Erpsssarwtc

[ThatGuy113]

I think the issue here is they have been talking about this shit for years now. Its old. More people should be like good guy Greg here. Why dont you go count the amount of Ron Paul threads started by our libertarian leaning community here. It never ends. I mean with the exception of Uncle Bucks Ron Paul losing thread there are at least 7 Ron Paul threads in the first 3 pages on top of all of the anti-Obama conspiracy threads too (Most posting in those are also Ron Paul supporters).edit- I can only speak for myself but thats whats grinds my gears about it. Its a constant shit storm of a misled Ron Paul supporter version of American exceptionalism. Here's 16 pages of Ron Paul threads. ENJOY! https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=20429530&pp=I bet if you searched Obama in our search engine youd see 90% threads are bashing him, also made by non Obama supporters who have a tendency to make Ron Paul threads. https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=20429540 Go ahead click it You wont see very many supportive Obama threads. Maybe were on to a pattern here

Or maybe this is just a website that tends to lead to more radical views then the mainstream either way on the pendulum and it just so happens thats the case here, besides most of the moderates on this website never venture into the politics forum. For obvious reasons.

Hey! watch yourself Greg is a good guy. The fact is no other group constantly feels the need to wave the flag of their favorite politician constantly implying conspiracy against anyone not Ron Paul. Ron Paul has double talked more then Obama or Romney [Hes been doing it for decades remember ]. When its all said and done hes just going to go back to Texas counting his campaign money from his "revolution"Heres a classic. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron PaulAmen!

1) Reread what I said, I said radical FROM THE MAINSTREAM. My views make sense to me also but I would agree with the statement that my views are outside of the mainstream thought. 2) Keep waiving then cant wait till November. 3)Ron Paul just said the church was supposed to take precedent over government which was NOT what the founding fathers wanted. The founding fathers had problems with the church but saw the job that religion did for society when setting certain moral expectations therefor it was inherently good but was not to interfere with the federal government directly. That would be a friendly theocracy, pretty sure thats not what they were going for.He may be fighting against a "police state" but hes trying to replace that with a church state.and btw what is your definition of being left out of the debate for 50 years. I can honestly say that you were not voting on the criteria of libertarian-ish frameworks in every election since you were 18. Unless your first vote was 2008. I know you were voting for them other guys in your past and not being left outside of the mythical political debate.

This guy^ Having a penis is cool isnt it? Im glad I dont have to personally worry about this since I do not have a vagina, but for the time being I guess your the best person to make decisions about not penises. I bet if the government made you have a colonoscopy every year without your choice you would be on libertarian fire!

Its not the worst thing about him and you know that.Interesting opinion I found online. The Cost of WarRepresentative Paul has advocated on many occasions that the United States should bring our troops home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because such action is a violation of state sovereignty (a subject to be discussed later) and the costs are bankrupting this country. Yet, Rep. Paul takes it a step further and demands that the United States stand down in places like Europe and South Korea, and that we should downgrade our military to a national defense force, essentially cutting our defense forces in half.Yes, such a policy would save the United States government, and US taxpayer, hundreds of billions of dollars every year, but it also has another cost. In a world where China is building their navy, air force and nuclear stockpile, where North Korea will sell their technology to the highest bidder, and where Iran is beginning to expand their influence into the Western hemisphere it is a poor time for America to begin weakening itself militarily. Though Mr. Paul advocates that technology enables us to minimize our forces, he also fails to realize that the size of our forces is also deterrence. The ability to take the fight to the enemy, and crush his will no matter where he resides, has been an effective deterrence through out the years, and as China begins to grow their forces, a larger, more technologically advanced force would be needed should China decide to flex its muscles. Granted this argument is was the justification for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), but international scholars would argue that MAD was what ultimately kept the Cold War cold, and what bankrupted the Soviet Union.Another president pursued such a policy when he was first elected. He decimated the US Army and Navy all in the name of economics. His policy had such a negative affect that when the United States was finally forced into war by the actions of a hostile foreign navy, there were only a handful of Army Division, a dozen airplanes, and maybe a few dozen battleships. The United States was woefully prepared for their response when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and the president who desired to downgrade our military to a national defense force because the country couldn’t afford it was FDR.Yes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost money, and American prestige over seas; however, American prestige has not been good in foreign countries for some time, and would not have improved had we never invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the cost of maintaining a standing military, even in a time of war, according the nonpartisan CBO is approximately 4% of GDP. Entitlements and Social Security take up over 60% of GDP, and the cost is climbing. It seems that perhaps the real threat to the United States’ national security is not maintaining the best trained fighting force this world has ever seen, but in making social promises we can’t afford or keep.http://www.voicesempower.com/debunking-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-fp-part-1-the-cost-of-war/

