it wouldn't because three-quarters of the states would never ratify it.  Can you think of at least 12 states which never would?  Yeah, so can I.  But, what it could do, and do very well, is distract pro-life idiots for the next couple decades as they brainlessly vote for principle-less gut-less slimes who hold this amendment out as something that will solve all their moral problems, cure America's degeneracy, and save all these aborted fetuses.  Someday.  Maybe.  Only a few decades down the road.  

"All you must do, Mr. Evie 'Social Conservative' to soothe your aching conscience is to vote for me, because I support your abortion amendment.  Oh, I will never vote for anything that will actually stop any abortions like Congressman Ron Paul's bill.  But I'll sure mouth the right words and endorse the right no-chance amendments for you!"

"Works for me!  Where do I vote?"

Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced a practical bill that would immediately, instantaneously, overturn Roe vs. Wade with nothing but a majority of Congress.  He introduced it at a time, for instance, a few years back when the Republicans had a majority of Congress.  Hmm... why didn't they pass it?  Could you remind me?  Oh yeah:

Because they are shameless, obvious LIARS who use pro-life as a GOTV ruse.  
They care nothing about the actual pro-life issue.
Their marks, the pro-life voters, care.
They just use the marks.
Don't be a mark!

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> His thoughts on the matter are also, as it happens, IRREVELVANT, because Presidents play no part in the Constitutional amendment process.  This amendment is a pie in the sky, would likely take decades to go through, if it ever did, which it wouldn't because three-quarters of the states would never ratify it.  Can you think of at least 12 states which never would?  Yeah, so can I.  But, what it could do, and do very well, is distract pro-life idiots for the next couple decades as they brainlessly vote for principle-less gut-less slimes who hold this amendment out as something that will solve all their moral problems, cure America's degeneracy, and save all these aborted fetuses.  Someday.  Maybe.  Only a few decades down the road.  
> 
> "All you must do, Mr. Evie 'Social Conservative' to soothe your aching conscience is to vote for me, because I support your abortion amendment.  Oh, I will never vote for anything that will actually stop any abortions like Congressman Ron Paul's bill.  But I'll sure mouth the right words and endorse the right no-chance amendments for you!"
> 
> "Works for me!  Where do I vote?"
> 
> Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced a practical bill that would immediately, instantaneously, overturn Roe vs. Wade with nothing but a majority of Congress.  He introduced it at a time, for instance, a few years back when the Republicans had a majority of Congress.  Hmm... why didn't they pass it?  Could you remind me?  Oh yeah:
> 
> Because they are shameless, obvious LIARS who use pro-life as a GOTV ruse.  
> ...


Yep. The pro-life movement is largely a cashcow. Fraud and a sham.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I kind of want to call this guy up again just to tell him off on this.

----------


## hammy

> I kind of want to call this guy up again just to tell him off on this.


I will +rep you every day until the day I die.

----------


## ord33

> I will +rep you every day until the day I die.


I agree. I think this video says it all:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_6VvQAmVk

----------


## hammy

> I agree. I think this video says it all:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_6VvQAmVk


Wow what a powerful video. I'd say to send it to Steve, but I'm sure he'll just spaz out and start crying about his ridiculous pledge.

----------


## kalo

"If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge," -pledge could it be a Tenth Amendment question for Paul, maybe him not seeing it as the presidents job to "interfere" into state issues?

----------


## RonRocks

Just sent the Douche an email with the video attached -- steve@stevedeace.com, let's do this! (worded nicely, of course )

----------


## specsaregood

> I agree. I think this video says it all:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_6VvQAmVk


Ok, I changed my mind.  Let's see if Mr. Baldwin will call up deace.

----------


## hammy

He won't understand. His pledge is all that matters to him in this world. That and stopping homosexuality somehow.

----------


## ord33

> He won't understand. His pledge is all that matters to him in this world. That and stopping homosexuality somehow.


Well, I have officially given up on Steve Deace endorsing Ron Paul. I think the odds of that happening at this point are extremely slim. He has explicitly stated that he will not vote for someone that doesn't sign his pledge. Lets just hope that he doesn't unfairly criticize Dr. Paul now. Four people have signed his pledge (Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry).

