Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: bebop396 on December 02, 2007, 01:18:09 PM
-
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
discuss
-
wrong board twink.
-
Ron Paul 2008!
-
Ron Paul is the only honest man running for president.
-
Ron Paul is the only honest man running for president.
I agree with that statement but some of his other policy choices aside from his stance on the war and guns makes me scratch my head. He does exemplify the old school Goldwater conservative principles that I can appreciate though I am far from a conservative or liberal for that matter.
-
I've accepted the inevitability of national mgmt by corporations to ensure longterm viability. We've seen MEX and RUS declare bankruptcy in last ten years. Would hate to see it here. With most of the candidates, we'll have the same cycle of corruption and warmongering and borrowing. We won't feel it much when the new snake takes over. But a Ron Paul Presidency would have huge huge impacts on our daily lives - for better or worse, I don't know.
-
I've accepted the inevitability of national mgmt by corporations to ensure longterm viability. We've seen MEX and RUS declare bankruptcy in last ten years. Would hate to see it here. With most of the candidates, we'll have the same cycle of corruption and warmongering and borrowing. We won't feel it much when the new snake takes over. But a Ron Paul Presidency would have huge huge impacts on our daily lives - for better or worse, I don't know.
For worse. He is anti gay and pro big business. He is pro christian. He is no better then bush.
-
For worse. He is anti gay and pro big business. He is pro christian. He is no better then bush.
Ron Paul will end the wars, stop the funneling of money to foreign countries, and end the IRS.
-
Ron Paul will end the wars, stop the funneling of money to foreign countries, and end the IRS.
So will Mike Gravel except he won't opress women, gays, and allow unrestricted capitalism.
-
So will Mike Gravel except he won't opress women, gays,
Neither will Paul... libertarians oppose nearly all forms of government intrusion into people's lives.
and allow unrestricted capitalism.
What's wrong with that? You a pinko-commie or something? :D
-
How about this man in the oval office?
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/starprofile/Nasser_El_Sonbaty.jpg)
-
Neither will Paul... libertarians oppose nearly all forms of government intrusion into people's lives.
What's wrong with that? You a pinko-commie or something? :D
Take a look at China and you will see what happens when unrestricted capitalism occurs. Libertarians hold the same views as social darwinists like John C. Calhoun, Sumner, and other pro slave supporters from his time. In the 1800's the messages of Thomas Paine, Thoreau, and many other advocates of freedom had their message changed from individual freedom to capitalistic freedom.
-
How about this man in the oval office?
He has the same problem Arnold has.
Even if he didn't, no way Americans would elect someone named "Nasser" in the current political climate.
-
Take a look at China and you will see what happens when unrestricted capitalism occurs. Libertarians hold the same views as social darwinists like John C. Calhoun, Sumner, Sumner, and other pro slave supporters from his time. In the 1800's the messages of Thomas Paine, Thoreau, and many other advocates of freedom had their message changed from individual freedom to capitalistic freedom.
Unrestricted capitalism is good for me, therefore I support it.
It's also good for the country as a whole in the long run, but I agree in the short run it can produce some undesirable situations.
-
So will Mike Gravel except he won't opress women, gays, and allow unrestricted capitalism.
Gravel is awesome. But he attacked the other candidates so disruptively that he was kicked out of the debates by NBC skell Chuck Todd.
Ron Paul is less obnoxious about it, and is the best choice out of the people running, if you want an honest candidate who will stop the borrowing to conduct elective wars, and end funneling of billions to foreign nations.
-
Unrestricted capitalism is good for me, therefore I support it.
It's also good for the country as a whole in the long run, but I agree in the short run it can produce some undesirable situations.
Is lead polluted toys, arsenic flavored drinking water, and lead polluted air good for you?
-
Gravel is awesome. But he attacked the other candidates so disruptively that he was kicked out of the debates by NBC skell Chuck Todd.
Ron Paul is less obnoxious about it, and is the best choice out of the people running, if you want an honest candidate who will stop the borrowing to conduct elective wars, and end funneling of billions to foreign nations.
Ron Paul seems like a great candidate I like his idea we stay out of foreign affairs , after the war of 1812 the founder fathers wanted no more headaches from other counties problems and it worked well for a long time .
-
Gravel is awesome. But he attacked the other candidates so disruptively that he was kicked out of the debates by NBC skell Chuck Todd.
Ron Paul is less obnoxious about it, and is the best choice out of the people running, if you want an honest candidate who will stop the borrowing to conduct elective wars, and end funneling of billions to foreign nations.
No, he was not kicked out for questioning the other candidates. He was kicked out because he is against the war in Iraq and GE has a huge investment in it along with MSNBC. Article 8 of the North Carolina State constitution states that if you do not believe in God you are disqualified from office. Soo much for states rights aye 240 :-\
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article6.html
-
Ron Paul seems like a great candidate I like his idea we stay out of foreign affairs , after the war of 1812 the founder fathers wanted no more headaches from other counties problems and it worked well for a long time .
Do you want unfunded police and fire departments too? What about universitys. I mean MY GOD!!! Look at them violating our constitution. Such a horrible thing!!
-
No, he was not kicked out for questioning the other candidates. He was kicked out because he is against the war in Iraq and GE has a huge investment in it along with MSNBC.
Ron Paul has received extensive coverage on NBC and MSNBC despite being vehemently anti-war, and even suggesting Bush will use a fake attack to get us into war with Iran, ala 911.
-
Is lead polluted toys, arsenic flavored drinking water, and lead polluted air good for you?
No one is talking about completely dismantling consumer protection, just cutting out cumbersome, bureaucratic regulation that goes too far and does nothing but act as a drag on the parts of the economy that actually produce (unlike bureaucrats and lawyers, who produce nothing).
Ron Paul would be a huge step in the right direction. Keep in mind, congress would still be the "status quo" lifers that are there now, so it's not like he as president could change things radically... he would just be in a position to influence things in the right direction.
-
Ron Paul has received extensive coverage on NBC and MSNBC despite being vehemently anti-war, and even suggesting Bush will use a fake attack to get us into war with Iran, ala 911.
Uhhhhh did you just recently watch the debates? He got called on probably 3 times.
No one is talking about completely dismantling consumer protection, just cutting out cumbersome, bureaucratic regulation that goes too far and does nothing but act as a drag on the parts of the economy that actually produce (unlike bureaucrats and lawyers, who produce nothing).
Ron Paul would be a huge step in the right direction. Keep in mind, congress would still be the "status quo" lifers that are there now, so it's not like he as president could change things radically... he would just be in a position to influence things in the right direction.
So you think publicy funded fire, police depratments, and universitys is a bad thing? Have you read the history books? This is the exact reason why we had a civil war. It might be a step forward for businesses but for science, technology, education, and the overall well being of the united states it is a step backwards. People like Hitler came to power from isolationist policies.