You dont have to be a republican. Your advocating the same social issue that they are mocking in the video. Therefor in this case you are included with the Republicans ON THIS ISSUE because you agree with them through the attitude you seem to display in your post about female rights. Jesus, critical thinking.

Herp, If you allowed the preventative care and education to get funded then there would be many times less abortions then there are today. You cant legislate morality. It just doesn't work, its been proven again and again (You can get life sentences for shooting and killing someone but people still shoot and kill people). Go ahead put it on the books, abortions will still happen and will be severely unregulated. Being as Dr. Paul took a Hippocratic oath I believe he would be more interested in the best interest of the people he sees (keeping it legal so that it can be done safely and under the right care not a girl pushing her stomach on a rail or drinking till she aborts it), BUT LIKE I SAID PREVENTATIVE EDUCATION AND CARE IS HOW YOU DEAL WITH IT cause then a majority of those abortions wouldnt even be possible because pregnancy rates go down in the first place. Just like Ron Paul would rather treat hard drug users as public health issue and not a criminal issue. More pregnancies would be legitimate and a severe drop in unexpected pregnancies would happen then a drop in abortions because there are less unready mothers. Your simply using reactionary policy instead of actual addressing the ACTUAL problem. Keep beating around the bush, you wont get anywhere. Thats that Ron Paul version of american exceptionalism at work again. Holding people up as against a ideology through law, believing that everyone will drop to their knees and see the light of Ron Paul's "correct" way of dealing with the world. How is that any different then reconstruction in the south that failed terribly after the civil war. We tried to impose morality and social standards and were pushed out and most of the "official" morality in the south wasnt fixed till the middle of the 1900s. also another fun way to look at things. "Similarly, Paul’s positions on civil liberties issues aren’t actually about civil liberties as we understand them; they’re about his opposition to Federal authority. (An opposition that is somewhat conditional, it should be noted.) For example, in talking about the death penalty, he makes clear that he opposes it only at the Federal level. His opposition to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Drugs, and domestic surveillance come from the same root as his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He has no real objection to states violating the rights of their citizens; it’s only a problem if the Feds do it."http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/12/28/debunking-the-ron-paul-cares-about-civil-liberties-myth/

Extension on first part.Thats that Ron Paul version of american exceptionalism at work again. Holding people up as against a ideology through law, believing that everyone will drop to their knees and see the light of Ron Paul's "correct" way of dealing with the world. How is that any different then reconstruction in the south that failed terribly after the civil war. We tried to impose morality and social standards and were pushed out and most of the "official" morality in the south wasnt fixed till the middle of the 1900s.Second part.The feds cant violate the constitution technically either. The issue is if we get rid of federalism as we know it we then have even more surface area for destruction from within on the social level. 50 different states possibly doing 50 different things. It would be worse then the gridlock we get in the legislature today. We wouldnt need states rights if everyone actually voted for their national representatives and took part in the wing of the government that was actually given the most power to in the founding of our country.States rights is just another minority vs majority argument. So the only way you can do win that argument is finding common ground with the other people across the country. If people actually took part in the political process we could easily mobilize a couple states to get shit done in Washington though our representatives, we have ALL of this technology to communicate but no one cares enough to use it right way on the part of the majority of voters.

Ok so your telling me you want a smaller government in every aspect except you still want them to decide how you live your life morally. Isnt that still similar to shariah law or even communism?and the issue is hes justifying direct influence from the church on the state. Thats a no no.

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429P.S. I dislike Jefferson but he sure does make sense up there.

Discipline - The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.

Gridlock is what breeds the issues that started what you and Mr Paul are arguing against anyways. It breeds partisanship and then when a party gets the majority they go as extreme as their base wants them to killing any chance of actual progress for the majority of citizens instead of the majority of legislators.