I think the reason is many people say that Ron's Sanctity of Life Act gives the power back to the states and that is an unacceptable position for them. It is either all or nothing. Chuck Baldwin in the video shown above explains this problem with their view perfectly. 

Also, although Steve Deace agrees with Ron Paul regarding getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan and nation building. He definitely disagrees with him on Iran from what I can gather.

----------


## steph3n

This guy is a lost cause:
hxxp://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/12/ron-paul-enemy-of-iowa-state-107825.html




> "One thing is for certain," Deace writes. "if a candidate with Paul’s foreign policy views wins the Iowa Caucuses that will be the final nail in Iowa’s first in the nation status.

----------


## Student Of Paulism

This guy can shove his pledge you know where. To make someone sign some bs like that, is making them bow down to THEIR principles and not HIS. I stated awhile back too, that he could be putting himself in a hole by signing that as well, since it states something like 'protect all life from conception to death', so any other issue aside from abortion that could tie into that pledge, could interfere with another principle Ron stands on, and that is just something he isnt going to risk.

If the guy can't accept Ron for what and who he is. then screw em.

----------


## hammy

> This guy can shove his pledge you know where. To make someone sign some bs like that, is making them bow down to THEIR principles and not HIS. I stated awhile back too, that he could be putting himself in a hole by signing that as well, since it states something like 'protect all life from conception to death', so any other issue aside from abortion that could tie into that pledge, could interfere with another principle Ron stands on, and that is just something he isnt going to risk.
> 
> If the guy can't accept Ron for what and who he is. then screw em.


SOP just wrecked you, Deace. You mad, bro? This guy was never going to get it anyway. He's way too worried about dropping infinite bombs on innocent people. Crazy Ron wants to respect all life. Something Deace has no clue about.

----------


## Student Of Paulism

Lol this was good:

UPDATE: Paul spokesman Gary Howard responds to Deace, Wallace, et al:

_   Saying that Iowa would be discredited if Ron Paul wins is an insult to Iowans who truly care about where our country is headed and want an end to the status quo of elitist Washington, and those who would say such a thing only prove that they're on the side of keeping the status quo._

----------


## SchleckBros

Steve is not a happy camper.

"Ron Paul should either apologize or lose the Iowa Caucuses after some bush-league comments on the Tonight Show"

He is appearing on Huckabee tonight.

----------


## sailingaway

Dang it, I bet Ron would have apologized without thinking twice if someone even mentioned this to him wherever he is today.  He has had so little down time I bet Ron hasn't bben told and hasn't thought twice about what he said on Leno.  I'm sure he wouldn't have used 'hate' if he had thought it through just because the whole thing was unusual for him altogether. I think he was wrestling with where Bachmann was possibly coming from on Iran. I think he thinks she is being irrational in refusing to read what the actual report said.  But what he said is going to make some people who are simply victims of fear mongering think he is speaking about them, and I'm sure that isn't what Ron intended.  But if someone goes on Huckabee and 'demands' an apology, that escalates the whole thing.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Steve is not a happy camper.
> 
> "Ron Paul should either apologize or lose the Iowa Caucuses after some bush-league comments on the Tonight Show"
> 
> He is appearing on Huckabee tonight.


I watch, listened, and participated in this thread and this radio rodeo clown Deace and his philosophy on politics and religion. The outcome:

* Steve Deace = Serial Hypocrisy!*

----------


## Kords21

There was nothing "bush-league" about those comments. Based on their past comments/ stands on issues that's the only logical conclusion. Who is this guy to be demanding candidates sign his "pledge"? He's probably just sorry that after he's said and such, he's painted himself into a corner and is going to miss the Ron Paul boat.

----------


## sailingaway

He is a very influential evangelical radio host and was clearly considering Ron as at least one of those possible to endorse until just late this week, so there is a misunderstanding that may just need to be cleared up. Or not, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

We were all kind of surprised by what Ron said, he was caught in a lightening round and I think didn't choose his words as well as he might have under that circumstance.  I understand Ron was obviously distressed by her position on Iran, but I think he was wondering aloud, actually.