-
Uhhhhh did you just recently watch the debates? He got called on probably 3 times.
Which debate?
On the Repub CNN debate from this week, he had way more than 3 chances to speak. Probably 10 or 12 from best estimate. He had some good exchanges and was allowed to go back and forth with McCain.
As far as money, more military men donate to RP cause they want to come home.
In a new poll today, he's destoying Thompson 8% to 2% in Iowa and many insiders predict him to get 3rd. This was Chris Matthews this morning on NBC.
-
Mike Gravel is better. Ron Paul is a republican.
-
Which debate?
On the Repub CNN debate from this week, he had way more than 3 chances to speak. Probably 10 or 12 from best estimate. He had some good exchanges and was allowed to go back and forth with McCain.
As far as money, more military men donate to RP cause they want to come home.
In a new poll today, he's destoying Thompson 8% to 2% in Iowa and many insiders predict him to get 3rd. This was Chris Matthews this morning on NBC.
He was not called on as much as the other candidates. Hell, Mitt Romney got more chances to speak and he sucks. Mccain is sucks too and he was destroying him. Don't get me wrong. I believe Ron Paul is a good guy and has honest intentions but to take us back in time before the Civil War is just silly. You still have not addressed the issues of losing public funding for police and fire departments, universites, technology and research, etc... Don't give me the 10th amendment bs either. Do you honestly think the state of Lousiana can fund itself? The only thing that will happen under Ron Paul politics is polarization of this country. Economic inequality has 9 out of 10 times been the main cause of war throughout history.
-
So you think publicy funded fire, police depratments, and universitys is a bad thing? Have you read the history books? This is the exact reason why we had a civil war. It might be a step forward for businesses but for science, technology, education, and the overall well being of the united states it is a step backwards. People like Hitler came to power from isolationist policies.
Who the hell said anything about fire and police? You're just pulling shit out of your ass now. ::)
-
Who the hell said anything about fire and police? You're just pulling shit out of your ass now. ::)
No im not. It is the main argument for all your Ron Paul Libertarian yuppies. Funding of police and fire departments is a violation of the 10th amendment.
-
Mike Gravel is better. Ron Paul is a republican.
Hahah exactly. I am tired of these capitalistic animals and there corporate influence over politics. Everyone looking out for the own interests instead of the overall well being of the nation. Hint: Economics is not the only way to develop society. Look at China with their fragmented authoritarianism and allowing the localities run all over the place and shit up the enviroment. China isn't looking so good right now for political stability.
-
Take a look at China and you will see what happens when unrestricted capitalism occurs. Libertarians hold the same views as social darwinists like John C. Calhoun, Sumner, and other pro slave supporters from his time. In the 1800's the messages of Thomas Paine, Thoreau, and many other advocates of freedom had their message changed from individual freedom to capitalistic freedom.
I agree. One of the opinions stated on here was that capitalism is good in the long run but can have negative affects in the short term but this is actually the opposite. Fluctuations in the market make it extremely difficult to predict long term which makes stability difficult to maintain.
-
He was not called on as much as the other candidates. Hell, Mitt Romney got more chances to speak and he sucks. Mccain is sucks too and he was destroying him.
They assigned time based upon polling. Ron Paul probably got the 5th most time. He pwned tancredo and the other schmoes, and yeah, I think he spoke more than thompson too. Paul was focused upon a lot of the time, and IIRC, he was standing near the middle cluster too.
I believe Ron Paul is a good guy and has honest intentions but to take us back in time before the Civil War is just silly. You still have not addressed the issues of losing public funding for police and fire departments, universites, technology and research, etc... Don't give me the 10th amendment bs either. Do you honestly think the state of Lousiana can fund itself? The only thing that will happen under Ron Paul politics is polarization of this country. Economic inequality has 9 out of 10 times been the main cause of war throughout history.
THAT sections of Paul's agenda won't pass. Congress won't let it. But he will be able to stop the war, disarm DHS a bit, reclaim liberties here by ending the Patriot Act, and getting things a bit more honest in DC.
-
They assigned time based upon polling. Ron Paul probably got the 5th most time. He pwned tancredo and the other schmoes, and yeah, I think he spoke more than thompson too. Paul was focused upon a lot of the time, and IIRC, he was standing near the middle cluster too.
THAT sections of Paul's agenda won't pass. Congress won't let it. But he will be able to stop the war, disarm DHS a bit, reclaim liberties here by ending the Patriot Act, and getting things a bit more honest in DC.
So will Mike Gravel? What's the difference you say? Mike Gravel isn't dangerous to this country. Im tired of Ron Paulers acting like Mike and Ron are exactly the same when they are polar opposites.
-
Leafy,
I agree that Gravel made an insane amount of sense.
Problem is, at this point, he's irrelevant in this process. If he was 5th among the dems and have ten mil to spend, I'd be talking about his chances. Since supporting him is in reality an exercise in futility now - and since Ron Paul actually *can* take 2-4 in Iowa and then clean house as an Independent, he is relevant.
-
Im tired of Ron Paulers acting like Mike and Ron are exactly the same when they are polar opposites.
Both support ending Patriot act and war in Iraq.
-
Leafy,
I agree that Gravel made an insane amount of sense.
Problem is, at this point, he's irrelevant in this process. If he was 5th among the dems and have ten mil to spend, I'd be talking about his chances. Since supporting him is in reality an exercise in futility now - and since Ron Paul actually *can* take 2-4 in Iowa and then clean house as an Independent, he is relevant.
The election isn't over. No one thought Bill Clinton would get in office either. When Americans are actually polled on the Issues Dennis Kucinish and Mike Gravel come out on top. Ron Paul is DEAD LAST.
-
The election isn't over. No one thought Bill Clinton would get in office either. When Americans are actually polled on the Issues Dennis Kucinish and Mike Gravel come out on top. Ron Paul is DEAD LAST.
historically, the candidates with $ win.
Ron Paul has money now.
I'd possibly choose Gravel over Paul, I don't know.
I do know that I'd choose Paul over most others running now, if not all.
Gravel has zero chance. This isn't an attack on him, it's an analysis based upon his coverage, populace awareness, and money.
-
Leafy, your main objections to Ron Paul are that you are pro-gay and anti-christian correct ?
Ron Paul and Deniis Kucinich would both be fine improvements. Ron Paul is a very honest and good man, so is Dennis Kucinich.
-
historically, the candidates with $ win.
Ron Paul has money now.
I'd possibly choose Gravel over Paul, I don't know.
I do know that I'd choose Paul over most others running now, if not all.
Gravel has zero chance. This isn't an attack on him, it's an analysis based upon his coverage, populace awareness, and money.