Sorry not condone, I meant decide. I apologize. It was the heat of the moment. Also please see above as I have added more. Ill try to cut down on that but im not trying to post a million times on one page. and fyi Derp-A word utterred when one screws up. origin: Matt Stone and Trey Parker in BASEketball. Used as an interjection

And thats where you got in on the conversation with the copy paste king stuff. The only things I injected randomly (I guess you could say) were in green but they were just continuing my points that Ron Pauls plan for American wind down around the world is not smart in a world of collective security and is not the smartest choice in a globalized world. Then the article about how Ron Paul actual cares little about civil liberties. If still want me to be your king I can do it for you though I dont want to break your delicate fantasy, I wont be a jerk and ruin it.

(I didnt highlight my quote of Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson but I figured that would be allowed here)

Actually, I was hoping you would copy and paste more because I have been reading some of your posts over and over and I am having a difficult time understanding you. I have this problem sometimes myself, especially when I am trying to be cryptic and hoping that someone will read between the lines and "get it".
I'm sure it was clear in your head when you wrote it but it's not coming across clearly.

Im not trying to get you to see between the lines. Ive laid out my argument in my own words with plenty of information. Secondly I was not referring to you in the post you commented on here. That was to my Brah over there.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Its not just intercourse stop simplifying it. Actually look into the subject instead of stereotyping the subject to just abortions and sex. Its much more then that.
Like I said earlier Education and Preventative care are teh ONLY ways to majorly drop unexpected pregnancy and abortion rates because they wouldnt be getting pregnant in the first place.

Sure, it's important people understand what they are doing. That's what parents and school is for.

Please enlighten me how we are in the same boat as WWI and WWII.
In both wars we were focused on only our own hemisphere before being forced to step in after a while in both conflicts. No country is trying to expand and conquer others right now. Conventional warfare is obsolete because of those nuclear weapons. The issue however is if push came to shove do you really think the people in charge would have the balls to shoot off a nuke and forever change the entire world for probably mass destruction and a nuclear winter that last years.

Japan is on our side, they are The United States sphere of influence in South East Asia a long with South Korea. Remember the whole Japan taking over the world thing was like 10 years ago the talking heads have replaced the name Japan with China and are still fear mongering. I do realize the article mentions it above but I do not agree with it. China has many more domestic problems in society and politics.

The military status we face today is the result of 50 years of the Cold War. So..... If you want to be fair you could say that its the fault of the departure of FDR. The boys club from Yalta was no longer complete and relations started degrading at Potsdam (Truman, Churchhill and Stalin). That is what built up the industrial war complex.

WWI killed of monarchies and WWII killed off colonialism
We no longer face an expansive government looking to march into other countries and take everything. We are dealing with a world of collective security. The fact is the nuclear weapon made conventional warfare obsolete. We no longer fight institutions (like nazi Germany or communist Moscow) We fight ideology and thats where we screwed up in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan (Which has seen invasions from Britain and Russia throughout history and both failed) and so on. We always just relied on our American Exceptionalism to make us believe that non Americans would drop to their knees and commit to American values and ideals once we went over there and started throwing guns and money at our problems.

I would normally love to show you with contextual information that I am correct but for risk of being a "copy paste king" I dont care about you guys drawing your own conclusions from the original information instead of just hearing my side anymore.

Economic conditions similar, world tensions at incredible highs (you probably don't know this but major powers have made public threats of retaliation more than a few times), huge arms race, authoritarian superpower executing plans of world conquest (See: The United States, who, despite your claims to the contrary and that this stuff doesn't happen anymore, have indeed been rolling their armies aggressively through other countries and are setup to roll through more than a couple others too).

The parallels are scary actually.

I'm sorry I clearly illustrated how lacking in context your points about the role of the church, Ron Paul's comments and Thomas Jefferson's writings were. Typically taking stuff out of context doesn't help further a point and in fact tends to have the opposite effect.

Ron Paul's comment was quite accurate, whether you want to believe otherwise or not. You didn't even know the role the Church played back then. And your conception of what Jefferson meant by power - is just so incredibly wrong on every level.