----------


## matt0611

> Steve is not a happy camper.
> 
> "Ron Paul should either apologize or lose the Iowa Caucuses after some bush-league comments on the Tonight Show"
> 
> He is appearing on Huckabee tonight.


What does he want him to apologize for that he said on the Tonight Show?

----------


## freedoms-light

Does Deace even come close to denouncing how the moderator maligned Ron on Iran?
Or the re-dredging up of the newsletters to smear him, etc.
I know this is politics and maybe Ron should have phrased it differently,
but the hypocrisy on the other side is blatant.

----------


## SchleckBros

> The interview is quintessential Paul. Leno does a good job of doing one of the most revealing interviews with Paul most voters have likely ever seen. For most of the interview Paul also comes across as less quirky and more likable then he does in most of the debates, which allows voters to truly understand his beliefs. 
> 
> When you watch the video clips there is little doubt that Paul is espousing a Randian Libertarian philosophy. Therefore, he often comes to the right conclusion from a flawed premise. Make no mistake: the philosophy he is espousing here is not a Biblical view of the role of government, because Randian libertarianism isn't Biblical. Ayn Rand herself despised Christians and Christianity in general. 
> 
> But I'm not telling you something most of you don't already know, which is why Paul continues to struggle to widen his base of support among those with a Biblical worldview. That's why if you like Paul before the first three parts of the interview you still do, but if you don't like him before the first three clips you still don't. 
> 
> However, it's the fourth and final clip where Paul jumps the shark, and probably should cost himself the Iowa Caucuses minus an apology. 
> 
> In this fourth and final clip Paul is quoted as saying that Michele Bachmann "hates Muslims" and "wants to go get them." Later he agrees with Leno that all Rick Santorum talks about are "gays and Muslims."
> ...


hxxp://stevedeace.com/forum/showthread.php?292-Ron-Paul-on-the-Tonight-Show&p=1826#post1826

----------


## lucent

> He is a very influential evangelical radio host and was clearly considering Ron as at least one of those possible to endorse until just late this week, so there is a misunderstanding that may just need to be cleared up. Or not, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
> 
> We were all kind of surprised by what Ron said, he was caught in a lightening round and I think didn't choose his words as well as he might have under that circumstance.  I understand Ron was obviously distressed by her position on Iran, but I think he was wondering aloud, actually.


He _was_  very influential. His radio program was on at 5 pm, one of the two best time slots for talk radio hosts. His program got bumped to 8. He is still relatively influential, but not nearly what he prides himself as.

----------


## PierzStyx

Dr. Paul shouldn't apologize one bit. Its true and he shouldn't ever apologize for speaking the truth. I'm convinced she hates Muslims as well. Just listen to her rhetoric. Her entire point is that Iran is dangerous because it has an Islamic government who MUST be insane and wants to blow up the world. Over and over again her problem is with Muslims and Islam. She refuses to accept any other explanation as even remotely possible, despite the evidence for those explanations. And when she sites evidence about anything related to Iran, she gets it wrong. Every. Single. Time. Its clear to me her bias and hatred gets in the way of her intellect. Like every true racist she is completely intellectual except when it comes to race. Then no matter what evidence you give they insist they're right and everything else is just evil. Frothy is the same way except he throws gays in there as well. Its disgusting.

----------


## paulim

Whats wrong with people all the time complaining about the good Dr. in the last days? Take that stick out. Jay Leno is a COMEDY show, and therefore the comments were more than appropriate. Deace is as much a drama queen as hannity is. Who thinks still that hannity will "come around"? These people have deeper issues and need professional advice.

----------


## thehungarian

Randian Libertarianism? What a dumbass.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Dang it, I bet Ron would have apologized without thinking twice if someone even mentioned this to him wherever he is today.  He has had so little down time I bet Ron hasn't bben told and hasn't thought twice about what he said on Leno.  I'm sure he wouldn't have used 'hate' if he had thought it through just because the whole thing was unusual for him altogether. I think he was wrestling with where Bachmann was possibly coming from on Iran. I think he thinks she is being irrational in refusing to read what the actual report said.  But what he said is going to make some people who are simply victims of fear mongering think he is speaking about them, and I'm sure that isn't what Ron intended.  But if someone goes on Huckabee and 'demands' an apology, that escalates the whole thing.