Ron Paul WILL NOT turn independent. He will drop out and not go independent as he does not want to lose the seat he has in the House.
-
240 and supporters: PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES on Ron Paul. He is Anti-Secular and NOT in line with the Constitution at all:Wake the hell up.
Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism
Ron Paul is frequently portrayed as a "sensible" conservative and staunch libertarian, thus making him increasingly attractive as a presidential candidate. He's being strongly promoted to libertarians, conservatives fed up with Bush and the Christian Right, and Democrats dissatisfied with the current crop of Democratic candidates. At the same time, though, Ron Paul demonstrates the limits of wedding libertarianism with social and political conservatism. They simply don't mesh well.
Ron Paul's consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and church/state separation? How many realize that his "states' rights" rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote "traditional marriage" and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul is only a "libertarian" where and when it's convenient. Much of the rest of the time, he's not merely a social conservative but a religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of Christian Nationalists.
If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately, he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do — but this doesn’t mean that his candidacy won't influence people for the worse. In particular, I'm concerned about people learning to accept anti-secularism while making excuses for him and their support of him. The first and most important step in preventing that is to examine his ideas now and explain not only how wrong they are, but also why they represent such a threat.
According to Ron Paul himself (via Brent Rasmussen)
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.
It should be noted right at the beginning that Ron Paul consistently decries "secularism" and "secularists," though he more often uses the label "secular Left." This, perhaps more than many of his arguments, makes it clear where stands: squarely and unambiguously against a secular government, secular laws, and a secular America. This helps put him in the same camp as the extremist Christian Right. The second thing to note is that there isn't a single word in the above that's true. Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.
No one has launched any court cases seeking to drive religion "from public view." There have been no organized efforts to prevent people from promoting religion in public, from having religious images on their front lawns, or engaging in religious evangelism in the community. What's actually been happening is that people have tried to stop the "public," which is to say public funds and institutions, from promoting, supporting, or endorsing the religion of just some of the citizens. Usually those offering dishonest claims about this rely upon ambiguity in the word "public" (in public view vs. publicly funded), but Ron Paul doesn't even do this — his is an unambiguously false claim.
A true libertarian would support efforts to stop the government from funding and supporting one religion out of many. Libertarians believe in less government combined with private action, which is exactly what the "secular Left" is seeking to achieve in the context of religion. Libertarians believe that the scope of government action should be limited to only that which the Constitution authorizes — and when it comes to religion, the government is not authorized to do anything.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian when it comes to his own personal religious beliefs — he seems to believe that in a "largely Christian society," the government magically acquires the authority to promote and endorse Christianity. Of course, this means endorsing and promoting one particular version of Christianity out of all the possibilities. Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind this — or perhaps he supports it in the hopes that his form of Christianity will be the one favored?
Church & State in the Constitution
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.
It is true that the Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by their religious beliefs, but Ron Paul makes two mistakes here. First, that fact does nothing to support this conclusion: being influenced by religion doesn't mean that one opposes church/state separation. Second, the religious beliefs of those men were not always consistent with the traditionalist Christianity of conservatives today. Thomas Jefferson, for example, denied the divinity of Jesus and that the miracle stories in the New Testament were true.
Many of the founders would be regarded as heretics according to traditional standards and that's why they supported removing from the government any authority over religious matters. It's bad enough when religious leaders have the power to harm those who dissent; it was deemed unacceptable for the state to have such power as well. Religion was conceived of as a private matter and not something which the state or any public institution to get involved with in any manner.
Ron Paul likes to make a big deal about having read the Constitution as part of an effort to create a contrast between himself and other politicians, but for someone who has read the Constitution he's incredibly ignorant of it's contents. The Constitution doesn't mention "God" at all — the closest it comes is the dating convention "in the year of our Lord." The Declaration of Independence also doesn't mention "God" in the sense of the Christian god — all references are standard deistic references to the Deistic god. The Declaration of Independence is a product of Deism, naturalism, and rationalism. It is not a Christian document.
Ron Paul is wrong when he claims that the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the creation of an official state church, but he's doing a good job at parroting the talking points of Christian Right extremists like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. I'm surprised that they haven't anointed him as their own chosen candidate, given that his opposition to secular liberty is every bit as strong and twisted as theirs.
Church Authority vs. Government Authority
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.
Here Ron Paul's hostility to secular liberty is made unambiguous: he envisages and prefers a society where the government is weak but churches are strong. Has there ever been such a society that wasn't filled with intolerance, repression, and violence? If churches had more authority over the lives of citizens, there would be less liberty for women, less liberty for racial minorities, less liberty for gays, and of course less liberty for atheists.
It is arguable that the power and scope of the government creates alternatives and opportunities which make it easier for people to escape the power and influence of churches. Government welfare allows people to avoid relying on church hand-outs. Public schools allow people to avoid relying on church schools and church indoctrination. Civil marriage allows people to avoid having to marry in a church. Government social services of all sorts allow people to avoid being put under the thumb of priests and ministers in order to survive.
Opposing government provision of such services is, at least, consistent with libertarianism but libertarians take this position based on the principle that they are outside the scope of proper government authority. Agree or disagree with that, it's not Ron Paul's position: he opposes the government provision of such services because they prevent the power and authority of churches from superseding that of the government. Ron Paul thus appears to be using the "libertarian" label as a mask for his religious and authoritarian agenda: shrink the size of government so churches can step in and assume control.
To be fair, this isn't necessarily an easy issue for genuine libertarians who are also staunch secularists and supporters of church/state separation. If expanded government services and authority ensures reduced religious authority, thus ensuring the growth of secularism in society, then such libertarians are faced with a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, they would prefer to see government authority reduced; on the other, they don't want to see the authority, power, and influence of churches to fill all the vacuum left behind. Given how strong churches and religious organizations already are, it's difficult to imagine, though, that completely secular alternatives would compete very well.
Ron Paul Rated by Conservative Groups
Let's look at how various conservative and Christian Right groups have rated Ron Paul:
Family Research Council, 2005: 75%
John Birch Society, Summer '06, Spring '05, Fall '04, Summer '03: 100%
John Birch Society, Spring 2004: 88%
Concerned Women for America, 2005-2006: 62%
Eagle Forum, 2005: 71%
American Conservative Union, 2005: 76%
Christian Coalition, 2004: 76%
National Right to Life Committee, 2005-2006: 56% Then there are these ratings:
Secular Coalition for America, 2006: 20%
Planned Parenthood, 2006: 20%
American Civil Liberties Union, 2005-2006: 55%
NAACP, 2005: 52%
Human Rights Campaign, 2003-2004: 25% The ratings here for the ACLU and NAACP aren't too bad, but over all this does not paint a pretty picture. No one who can get 100% from the John Birch Society and 75% from the Family Research Council, but only 20% from the Secular Coalition for America, is a much of a friend of personal liberty.