You are a copy paste king, no doubt about it. Unfortunately you don't even understand the stuff you're reading.

As far as your article about Ron Paul being against civil liberties, it's complete crap. The States are still beholden to the constitution and stuff like the Patriot Act is clearly unconstitutional. Suggesting he supports the Patriot Act, but only at a state level, is just absurdly fucking stupid.

Ron Paul is completely against the imposition of morality, which is why he wants to deny Federal funds to groups who epouse their own brand of morality (ie: GLBT) or any other group which has their own brand as well. A bill like that is definitely political pandering, I won't deny that, but it is not ideologically inconsistent, nor is it an attempt to legislate morality. It's the exact opposite in fact.

Ron Paul supports legal gay marriage (even though he probably opposes it morally, because it's not the governments business to legislate such things). He even supports abortion rights and he's said as much, even though he does not agree with them.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

And thats where you got in on the conversation with the copy paste king stuff. The only things I injected randomly (I guess you could say) were in green but they were just continuing my points that Ron Pauls plan for American wind down around the world is not smart in a world of collective security and is not the smartest choice in a globalized world. Then the article about how Ron Paul actual cares little about civil liberties. If still want me to be your king I can do it for you though I dont want to break your delicate fantasy, I wont be a jerk and ruin it.

(I didnt highlight my quote of Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson but I figured that would be allowed here)
View attachment 2157609





Im not trying to get you to see between the lines. Ive laid out my argument in my own words with plenty of information. Secondly I was not referring to you in the post you commented on here. That was to my Brah over there.

Your argument has no actual legitimate points because you don't understand the era, you don't take anything that has been said in proper context and you're flat out wrong about a number of subjects to the point where it would appear you are deluded completely (see: Your point about nations no longer being aggressive).

 

[ThatGuy113]

Sure, it's important people understand what they are doing. That's what parents and school is for.






Economic conditions similar, world tensions at incredible highs (you probably don't know this but major powers have made public threats of retaliation more than a few times), huge arms race, authoritarian superpower executing plans of world conquest (See: The United States, who, despite your claims to the contrary and that this stuff doesn't happen anymore, have indeed been rolling their armies aggressively through other countries and are setup to roll through more than a couple others too).

The parallels are scary actually.

I'm sorry I clearly illustrated how lacking in context your points about the role of the church, Ron Paul's comments and Thomas Jefferson's writings were. Typically taking stuff out of context doesn't help further a point and in fact tends to have the opposite effect.

Ron Paul's comment was quite accurate, whether you want to believe otherwise or not. You didn't even know the role the Church played back then. And your conception of what Jefferson meant by power - is just so incredibly wrong on every level.

You are a copy paste king, no doubt about it. Unfortunately you don't even understand the stuff you're reading.

As far as your article about Ron Paul being against civil liberties, it's complete crap. The States are still beholden to the constitution and stuff like the Patriot Act is clearly unconstitutional. Suggesting he supports the Patriot Act, but only at a state level, is just absurdly fucking stupid.

Ron Paul is completely against the imposition of morality, which is why he wants to deny Federal funds to groups who epouse their own brand of morality (ie: GLBT) or any other group which has their own brand as well. A bill like that is definitely political pandering, I won't deny that, but it is not ideologically inconsistent, nor is it an attempt to legislate morality. It's the exact opposite in fact.

Ron Paul supports legal gay marriage (even though he probably opposes it morally, because it's not the governments business to legislate such things). He even supports abortion rights and he's said as much, even though he does not agree with them.

Yea but if the new parents of today were never taught by their parents they wont teach their kids. You put so much faith in Humans to take initiative and learn by themselves. You cant rely on that. Thats like saying unsteady economic markets will correct them self each and every time without outside interference.

Id suggest some further reading for you but you know.

Like I explained earlier the Founding Fathers did not want DIRECT influence on state affairs from the CHURCH.

That Jefferson quote was in the correct context and further supported my point.

Go reread my post a few up and I explain it perfectly. Ive laid it all out for you, you just need to actually comprehend it.