Are you joking?  Ron Paul owes no apology to murderous, statist bigots like Santorum, Bachmann and Steve Deace.  

WHO CARES about the endorsement of this "influential" talk show host, who will only endorse somebody when they're clearly going to win anyway.

After listening to this guy's show and listening to him pontificate from his stupid bible commentaries he picked up at Dollar General, I can tell you he worships one thing - Arbitron ratings.  And apparently he failed to pray intensely enough to that deity if he got bumped from drive time.  Santorum is his candidate, but I guess filthy lucre is keeping Steve Deace from putting his endorsement where it belongs - with a genocidal maniac.

Maybe he should sign my pledge that the Iranian people have a right to life.

----------


## cero

well his true colors finally show up, 
and lol at that banner on that forum
"fear god, tell the truth, make money"
sigh, what a hypocrite.

----------


## sailingaway

> Dr. Paul shouldn't apologize one bit. Its true and he shouldn't ever apologize for speaking the truth. I'm convinced she hates Muslims as well. Just listen to her rhetoric. Her entire point is that Iran is dangerous because it has an Islamic government who MUST be insane and wants to blow up the world. Over and over again her problem is with Muslims and Islam. She refuses to accept any other explanation as even remotely possible, despite the evidence for those explanations. And when she sites evidence about anything related to Iran, she gets it wrong. Every. Single. Time. Its clear to me her bias and hatred gets in the way of her intellect. Like every true racist she is completely intellectual except when it comes to race. Then no matter what evidence you give they insist they're right and everything else is just evil. Frothy is the same way except he throws gays in there as well. Its disgusting.


I don't think Ron looks at it that way.  If he spoke carelessly and hurt someone's feelings (and I think it is more than just MB but the people who have been told they had to be afraid and trusted that, as well) he'd correct it in a heart beat because he wouldn't have meant to do that in the first place.  That isn't the same as backing down, it is more clearing up a miscommunication.  but only Ron can speak to that.

----------


## sailingaway

> well his true colors finally show up, 
> and lol at that banner on that forum
> *"fear god, tell the truth, make money"*
> sigh, what a hypocrite.


I kinda liked the slogan.  You have a problem with making money?

----------


## sailingaway

> Randian Libertarianism? What a dumbass.


I'm sure he means objectivism.  That is where all the atheist stuff comes from.

----------


## low preference guy

bleh

----------


## wgadget

> hxxp://stevedeace.com/forum/showthread.php?292-Ron-Paul-on-the-Tonight-Show&p=1826#post1826


Wow, I notice that in his commentary, Deace conveniently forgets to mention the context of the fourth clip:  It was a sort of rapid-fire game with Leno.  It's not like Ron just out of the blue said, "And this is what I think about the other candidates."  That would be SO out of character.

Judging by his actions,  I think Steve Deace thinks WAAAY too much of himself.  (Isn't pride considered a sin in the Bible?)

----------


## sailingaway

Guys, before trashing this guy, I'd give Ron a chance to figure out all this is going on (he probably hit the pool as soon as he got home) and deal with it.  Let's take our cues from Ron.  At least I plan to.

----------


## wgadget

> He _was_  very influential. His radio program was on at 5 pm, one of the two best time slots for talk radio hosts. His program got bumped to 8. He is still relatively influential, but not nearly what he prides himself as.


Methinks that the way things are going, he and his ilk (Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, etc.) will be becoming less and less "influential."

----------


## Badger Paul

I wouldn't be upset at an apology, it certainly wouldn't hurt. But I can imagine where that came from. To attack RP as a "non-starter" after he campaigned for you and then act surprised at his views in televised debate is what's a non-starter.

That being said, the campaign pull out the stops to get Dems and independents to caucus for us because that's going to be the key to success and I think that's where our polling strength lies.

----------


## sailingaway

I don't see Hannity and Deace being on the same page. Deace thinks very highly of Tom Woods, for example.  I don't see that in Hannity.