For a "libertarian," Ron Paul is quite a moralist:
His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one. He doesn’t travel alone with women and once dressed down an aide for using the expression “red-light district” in front of a female colleague.
Source: The New York Times
Ron Paul Defending Christian Privilege
Ron Paul has consistently opposed separating church & state and supported government actions in defense of Christian privilege. For example, he condemned the 9th Circuit Court ruling that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional:
The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment," Paul stated. "It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it."
"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights."
On June 12, 2002, Ron Paul promised to introduce legislation forbidding federal courts from taking cases where people allege their religious freedom was violated by government agencies. Why would a "libertarian" object to people suing the government for infringing on their rights? This became the First Amendment Restoration Act and Ron Paul insisted that federal courts should have no jurisdiction over protecting Americans' religious liberties.
In a perverse twist of logic and morality, Ron Paul argued that it would enhance religious freedom if the federal courts could no longer rule in defense of religious freedom. Moreover, he insisted that people's personal religious liberty would be enhanced by ensuring that government agencies would have the authority to promote, endorse, sponsor, and encourage particular religions, religious opinions, and religious beliefs. Ron Paul consistently advanced this position by voting to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, by voting in support of government-sponsored Ten Commandments monuments, and co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment promoting school prayer.
Ron Paul supports a religious over a secular society on a number of other levels as well. He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that it should be overturned. His preference would be for abortion to be criminalized and, contrary to most libertarians he doesn't not treat this as a states' rights matter. He would impose the ban at the federal level if necessary. Ron Paul also opposes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage: rather than let them work it out for themselves, he would use the power of the federal government to restrict gay marriage and prevent gay couples from being treated equally.
Ron Paul thus opposes protecting the liberty of women and the liberty of gays when they would use that liberty in a manner contrary to his personal religious beliefs. This is consistent with his support of using government funds and power to promote his religious beliefs over and above the religious beliefs of any other citizens. The libertarians supporting Ron Paul have either been duped into supporting an authoritarian, or are actually like Ron Paul in that they are really more authoritarian than they let on.
-
wow... TA... your article makes some very good points that I did not know.
-
wow... TA... your article makes some very good points that I did not know.
I've been trying to tell people... they just don't want to listen.
-
so?
-
wow... TA... your article makes some very good points that I did not know.
He also wants to totally get rid of NASA which is totally mindless. Paul also wants to delete the Department of Education. The Government has an OBLIGATION to keep the citizenry educated and well informed in a Secular fashion without religion polluting knowledge. Dissolution of that element would potentially destroy any kind of technological progress and we would also see a total decline in Science and scientists in the United States. Facts should never be replaced with fiction. This would certainly happen if left to privatization of schooling. We would then have no national standards and bias in education would run rampant. Knowledge would go to only the people who can afford to pay.
Paul is a disaster. His message has been so propagandized by his followers, that the majority of the people have no clue the true nature of Paul and his deranged Christian utopian vision.
-
He also wants to totally get rid of NASA which is totally mindless. Paul also wants to delete the Department of Education. The Government has an OBLIGATION to keep the citizenry educated and well informed in a Secular fashion without religion polluting knowledge. Dissolution of that element would potentially destroy any kind of technological progress and we would also see a total decline in Science and scientists in the United States. Facts should never be replaced with fiction. This would certainly happen if left to privatization of schooling with no national and unbiased standards.
Paul is a disaster. His message has been so propagandized by his followers, that the majority of the people have no clue the true nature of Paul and his deranged Christian utopian vision.
Adonis brings it.
-
He also wants to totally get rid of NASA which is totally mindless. Paul also wants to delete the Department of Education. The Government has an OBLIGATION to keep the citizenry educated and well informed in a Secular fashion without religion polluting knowledge. Dissolution of that element would potentially destroy any kind of technological progress and we would also see a total decline in Science and scientists in the United States. Facts should never be replaced with fiction. This would certainly happen if left to privatization of schooling with no national and unbiased standards.
Paul is a disaster. His message has been so propagandized by his followers, that the majority of the people have no clue the true nature of Paul and his deranged Christian utopian vision.
ITS AGAINST THE 10TH AMENDMENT!!! I love when that little pencil neck turd says "We dont neeeeeeeeed ________ ". According to Ron Paul we don't need anything but 50 independent nations competing amongst each other. I love it... He won't recover...
-
RonPaul for president!!!!!!
-
RonPaul for president!!!!!!
Jealous
-
If you are militantly anti-christian and pro-gay, i can see where you wouldnt be a Ron Paul supporter. ::)
-
If you are militantly anti-christian and pro-gay, i can see where you wouldnt be a Ron Paul supporter. ::)
WHat? You guys are just as bad as the extremenist muslims yet you don't see it. You become what you hate sirtraps, you become what you hate.
-
RonPaul for president!!!!!!
Ron Paul isn`t too keen on Mexicans and Mexican immigration either. He also fails to realize that arguably the most prolific architect of the United States Constitution as well as the creator of the entire Monetary and Commerce system that has been in place for over 200 years, all came from an illegal immigrant named Alexander Hamilton. It must pain him that an illegal immigrant with such power appears on the 10 dollar bill.
-
you sound very intolerant, you hate christians and muslims i see. ::)
-
RonPaul for president!!!!!!
Ron Paul isn`t too keen on Mexicans and Mexican immigration either. He also fails to realize that arguably the most prolific architect of the United States Constitution as well as the creator of the entire Monetary and Commerce system that has been in place for over 200 years, all came from an illegal immigrant named Alexander Hamilton. It must pain him that an illegal immigrant with such power appears on the 10 dollar bill.
Hahahah yeah El Burritolawnmowerillegalu nderpayedborderhoppingma rachi
-
Very good article and thanks for posting that Adonis....How long would it take Ron Pauls agenda to ripen and actually affect daily life, vs. the globalist agenda? Which im sure your aware of everything pertaining to globalism and corporate fascism?
What im trying to get too is what is the most pressing problem with our country right now and how can we avoid catastrophe?
Will having Ron Paul as president divert the disaster we are heading for only to be replaced with something more dangerous? Can Ron Paul stop this insanity of the Iraq war, the IRS, the Federal reserve and then the issue of seperation of church and state be settled later?
-
you want to compare Alexander Hamilton, one individual-with 30 million illegal aliens ? great point ::)
-
you sound very intolerant, you hate christians and muslims i see. ::)
[edit] Article 11
The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version provided by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797.
President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the United States Senate by a unanimous vote.