America as a super power is not Nazi Germany invading Czechoslovakia.
We allow private industry to be the colonialist not the government. Thats how Teddy Roosevelt did it. He justified military presence to protect private industries in foreign countries that were harvesting resources and taking it back the U.S. Its also what Jefferson did too. Barbary pirates and naval expansion in Asia to protect american financial interest (private industry)


Ron Paul just doesn't want the Federal government to decide what civil liberties are ok. Hes ok with states enforcing the same things hes fighting against on the federal level with a few issues.

 

[ThatGuy113]

Your argument has no actual legitimate points because you don't understand the era, you don't take anything that has been said in proper context and you're flat out wrong about a number of subjects to the point where it would appear you are deluded completely (see: Your point about nations no longer being aggressive).

You must be new here. Go through my old posts throughout the poltics forum. I have plenty understanding about the era and the ones that followed. From Woodrow to the end of the Cold War.

Let me put it in easy terms: SINCE BEFORE 1776 WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A EXPANSIONIST COUNTRY. PRETENDING WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A OFFICIAL CHRISTIAN ISOLATIONIST STATE IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED. MONROE DOCTRINE is a good start but like I said its starts years before that.

To bad we never annexed Cuba due to the civil war.

Once again that pretending is justifying a theocracy.


On top of that we got out of our economic slumps (economic slumps that weren't from a war but from economic mismanagement domestically) BY GOING TO WAR in WWI and WWII. We singlehandedly rebuilt Europe after the World War Two I think all that government spending worked out for the good. This economics slump we are currently in was caused by a war we were directly involved in from the beginning. Thats the difference.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

And your point about the Founding Fathers is relevant because? (The correct answer is it is not relevant by the way)

Did Ron Paul say he wanted the Church to be the government? No, he didn't. He said this "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance"

This is something far different than what you want it to be. The founding fathers had visions of a very small federal government with very limited power (ie: No Dept of Education, Health or anything else), no centralization and a country where people could operate freely regardless of beliefs. During this period the churches ran most important services like education, charity etc. So in fact, what he said is in fact not inaccurate if you view these institutions as at the core of healthy society (I think many people do). But the fathers also wanted competition, which is why they explicitly stated that while the Church has plenty of rights, they do not have real power (your reference to Jefferson, except that Jefferson is talking about the use of force when describing power, laws and such) and you do not have to even go to Church if you don't want to.

Also worth noting is that at the time the nation was filled with mostly Christians. I might argue that the fathers didn't necessarily envision a church dominated society in the future, but they were not against it so long as other institutions had the same rights and freedoms. That's why the constitution is written like it is.

It probably would have been more accurate for him to say they wanted various social institutions, freely created or practiced by the people of the nation to be the ones greater in importance than government, but again, he has a base and he is definitely pandering to it. And quite frankly I don't hold it against him because he has never once been ideologically inconsistent. But your take on it is just completely wrong on every level. And if you cannot see that, I cannot help you further as I feel like I've been fairly clear on this subject.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

You must be new here. Go through my old posts throughout the poltics forum. I have plenty understanding about the era and the ones that followed. From Woodrow to the end of the Cold War.

Let me put it in easy terms: SINCE BEFORE 1776 WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A EXPANSIONIST COUNTRY PRETENDING WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A OFFICIAL CHRISTIAN ISOLATIONIST STATE IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED. MONROE DOCTRINE.

Once again that pretending is justifying a theocracy.

So which is it? Colonialism dead and there are no aggressive world powers anymore because of nuclear weapons, or the US is an expansionist war driven country that is extremely dangerous to world peace? You can't really have it both ways even though you seem to have attempted to go both directions.

Honestly I'm not even completely clear what you just said in the post above, you might want to take some time to think before you post as it would seem you are rushing here and the above is awfully confused.

 

[ThatGuy113]

And your point about the Founding Fathers is relevant because? (The correct answer is it is not relevant by the way)

Did Ron Paul say he wanted the Church to be the government? No, he didn't. He said this "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance"

This is something far different than what you want it to be. The founding fathers had visions of a very small federal government with very limited power (ie: No Dept of Education, Health or anything else), no centralization and a country where people could operate freely regardless of beliefs. During this period the churches ran most important services like education, charity etc. So in fact, what he said is in fact not inaccurate if you view these institutions as at the core of healthy society (I think many people do). But the fathers also wanted competition, which is why they explicitly stated that while the Church has plenty of rights, they do not have real power (your reference to Jefferson, except that Jefferson is talking about the use of force when describing power, laws and such) and you do not have to even go to Church if you don't want to.