----------


## lucent

> Guys, before trashing this guy, I'd give Ron a chance to figure out all this is going on (he probably hit the pool as soon as he got home) and deal with it.  Let's take our cues from Ron.  At least I plan to.


The campaign has already responded.

----------


## wgadget

*




 Originally Posted by PierzStyx


Dr. Paul shouldn't apologize one bit. Its true and he shouldn't ever apologize for speaking the truth. I'm convinced she hates Muslims as well. Just listen to her rhetoric. Her entire point is that Iran is dangerous because it has an Islamic government who MUST be insane and wants to blow up the world. Over and over again her problem is with Muslims and Islam. She refuses to accept any other explanation as even remotely possible, despite the evidence for those explanations. And when she sites evidence about anything related to Iran, she gets it wrong. Every. Single. Time. Its clear to me her bias and hatred gets in the way of her intellect. Like every true racist she is completely intellectual except when it comes to race. Then no matter what evidence you give they insist they're right and everything else is just evil. Frothy is the same way except he throws gays in there as well. Its disgusting.


*

But--but--but:

*"There are many loyal supporters of fine Christian people like Bachmann and Santorum that are likely never to forget these heinous comments, which will make it very difficult for Paul's Iowa supporters to successfully do business in this state, or help other candidates who share their views. Like, for instance, his son should he ever decide to run for president. Paul's organization has fought to hard to establish itself in Iowa for the long-run to be done by such an asinine self-inflicted wound. 

There is simply no place for this garbage in Iowa. Someone doesn't have to hate Muslims to think it's a bad idea for Iran and its military Islamic theocracy to have a nuclear weapon, anymore then someone in the 1930s wasn't an anti-German xenophobe for concluding letting Hitler mobilize an army was a bad idea."*

The man is a wacky warmonger.  EEESH.  America is turning the page toward a new, improved, more CHRISTIAN-acting nation..Better get on board, Steve or be left behind. Just my opinion.

----------


## sailingaway

> The campaign has already responded.


to this? Or to the 'Iowa will be discredited' line?  Because that is the only one I saw.  Nothing about 'hating Muslims'.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The recent comments by Deace lead to me to think he is making the same mistake *most* Christians make when they vote for president:  they are looking for a theologian-in-chief.


Ron Paul is not going pass any purity test of Christian orthodoxy.  And if the choice is between Ron Paul's Constitutionalism and Michele Bachmann's police state, the Christian man should always support the choice that gives him more liberty.


Ron Paul's worldview of Constitutional government is eminently more Biblical than Michele Bachmann's war state, so Christian's should set aside the slight failings of Ron Paul's orthodoxy.  


The worldview of government that Ron Paul espouses was a product of centuries of Christian political thought.  Deace should already know this.

EDIT:  typos sorry

----------


## sailingaway

> But--but--but:
> 
> *"There are many loyal supporters of fine Christian people like Bachmann and Santorum that are likely never to forget these heinous comments, which will make it very difficult for Paul's Iowa supporters to successfully do business in this state, or help other candidates who share their views. Like, for instance, his son should he ever decide to run for president. Paul's organization has fought to hard to establish itself in Iowa for the long-run to be done by such an asinine self-inflicted wound. 
> 
> There is simply no place for this garbage in Iowa. Someone doesn't have to hate Muslims to think it's a bad idea for Iran and its military Islamic theocracy to have a nuclear weapon, anymore then someone in the 1930s wasn't an anti-German xenophobe for concluding letting Hitler mobilize an army was a bad idea."*
> 
> The man is a wacky warmonger.  EEESH.  America is turning the page toward a new, improved, more CHRISTIAN-acting nation..Better get on board, Steve or be left behind. Just my opinion.


what he said there isn't war mongering. Dr. Paul doesn't want them to have a nuclear weapon either.  He just thinks the better way to go at that is through diplomacy than war, as we did during the Cuba missile crises.

----------


## low preference guy

> The recent comments by Deace lead to me to think he is making the sane mistake *most* Christians make when they vote for president:  they are looking for a theologian-in-chief.
> 
> 
> Ron Paul is not going pass any purity test of Christian orthodoxy.  And if the choice is between Ron Paul's Constitutionalism and Michele Bachmann's police state, the Christian man should always support the choice that gives him more liberty.
> 
> 
> Ron Paul's worldview of Constitutional government is eminently more Biblical than Michele Bachmann's war state, so Christian's should set aside the slight failings of Don Paul's orthodoxy.  
> 
> 
> The worldview of government that Ron Paul espouses was a product of centuries of Christian political thought.  Deace should already know this.


send him just this.