Article 11 reads:
"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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.[3]
-
you sound very intolerant, you hate christians and muslims i see. ::)
I hate organized religion because it has cause more destruction then any single entity in the history of man kind. It keeps people in fear and brainwashes them into thinking they have to pray to a false diety to keep from being punished in eternal fire. I hate it because people use unconciously or conciously (you decide) to back a politcally motivated agenda. Abraham Lincoln himself found it strange during the Civil War that both sides claimed to have God backing them. The same applies for today. I guess your "God" wants us all to murder each other. The end of the world is near. Pray before all water turns to blood. ::)
-
ron paul is probably the best candidate from the republican field as far as actual policy goes. i think as far as being a politician goes...he sucks. huckabee, mccain, and tancredo all are better politcians though, and i would probably vote for one of them before i would vote for ron pual.
as far as ron paul vs. a dem. candidat, i would vote for him before i would vote for hillary, but i would choose any of the other dem. candidates over ron paul. that is unless hillary chose obama, biden, or kucinich as a running mate; then i would choose hillary over ron paul.
the best choice would be
#1. obama
#2. Biden
#3. edwards
#4. dodd
#5. kucinich
#6. gravel
#7. mccain
#8. hillary
#9. huckabee
#10. romney
#11. rudy
#12. ron paul
#13. bill richardson
#14. tancredo
#15. thompson
#16. hunter
-
Very good article and thanks for posting that Adonis....How long would it take Ron Pauls agenda to ripen and actually affect daily life, vs. the globalist agenda? Which im sure your aware of everything pertaining to globalism and corporate fascism?
What im trying to get too is what is the most pressing problem with our country right now and how can we avoid catastrophe?
Will having Ron Paul as president divert the disaster we are heading for only to be replaced with something more dangerous? Can Ron Paul stop this insanity of the Iraq war, the IRS, the Federal reserve and then the issue of seperation of church and state be settled later?
Ron Paul`s vision is a worse disaster that will directly affect every single citizen. There is no globalist agenda. There is no conspiracy theory. We are one planet and we WILL have to work together to solve world problems.
-
ron paul is probably the best candidate from the republican field as far as actual policy goes. i think as far as being a politician goes...he sucks. huckabee, mccain, and tancredo all are better politcians though, and i would probably vote for one of them before i would vote for ron pual.
as far as ron paul vs. a dem. candidat, i would vote for him before i would vote for hillary, but i would choose any of the other dem. candidates over ron paul. that is unless hillary chose obama, biden, or kucinich as a running mate; then i would choose hillary over ron paul.
the best choice would be
#1. obama
#2. Biden
#3. edwards
#4. dodd
#5. kucinich
#6. gravel
#7. mccain
#8. hillary
#9. huckabee
#10. romney
#11. rudy
#12. ron paul
#13. bill richardson
#14. tancredo
#15. thompson
#16. hunter
I don't understand? These candidates differ drastically yet you are mixing them in like a can of mixed nuts. What do you base your vote on then?
-
I don't understand? These candidates differ drastically yet you are mixing them in like a can of mixed nuts. What do you base your vote on then?
many things! the number one thing too look for in a candidate is state of mind, and how they think abut issues. you want someone who thinks about everything before making up their mind, someone who takes all the pro's, all the con's, takes into account everyone involved and that will be affected, and thinks about the political principles as well as the real world effects of any policy/legislation. you also have to consider what the persons motivation for running for politcal office is...in hillary's case, its obvious that she is only running so she can "be president", probably she is tired of being a secon class citizen in her marriage to bill. but for a candidate like obama, its pretty clear that he doesnt care about the power or the title or the glory of the office, he actually wants the position to use it as a bully pulpit for change.
after you consider those things above, then you can start to look at the persons actual policy's, and level of intelligence.
-
240 and supporters: PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES on Ron Paul. He is Anti-Secular and NOT in line with the Constitution at all:Wake the hell up.
Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism
Ron Paul is frequently portrayed as a "sensible" conservative and staunch libertarian, thus making him increasingly attractive as a presidential candidate. He's being strongly promoted to libertarians, conservatives fed up with Bush and the Christian Right, and Democrats dissatisfied with the current crop of Democratic candidates. At the same time, though, Ron Paul demonstrates the limits of wedding libertarianism with social and political conservatism. They simply don't mesh well.
Ron Paul's consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and church/state separation? How many realize that his "states' rights" rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote "traditional marriage" and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul is only a "libertarian" where and when it's convenient. Much of the rest of the time, he's not merely a social conservative but a religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of Christian Nationalists.
If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately, he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do — but this doesn’t mean that his candidacy won't influence people for the worse. In particular, I'm concerned about people learning to accept anti-secularism while making excuses for him and their support of him. The first and most important step in preventing that is to examine his ideas now and explain not only how wrong they are, but also why they represent such a threat.
According to Ron Paul himself (via Brent Rasmussen)
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.
It should be noted right at the beginning that Ron Paul consistently decries "secularism" and "secularists," though he more often uses the label "secular Left." This, perhaps more than many of his arguments, makes it clear where stands: squarely and unambiguously against a secular government, secular laws, and a secular America. This helps put him in the same camp as the extremist Christian Right. The second thing to note is that there isn't a single word in the above that's true. Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.
No one has launched any court cases seeking to drive religion "from public view." There have been no organized efforts to prevent people from promoting religion in public, from having religious images on their front lawns, or engaging in religious evangelism in the community. What's actually been happening is that people have tried to stop the "public," which is to say public funds and institutions, from promoting, supporting, or endorsing the religion of just some of the citizens. Usually those offering dishonest claims about this rely upon ambiguity in the word "public" (in public view vs. publicly funded), but Ron Paul doesn't even do this — his is an unambiguously false claim.
A true libertarian would support efforts to stop the government from funding and supporting one religion out of many. Libertarians believe in less government combined with private action, which is exactly what the "secular Left" is seeking to achieve in the context of religion. Libertarians believe that the scope of government action should be limited to only that which the Constitution authorizes — and when it comes to religion, the government is not authorized to do anything.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian when it comes to his own personal religious beliefs — he seems to believe that in a "largely Christian society," the government magically acquires the authority to promote and endorse Christianity. Of course, this means endorsing and promoting one particular version of Christianity out of all the possibilities. Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind this — or perhaps he supports it in the hopes that his form of Christianity will be the one favored?
Church & State in the Constitution
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.
It is true that the Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by their religious beliefs, but Ron Paul makes two mistakes here. First, that fact does nothing to support this conclusion: being influenced by religion doesn't mean that one opposes church/state separation. Second, the religious beliefs of those men were not always consistent with the traditionalist Christianity of conservatives today. Thomas Jefferson, for example, denied the divinity of Jesus and that the miracle stories in the New Testament were true.