Also worth noting is that at the time the nation was filled with mostly Christians. I might argue that the fathers didn't necessarily envision a church dominated society in the future, but they were not against it so long as other institutions had the same rights and freedoms. That's why the constitution is written like it is.

It probably would have been more accurate for him to say they wanted various social institutions, freely created or practiced by the people of the nation to be the ones greater in importance than government, but again, he has a base and he is definitely pandering to it. And quite frankly I don't hold it against him because he has never once been ideologically inconsistent. But your take on it is just completely wrong on every level. And if you cannot see that, I cannot help you further as I feel like I've been fairly clear on this subject.

Eclipse would mean to take precedent. That would mean Ron Paul is a liar when referring to the Founding Fathers. Cause Jefferson didnt feel that way and I know many more of them didnt either. The issue is Ron Paul justified direct church involvement in government. They did not want DIRECT involvement from the church in the state. They understood that Christianity was the moral compass used by the majority at the time but knew that those church values should not be directly put into law. The general moral guideline of the majority would help guide social and federal issues but was not to become religious policies themselves.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Eclipse would mean to take precedent. That would mean Ron Paul is a liar when referring to the Founding Fathers. Cause Jefferson didnt feel that way and I know many more of them didnt either.

Eclipse doesn't have to, and most certainly does not in this case (as clearly evidenced by Ron Paul's voting record, his many numerous speeches, papers, books etc), mean that at all. Precedent is typically a legal term and he's never once said he believes the Church should be writing law - the very opposite in fact is what he has suggested. You are wrong. But it's pretty clear, that at this point, no amount of reasoning will be able to illustrate this to you.

 

[ThatGuy113]

So which is it? Colonialism dead and there are no aggressive world powers anymore because of nuclear weapons, or the US is an expansionist war driven country that is extremely dangerous to world peace? You can't really have it both ways even though you seem to have attempted to go both directions.

Honestly I'm not even completely clear what you just said in the post above, you might want to take some time to think before you post as it would seem you are rushing here and the above is awfully confused.

Jesus man. READ. TRADITIONAL COLONIALISM IS DEAD. We are not trying to take over multiple countries like the Soviets or the Nazis (We are "making the world safe for democracy" not expanding the motherland)

We are expansionalist. I never said we werent but the issue is the days of invasions and control of other sovereign nations is no longer valid. The world map has seized up and the world powers of today do not fight each other (As they did in WWI and WWII). The conflicts we face today are with countries that are behind the western world and the rest of the world powers in the areas of technology and society. Globalization is the new colonialism if you really wanted to look at it like that.

We are now in a world of collective security and no world power would invade some other world power unilaterally today. The international retaliation would be massive.

The new form of warfare is economic not physical.

and once again id like to repeat the fact that we were in economic trouble before we went into WWI and WWII (and built everything to sell for the effort in Europe) unlike today where we weren't in economic trouble till after the start of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[ThatGuy113]

Eclipse doesn't have to, and most certainly does not in this case (as clearly evidenced by Ron Paul's voting record, his many numerous speeches, papers, books etc), mean that at all. Precedent is typically a legal term and he's never once said he believes the Church should be writing law - the very opposite in fact is what he has suggested. You are wrong. But it's pretty clear, that at this point, no amount of reasoning will be able to illustrate this to you.

Here its your buddy

What Ron Paul says the founding fathers said:

The War on Religionby Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD​

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it's hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn't feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don't celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation's Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel's Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.



What Thomas Jefferson actually said.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to theDanbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion

The earlier Jefferson quote from a few pages back combats the argument Paul makes about it just dealing with preventing a Church of England in America.




I think you guys just call me copy paste because you get pissed when I actually have proof. I could have just posted this a while ago but you guys dont like seeing the real evidence.

How much clearer does it have to be for you?