----------


## sailingaway

> The recent comments by Deace lead to me to think he is making the same mistake *most* Christians make when they vote for president:  they are looking for a theologian-in-chief.
> 
> 
> Ron Paul is not going pass any purity test of Christian orthodoxy.  And if the choice is between Ron Paul's Constitutionalism and Michele Bachmann's police state, the Christian man should always support the choice that gives him more liberty.
> 
> 
> Ron Paul's worldview of Constitutional government is eminently more Biblical than Michele Bachmann's war state, so Christian's should set aside the slight failings of Don Paul's orthodoxy.  
> 
> 
> The worldview of government that Ron Paul espouses was a product of centuries of Christian political thought.  Deace should already know this.


this is about Ron saying MB hates Muslims.  You can be offended by that and still like Ron's world view better.  I was a bit startled to hear that harshness of term come from him myself, it is a very rare thing, on a personal basis, and Ron has frankly considered her a friend.  I think he was rethinking things, somewhat.  But he feels strongly about sticking to the Christian just war theory in war, and considers to do otherwise instinctively immoral.

----------


## low preference guy

> I think he was rethinking things, somewhat.


I think RP changed his mind about Bachmann when she said that RP's views were the most dangerous thing she ever heard and started making stuff up about U.N. reports and the Iranian Constitution. I think Ron Paul didn't like being lectured about war by some idiot who bought the war propaganda in Iraq.

----------


## wgadget

> I think RP changed his mind about Bachmann when she said that RP's views were the most dangerous thing she ever heard and started making stuff up about U.N. reports and the Iranian Constitution. I think Ron Paul didn't like being lectured about war by some idiot who bought the war propaganda in Iraq.


Yeah, I don't think being slandered by someone trying to prop herself up is Ron's idea of honesty. I bet that really rubbed him the wrong way.

Which reminds me...I think a Ron Paul presidency would bring a new badly-needed spirit of INTEGRITY to the country.

----------


## undergroundrr

When she started making up s*** to support her case that Iran should be bombed, she made it clear that she had no evidence to support the need for pre-emptive action.  She was just trying to find any excuse to bomb some Muslims.

----------


## Badger Paul

_"I think he was rethinking things, somewhat."_

I think what happened at the debate had something to do with this.

Another thing to remember is that Deace and VanderPlaats and King all style themselves as would-be kingmakers with the "evangelical" vote in Iowa. To pander to them would be embarassing. That doesn't mean you attack them but it also doesn't mean you kow-tow to them either. Ron Paul has put out his record and his views and if they don't like them they don't have to vote for him. It's as simple as that. 

Luckily for us they can't make up their minds who they want to support and even if they did their "followers" are split five different ways.

----------


## thehungarian

> I think RP changed his mind about Bachmann when she said that RP's views were the most dangerous thing she ever heard and started making stuff up about U.N. reports and the Iranian Constitution. I think Ron Paul didn't like being lectured about war by some idiot who bought the war propaganda in Iraq.


Definitely agree with this. She showed her true colors at the debate and the day after on her campaign trail and Ron isn't putting up with her anymore. If there is something he hates, I bet it's being talked down to by an intellectual inferior and a fraud.

----------


## wgadget

> When she started making up s*** to support her case that Iran should be bombed, she made it clear that she had no evidence to support the need for pre-emptive action.  She was just trying to find any excuse to bomb some Muslims.


Good point. And the woman has a record of this kind of behavior.  Remember the made-up story about tje Gardasil vaccine? This is NO DIFFERENT.

In fact, I would venture to say her performance with Ron on the Iran topic may very well be what has turned so many to our side over at hannity.com.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Randian Libertarianism? What a dumbass.


Isn't that kind of redundant anyway?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I will +rep you every day until the day I die.