Many of the founders would be regarded as heretics according to traditional standards and that's why they supported removing from the government any authority over religious matters. It's bad enough when religious leaders have the power to harm those who dissent; it was deemed unacceptable for the state to have such power as well. Religion was conceived of as a private matter and not something which the state or any public institution to get involved with in any manner.
Ron Paul likes to make a big deal about having read the Constitution as part of an effort to create a contrast between himself and other politicians, but for someone who has read the Constitution he's incredibly ignorant of it's contents. The Constitution doesn't mention "God" at all — the closest it comes is the dating convention "in the year of our Lord." The Declaration of Independence also doesn't mention "God" in the sense of the Christian god — all references are standard deistic references to the Deistic god. The Declaration of Independence is a product of Deism, naturalism, and rationalism. It is not a Christian document.
Ron Paul is wrong when he claims that the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the creation of an official state church, but he's doing a good job at parroting the talking points of Christian Right extremists like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. I'm surprised that they haven't anointed him as their own chosen candidate, given that his opposition to secular liberty is every bit as strong and twisted as theirs.
Church Authority vs. Government Authority
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.
Here Ron Paul's hostility to secular liberty is made unambiguous: he envisages and prefers a society where the government is weak but churches are strong. Has there ever been such a society that wasn't filled with intolerance, repression, and violence? If churches had more authority over the lives of citizens, there would be less liberty for women, less liberty for racial minorities, less liberty for gays, and of course less liberty for atheists.
It is arguable that the power and scope of the government creates alternatives and opportunities which make it easier for people to escape the power and influence of churches. Government welfare allows people to avoid relying on church hand-outs. Public schools allow people to avoid relying on church schools and church indoctrination. Civil marriage allows people to avoid having to marry in a church. Government social services of all sorts allow people to avoid being put under the thumb of priests and ministers in order to survive.
Opposing government provision of such services is, at least, consistent with libertarianism but libertarians take this position based on the principle that they are outside the scope of proper government authority. Agree or disagree with that, it's not Ron Paul's position: he opposes the government provision of such services because they prevent the power and authority of churches from superseding that of the government. Ron Paul thus appears to be using the "libertarian" label as a mask for his religious and authoritarian agenda: shrink the size of government so churches can step in and assume control.
To be fair, this isn't necessarily an easy issue for genuine libertarians who are also staunch secularists and supporters of church/state separation. If expanded government services and authority ensures reduced religious authority, thus ensuring the growth of secularism in society, then such libertarians are faced with a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, they would prefer to see government authority reduced; on the other, they don't want to see the authority, power, and influence of churches to fill all the vacuum left behind. Given how strong churches and religious organizations already are, it's difficult to imagine, though, that completely secular alternatives would compete very well.
Ron Paul Rated by Conservative Groups
Let's look at how various conservative and Christian Right groups have rated Ron Paul:
Family Research Council, 2005: 75%
John Birch Society, Summer '06, Spring '05, Fall '04, Summer '03: 100%
John Birch Society, Spring 2004: 88%
Concerned Women for America, 2005-2006: 62%
Eagle Forum, 2005: 71%
American Conservative Union, 2005: 76%
Christian Coalition, 2004: 76%
National Right to Life Committee, 2005-2006: 56% Then there are these ratings:
Secular Coalition for America, 2006: 20%
Planned Parenthood, 2006: 20%
American Civil Liberties Union, 2005-2006: 55%
NAACP, 2005: 52%
Human Rights Campaign, 2003-2004: 25% The ratings here for the ACLU and NAACP aren't too bad, but over all this does not paint a pretty picture. No one who can get 100% from the John Birch Society and 75% from the Family Research Council, but only 20% from the Secular Coalition for America, is a much of a friend of personal liberty.
For a "libertarian," Ron Paul is quite a moralist:
His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one. He doesn’t travel alone with women and once dressed down an aide for using the expression “red-light district” in front of a female colleague.
Source: The New York Times
Ron Paul Defending Christian Privilege
Ron Paul has consistently opposed separating church & state and supported government actions in defense of Christian privilege. For example, he condemned the 9th Circuit Court ruling that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional:
The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment," Paul stated. "It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it."
"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights."
On June 12, 2002, Ron Paul promised to introduce legislation forbidding federal courts from taking cases where people allege their religious freedom was violated by government agencies. Why would a "libertarian" object to people suing the government for infringing on their rights? This became the First Amendment Restoration Act and Ron Paul insisted that federal courts should have no jurisdiction over protecting Americans' religious liberties.
In a perverse twist of logic and morality, Ron Paul argued that it would enhance religious freedom if the federal courts could no longer rule in defense of religious freedom. Moreover, he insisted that people's personal religious liberty would be enhanced by ensuring that government agencies would have the authority to promote, endorse, sponsor, and encourage particular religions, religious opinions, and religious beliefs. Ron Paul consistently advanced this position by voting to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, by voting in support of government-sponsored Ten Commandments monuments, and co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment promoting school prayer.
Ron Paul supports a religious over a secular society on a number of other levels as well. He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that it should be overturned. His preference would be for abortion to be criminalized and, contrary to most libertarians he doesn't not treat this as a states' rights matter. He would impose the ban at the federal level if necessary. Ron Paul also opposes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage: rather than let them work it out for themselves, he would use the power of the federal government to restrict gay marriage and prevent gay couples from being treated equally.
Ron Paul thus opposes protecting the liberty of women and the liberty of gays when they would use that liberty in a manner contrary to his personal religious beliefs. This is consistent with his support of using government funds and power to promote his religious beliefs over and above the religious beliefs of any other citizens. The libertarians supporting Ron Paul have either been duped into supporting an authoritarian, or are actually like Ron Paul in that they are really more authoritarian than they let on.
can you link to this article adonis? thanks...
-
240 and supporters: PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES on Ron Paul. He is Anti-Secular and NOT in line with the Constitution at all:Wake the hell up.
Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism
Ron Paul is frequently portrayed as a "sensible" conservative and staunch libertarian, thus making him increasingly attractive as a presidential candidate. He's being strongly promoted to libertarians, conservatives fed up with Bush and the Christian Right, and Democrats dissatisfied with the current crop of Democratic candidates. At the same time, though, Ron Paul demonstrates the limits of wedding libertarianism with social and political conservatism. They simply don't mesh well.
Ron Paul's consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and church/state separation? How many realize that his "states' rights" rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote "traditional marriage" and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul is only a "libertarian" where and when it's convenient. Much of the rest of the time, he's not merely a social conservative but a religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of Christian Nationalists.