Extra Credit

Treaty of Tripoli

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


The only reason I back up my arguments is because you cant discredit the actual argument because I proved with contextual evidence that Ive got history on my side.

and fun fact.
Ron Paul said this
"Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God......"
The constitution does not mention god or Christianity anywhere. I would say that Ron Paul is arguing that America was built on the idea that this is a Christian nation, sounds like he is saying Christianity is officially endorsed to me.


Definition of the phrase establishment of religion - A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.



Supreme Court ruling in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another...... Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." "




​

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Again, I don't believe you are using proper context. It's nice to highlight one select piece of an article, but if you read the preceeding he's talking about some really mundane shit, like prayer in school or town sponsored Christmas decorations. He's not talking about a theocratic state at all.

And the Declaration does reference God/Creator quite a lot. The constitution does not, so he was wrong there.

And they were heavily influenced by religious texts, but they were predominantly deists. They were mostly Freemasons after all. But most Masons are also religious people and typically the Masonic Volume of the Sacred Law is the King James bible.

Ron Paul doesn't think government should interfere with religion either, which is why he wrote the piece in the first place. I think what you really meant to say is Jefferson really didn't want Religion to interfere with government at all and that Ron Paul does. Again, there is no evidence that is what he wants. He talks about schools eliminating Christmas pageants and the like in a predominantly Christian society. But I should also remind you that he doesn't believe the Federal government should be running those schools in the first place.

It wasn't a well written piece from him as I feel it's lacking in some context as well, but I have read a lot of things he has written and he most certainly doesn't feel you should be a Theocratic nation, which is what you suggested.

I don't find his position to be very unreasonable either given we are talking about simple forms of expression (often in areas where it's a predominantly Christian popular), not laws designed to oppress others or forceful action of any kind.

 

[ThatGuy113]

That whole Christmas article was advocating for no separation of church and state. Hes saying its hurting America. I understand they were deist but you dont understand that they wanted no law helping or hurting, looking favorably or negatively upon any religion.

Thomas Jefferson
-

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."





Also the Declaration of Independence only references the "natures god" and is not a legal document that binds the United States to any theological identity. ​

 

[kelly4]

not that jesus is real and christianity is still utter bullshit.

As opposed to Judaism,Satanism, and Islam?

 

[kelly4]

. That's what parents and school is for.

Bullshit!! That's not what schools are for. That's what PARENTS are for!

This is the whole problem, people depend on the school to teach their kids what THEY should be teaching them.
The school (and government) can keep their teachings to themselves!

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Bullshit!! That's not what schools are for. That's what PARENTS are for!

This is the whole problem, people depend on the school to teach their kids what THEY should be teaching them.
The school (and government) can keep their teachings to themselves!

Schools are there to teach people. Of course the federal government shouldn't be running schools.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

That whole Christmas article was advocating for no separation of church and state. Hes saying its hurting America. I understand they were deist but you dont understand that they wanted no law helping or hurting, looking favorably or negatively upon any religion.

No shit sherlock. Ron Paul agrees about not making laws with respect to religion, he just thinks it's really over the top stupid for people to be disallowing prayer in school and other forms of religious expression (it is and I believe it's a violation of students first amendment rights) and such.

 

[ThatGuy113]

No shit sherlock. Ron Paul agrees about not making laws with respect to religion, he just thinks it's really over the top stupid for people to be disallowing prayer in school and other forms of religious expression (it is and I believe it's a violation of students first amendment rights) and such.

He literally said the separation of church and state does NOT exist. Go read it again.

• "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. "​

  
  
  ​

He literally lies straight to your faces.

Now back onto his support of the church controlling the state. Maybe he doesnt talk about religion too much because thats when everyone would realize hes nuts.

Theology, Not Politics​

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD​

Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.​

I'm happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.​

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America — and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.​

Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for maintaining that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope's positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.​

Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope's pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.​

To the secularists, this was John Paul II's unforgivable sin — he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.​

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 penalty? Governments.​

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion — it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.​

April 12, 2005​

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.



Sounds to me like hes scolding other politicians because their legislation was not a direct application of church theology and morals

Oh noes!

​

 

[UncleBuck]

jesus fucing christ, ronald is such a fucking joke. how he has all of you guys duped still is beyond me. typical two-faced politician, yet the RIU'ers are lining up to suck his cock and clean his garage.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Whats your point? Are you just getting your copy and past fix for the day?