Just got done calling in to the show, then waiting on hold for a little over two hours, then being told he wouldn't be able to get to me.  Oh well.  Maybe I can get through tomorrow.  I was all ready to talk about pro-life (and get "reps" forever ).

----------


## ord33

Thanks for your efforts! That stinks you couldn't get on!

----------


## Eric21ND

> Just got done calling in to the show, then waiting on hold for a little over two hours, then being told he wouldn't be able to get to me.  Oh well.  Maybe I can get through tomorrow.  I was all ready to talk about pro-life (and get "reps" forever ).


Bring up Santorum endorsing Spector and doubling the size of the department of education.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Bring up Santorum endorsing Spector and doubling the size of the department of education.


He ended up endorsing Gingrich.  That was why he couldn't fit me on (that and, well, the word "rude" did start coming to my mind somewhere along the second hour ) -- too busy pumping Gingrich featuring as guests every single prominent person who can tolerate Gingrich: Gingrich's daughter, JC Watts, and some reverend.

----------


## hammy

Best thing about Iowa: We don't have to talk about this guy anymore.

----------


## sailingaway

Why on earth did you bump this thread?

----------


## hammy

> Why on earth did you bump this thread?


It was just some fun...

Can't seem to win on forums. 

If you start a new topic, "USE THE SEARCH BAR."

If you comment on the already existing topic, "WHY DID YOU COMMENT?! UGHHH"

----------


## farrar

my bad.

edit: multiple tabs, posted in wrong place.

----------


## ord33

Steve Deace's latest Facebook post:




> New rule: as long as Ron Paul's campaign is working with Occupy Wall Streeters and thinks Santorum and Newt are a bigger threat to the republic than Romney, any pro-Paul posts on my personal page will be an instant unfriend. Thanks.


Wow.

----------


## undergroundrr

But he just LUUVVz Tom Woods.

----------


## pauliticalfan

Iowa is ancient history, as is this fool. Not sure why people still think he's relevant.

----------


## Okie RP fan

Why was this revived!? 

Hahaha. 

Anyway, Deace is brainwashed and has clearly shown multiple times that he is prone to the occasional knee jerk reaction and does not do his homework.

----------


## sailingaway

> Iowa is ancient history, as is this fool. Not sure why people still think he's relevant.


He has a national program, actually.  Besides, people aren't disposable.  But he's wrong, here.  Gingrich is seriously bad news, and how can he support SAntorum who pushed no child left behind, etc?

----------


## emazur

Just listened to an interview with Tom Woods from 1/8/2013.  After Woods got off the air, Deace talked about how Woods tried to convince him to endorse Ron in 2012, how he wound up endorsing Gingrich instead, and that Tom Woods was right (that part happens around 29:00 in):
http://stevedeace.com/headline/deace...cast-01-08-13/

----------


## Anti-Neocon

At least he's got enough principles to admit that he's wrong.  He seems eager to get behind Rand in 2016.

----------


## sailingaway

> Just listened to an interview with Tom Woods from 1/8/2013.  After Woods got off the air, Deace talked about how Woods tried to convince him to endorse Ron in 2012, how he wound up endorsing Gingrich instead, and that Tom Woods was right (that part happens around 29:00 in):
> http://stevedeace.com/headline/deace...cast-01-08-13/


good for him. 

I posted on his page recently, it came up on some topic I was looking into.

----------


## ord33

I think Steve Deace is one of the few radio hosts who is actually principled and will stand where he believes. He agrees with our positions in so many ways. Overall, he's got some integrity which can't be said about most of them! Other than Jerry Doyle, I can't think of another what could be considered "Conservative" radio host that was so anti-Romney even once he won the primary.

I also like that Deace does admit when he's wrong and has went through his life in the past and pointed out the times when he was wrong and how he has improved himself as a person.

His market is definitely growing also. He's expanding into some major media markets including NYC.

Steve Deace is DEFINITELY a good ally to have.

----------


## sailingaway

I'd like Ron on his show now.  At the time he was asking Ron to go on, Ron was being sandbagged and since Deace was asking him as a challenger I guess the campaign didn't want him to go, but I agree Deace might have as easily swung behind Ron as not.  Meanwhile he has a big audience, and Ron IS religious, personally, he just doesn't feel it is the place of government to force morality on people.  I think it could be a great interview.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> At least he's got enough principles to admit that he's wrong.  He seems eager to get behind Rand in 2016.