If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately, he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do — but this doesn’t mean that his candidacy won't influence people for the worse. In particular, I'm concerned about people learning to accept anti-secularism while making excuses for him and their support of him. The first and most important step in preventing that is to examine his ideas now and explain not only how wrong they are, but also why they represent such a threat.
According to Ron Paul himself (via Brent Rasmussen)
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.
It should be noted right at the beginning that Ron Paul consistently decries "secularism" and "secularists," though he more often uses the label "secular Left." This, perhaps more than many of his arguments, makes it clear where stands: squarely and unambiguously against a secular government, secular laws, and a secular America. This helps put him in the same camp as the extremist Christian Right. The second thing to note is that there isn't a single word in the above that's true. Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.
No one has launched any court cases seeking to drive religion "from public view." There have been no organized efforts to prevent people from promoting religion in public, from having religious images on their front lawns, or engaging in religious evangelism in the community. What's actually been happening is that people have tried to stop the "public," which is to say public funds and institutions, from promoting, supporting, or endorsing the religion of just some of the citizens. Usually those offering dishonest claims about this rely upon ambiguity in the word "public" (in public view vs. publicly funded), but Ron Paul doesn't even do this — his is an unambiguously false claim.
A true libertarian would support efforts to stop the government from funding and supporting one religion out of many. Libertarians believe in less government combined with private action, which is exactly what the "secular Left" is seeking to achieve in the context of religion. Libertarians believe that the scope of government action should be limited to only that which the Constitution authorizes — and when it comes to religion, the government is not authorized to do anything.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian when it comes to his own personal religious beliefs — he seems to believe that in a "largely Christian society," the government magically acquires the authority to promote and endorse Christianity. Of course, this means endorsing and promoting one particular version of Christianity out of all the possibilities. Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind this — or perhaps he supports it in the hopes that his form of Christianity will be the one favored?
Church & State in the Constitution
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.
It is true that the Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by their religious beliefs, but Ron Paul makes two mistakes here. First, that fact does nothing to support this conclusion: being influenced by religion doesn't mean that one opposes church/state separation. Second, the religious beliefs of those men were not always consistent with the traditionalist Christianity of conservatives today. Thomas Jefferson, for example, denied the divinity of Jesus and that the miracle stories in the New Testament were true.
Many of the founders would be regarded as heretics according to traditional standards and that's why they supported removing from the government any authority over religious matters. It's bad enough when religious leaders have the power to harm those who dissent; it was deemed unacceptable for the state to have such power as well. Religion was conceived of as a private matter and not something which the state or any public institution to get involved with in any manner.
Ron Paul likes to make a big deal about having read the Constitution as part of an effort to create a contrast between himself and other politicians, but for someone who has read the Constitution he's incredibly ignorant of it's contents. The Constitution doesn't mention "God" at all — the closest it comes is the dating convention "in the year of our Lord." The Declaration of Independence also doesn't mention "God" in the sense of the Christian god — all references are standard deistic references to the Deistic god. The Declaration of Independence is a product of Deism, naturalism, and rationalism. It is not a Christian document.
Ron Paul is wrong when he claims that the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the creation of an official state church, but he's doing a good job at parroting the talking points of Christian Right extremists like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. I'm surprised that they haven't anointed him as their own chosen candidate, given that his opposition to secular liberty is every bit as strong and twisted as theirs.
Church Authority vs. Government Authority
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.
Here Ron Paul's hostility to secular liberty is made unambiguous: he envisages and prefers a society where the government is weak but churches are strong. Has there ever been such a society that wasn't filled with intolerance, repression, and violence? If churches had more authority over the lives of citizens, there would be less liberty for women, less liberty for racial minorities, less liberty for gays, and of course less liberty for atheists.
It is arguable that the power and scope of the government creates alternatives and opportunities which make it easier for people to escape the power and influence of churches. Government welfare allows people to avoid relying on church hand-outs. Public schools allow people to avoid relying on church schools and church indoctrination. Civil marriage allows people to avoid having to marry in a church. Government social services of all sorts allow people to avoid being put under the thumb of priests and ministers in order to survive.
Opposing government provision of such services is, at least, consistent with libertarianism but libertarians take this position based on the principle that they are outside the scope of proper government authority. Agree or disagree with that, it's not Ron Paul's position: he opposes the government provision of such services because they prevent the power and authority of churches from superseding that of the government. Ron Paul thus appears to be using the "libertarian" label as a mask for his religious and authoritarian agenda: shrink the size of government so churches can step in and assume control.
To be fair, this isn't necessarily an easy issue for genuine libertarians who are also staunch secularists and supporters of church/state separation. If expanded government services and authority ensures reduced religious authority, thus ensuring the growth of secularism in society, then such libertarians are faced with a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, they would prefer to see government authority reduced; on the other, they don't want to see the authority, power, and influence of churches to fill all the vacuum left behind. Given how strong churches and religious organizations already are, it's difficult to imagine, though, that completely secular alternatives would compete very well.
Ron Paul Rated by Conservative Groups
Let's look at how various conservative and Christian Right groups have rated Ron Paul:
Family Research Council, 2005: 75%
John Birch Society, Summer '06, Spring '05, Fall '04, Summer '03: 100%
John Birch Society, Spring 2004: 88%
Concerned Women for America, 2005-2006: 62%
Eagle Forum, 2005: 71%
American Conservative Union, 2005: 76%
Christian Coalition, 2004: 76%
National Right to Life Committee, 2005-2006: 56% Then there are these ratings:
Secular Coalition for America, 2006: 20%
Planned Parenthood, 2006: 20%
American Civil Liberties Union, 2005-2006: 55%
NAACP, 2005: 52%
Human Rights Campaign, 2003-2004: 25% The ratings here for the ACLU and NAACP aren't too bad, but over all this does not paint a pretty picture. No one who can get 100% from the John Birch Society and 75% from the Family Research Council, but only 20% from the Secular Coalition for America, is a much of a friend of personal liberty.
For a "libertarian," Ron Paul is quite a moralist:
His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one. He doesn’t travel alone with women and once dressed down an aide for using the expression “red-light district” in front of a female colleague.
Source: The New York Times
Ron Paul Defending Christian Privilege
Ron Paul has consistently opposed separating church & state and supported government actions in defense of Christian privilege. For example, he condemned the 9th Circuit Court ruling that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional:
The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment," Paul stated. "It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it."
"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights."
On June 12, 2002, Ron Paul promised to introduce legislation forbidding federal courts from taking cases where people allege their religious freedom was violated by government agencies. Why would a "libertarian" object to people suing the government for infringing on their rights? This became the First Amendment Restoration Act and Ron Paul insisted that federal courts should have no jurisdiction over protecting Americans' religious liberties.