 Oh please.  I think it was a calculated "mistake."  His mind hasn't changed, nothing has changed, and he'd do the same thing in an instant.  It's all about Israel for Deace.  As, of course, it is for most of his listeners.  This is his career.  He's not going to alienate his customers.  He's going to tell them what they want to hear.  And who was the most rabidly virulently pro-Israel?  Newt Gingrich.

In 2016, who is going to be the most insane pro-war pro-Israel maniac?  _That_ will be who Deace endorses.

----------


## sailingaway

> Oh please.  I think it was a calculated "mistake."  His mind hasn't changed, nothing has changed, and he'd do the same thing in an instant.  It's all about Israel for Deace.  As, of course, it is for most of his listeners.  This is his career.  He's not going to alienate his customers.  He's going to tell them what they want to hear.  And who was the most rabidly virulently pro-Israel?  Newt Gingrich.
> 
> In 2016, who is going to be the most insane pro-war pro-Israel maniac?  _That_ will be who Deace endorses.


I'm actually not sure that is so with Deace.  I think he wanted an excuse to maybe get behind Ron. He came down to 'either gingrich or Paul' before the caucus then I forget when he went to Gingrich, but he has pretty much moved away from the others.  He spoke well of them more, and wanted Ron on his show big time, but it was a minefield with Ron soaring before the caucus at that point, and Ron never went on.

He was outright AGAINST Romney, and even spoke about not voting GOP if he won, although I don't follow Deace per se and I don't know how that came out.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Well that is my assessment, as someone who's listened to and even called in to his show.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well that is my assessment, as someone who's listened to and even called in to his show.


You could be right, yet he refused to back Santorum before caucus when he had all the choices because of his Senate votes, and didn't back Bachmann, although he was nice to her.  And he was against Romney, and spoke at least 'one of these two' about Ron.  But I don't listen to him, really, and only have heard him around Ron.  I did get the impression he plays to his listeners, but when it mattered I thought he might have been open.

----------


## cero

this is what Deace wrote after Ron went on the tonight show

hxxp://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/common-sense-ron-paul-on-the-tonight-show/

more on ron paul

hxxp://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/the-final-phase/





> Any other candidate would be toast after the past 72 hours Paul has had. First there was his refusal to sign the Personhood pledge signed by Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, and Rick Perrydespite the fact he signed the Susan B. Anthony pledge. Then there was getting the endorsement of homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan, followed by the revelation of Pauls close relationship with a family that owns one of the largest infanticide chains in California. But the coup de grace was Pauls naïve pre-War of 1812 foreign policy views that were sadly on full display Thursday night. Pauls chances of winning January 3rd were definitely diminished, but its hard to tell to which degree because he has a coalition that operates outside the traditional Republican framework and still has the best organization in the state. Hes got such a cult of personality that has abandoned all critical thinking that at this point he could name a unicorn as his running mate, and his hardcore supporters would just latch on all the more. Its too bad, too, because on the stuff Paul is right about he cant possibly be more right. One thing is for certain, if a candidate with Pauls foreign policy views wins the Iowa Caucuses that will be the final nail in Iowas first in the nation status. Like it or not, the media and the Republican Party itself will simply discredit the results and start the process over in New Hampshire.


forgive and forget I guess.
I don't know how rand does it, guy should be commended for dealing with folks like this.

----------


## sailingaway

> this is what Deace wrote after Ron went on the tonight show
> 
> hxxp://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/common-sense-ron-paul-on-the-tonight-show/
> 
> more on ron paul
> 
> hxxp://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/the-final-phase/
> 
> 
> ...


The personhood pledge was Deace's baby. that was his most pissed off. Ron wouldn't go on his show to discuss it either, not that I really blamed the campaign at the time.  I did think it could go either way, though.  And yeah, it was after he had narrowed it to two, Ron being one, and you are reminding me why he wen't off Ron to Gingrich.  Even so, he generally was more open.

----------