In a perverse twist of logic and morality, Ron Paul argued that it would enhance religious freedom if the federal courts could no longer rule in defense of religious freedom. Moreover, he insisted that people's personal religious liberty would be enhanced by ensuring that government agencies would have the authority to promote, endorse, sponsor, and encourage particular religions, religious opinions, and religious beliefs. Ron Paul consistently advanced this position by voting to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, by voting in support of government-sponsored Ten Commandments monuments, and co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment promoting school prayer.
Ron Paul supports a religious over a secular society on a number of other levels as well. He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that it should be overturned. His preference would be for abortion to be criminalized and, contrary to most libertarians he doesn't not treat this as a states' rights matter. He would impose the ban at the federal level if necessary. Ron Paul also opposes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage: rather than let them work it out for themselves, he would use the power of the federal government to restrict gay marriage and prevent gay couples from being treated equally.
Ron Paul thus opposes protecting the liberty of women and the liberty of gays when they would use that liberty in a manner contrary to his personal religious beliefs. This is consistent with his support of using government funds and power to promote his religious beliefs over and above the religious beliefs of any other citizens. The libertarians supporting Ron Paul have either been duped into supporting an authoritarian, or are actually like Ron Paul in that they are really more authoritarian than they let on.
This is a perfect synopsis of some of the head scratching beliefs of Ron Paul that I referenced. I appreciate you posting this and I plan to send this to a couple of friends of mine who are currently hypnotized by Ron Paul.
-
maybe this will help clarify Ron Paul's positions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2403923911173745161&hl=en
why not get your information direct form the source.
-
can you link to this article adonis? thanks...
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm
-
linked article from "athiesm.com" hahaha
speaking of intolerance ::)
-
what you need in the usa is one of those people to become president:
john mccain
mike huckabee
juliani
romney
edwards
what you can not allow is for this person to be president:
hillary clinton ,,the woman is the demon itself and will make bush the son look like angel out of heaven,,,remember hillary clinton is NOT bill clinton
barak obama ummi need to think about him for some time since he lack any experience but he does show lately something that is called brain so i need to think some more about him and make sure its not the 90s rap coming in a britny spepars type of candy,,god help you if its that
ron paul is very good for anyone that want legalization of hoemones as in taking them off the controlled list ,,but then again chances are none for him to be chosen,, but one thing he did and it is make officials think and see that they better listen to the people who put them in office other wize they will have no office to sit at!
-
what you need in the usa is one of those people to become president:
john mccain
mike huckabee
juliani
romney
edwards
what you can not allow is for this person to be president:
hillary clinton ,,the woman is the demon itself and will make bush the son look like angel out of heaven,,,remember hillary clinton is NOT bill clinton
barak obama ummi need to think about him for some time since he lack any experience but he does show lately something that is called brain so i need to think some more about him and make sure its not the 90s rap coming in a britny spepars type of candy,,god help you if its that
ron paul is very good for anyone that want legalization of hoemones as in taking them off the controlled list ,,but then again chances are none for him to be chosen,, but one thing he did and it is make officials think and see that they better listen to the people who put them in office other wize they will have no office to sit at!
-
I've been strongly considering the flaws Ron Paul has with regards to abolishing some of the governments most useful departments and programs and also his supposed belief that there should be no separation between church and state. First of all, yes, he is very strict with some of the actions he wishes to carry out but he's going to have to comply with congress AND public opinion if he's able to restore democracy and the constitution. With that said, I really doubt ANY majority would agree to cut funding for NASA and other agencies for technological and economic progression. Ron Paul will do many great things and just may consider doing some things that might not work out so well (and in such a case it is the obligation of the people to confront and object such actions).
The other story from ATHEIST.com does not agree with the message of personal liberties that Ron Paul is spreading throughout his campaign. He has said countless times that it is the right of the people to live their lives the way they wish without government interference and that includes their right to religious choice. I believe some things within that article are taken out of context and Ron Paul would not go to such extremes with his own religious beliefs.
Despite these flaws of his, I've decided to continue supporting him with all of my passion because he is the best man for the job.
-He is the only candidate with a shot who is going to face off with this country's corporate and banking ownership and end their control over this country which has become an oligarchy, which will crumble like a house of cards within weeks of his presidency.
-Restore a foreign policy of non-intervention and trade/talk/travel with other countries.
-He is very knowledgable on the economy and the monetary system and has the best ideas for what's to be done about them (&feature=bz301)
-Abolish the IRS and the income tax.
-Restore openness to government and one that exists to protect our liberties.
-End the war on drugs.
He may have his shortcomings but goddamn he is a great leap in the right direction.
GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!
-
Ron Paul is getting my vote.
-
atheism.com is a joke, what a shitty agenda. Really most of the broad brush used to paint Ron Paul could be said of any Libertarian.
The reactionary comment from Leafybug "hes pro-christian and anti gay" was pretty revealing. Im not sure who your anti-christian, pro-gay candidate is Leafy-but good luck with that ::)
-
atheism.com is a joke, what a shitty agenda. Really most of the broad brush used to paint Ron Paul could be said of any Libertarian.
The reactionary comment from Leafybug "hes pro-christian and anti gay" was pretty revealing. Im not sure who your anti-christian, pro-gay candidate is Leafy-but good luck with that ::)
Well... why give gays and women equal rights? Why not take it back so only white male land owners can vote... I'll be voting. Will you?
-
maybe this will help clarify Ron Paul's positions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2403923911173745161&hl=en
why not get your information direct form the source.
That was a fantastic video you posted, i just finished watching it...Realize gentleman, no one man is perfect and has shortcomings, and we may not agree with every single thing they say....Now one day i guess if we can clone ourselves, we can promote our clone to run for president and will agree to all our demands....
-
That was a fantastic video you posted, i just finished watching it...Realize gentleman, no one man is perfect and has shortcomings, and we may not agree with every single thing they say....Now one day i guess if we can clone ourselves, we can promote our clone to run for president and will agree to all our demands....
wow I'm watching it now. I'm really impressed!!
-
yep-Ron Paul may be the only honest politician left in the year 2007. Of course he isnt "pro-gay" enough for Leafy/TrueAnus ::)
-
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
discuss
Hi 240
-
yep-Ron Paul may be the only honest politician left in the year 2007. Of course he isnt "pro-gay" enough for Leafy/TrueAnus ::)
are you saying that an agenda (pro gay) that maximizes satisfaction for the majority of the population is a bad one?
-
Ron Paul is the only candidate to speak against our debt based currency system, along with the Federal Reserve, and the need to repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments to the constitution.
He has my vote, and should have the vote of anyone that understands the application of our debt based currency.
-
are you saying that an agenda (pro gay) that maximizes satisfaction for the majority of the population is a bad one?
What happen to your Debussey, Livewire, Mr.Cortisol, and Delusional Liberal account?
-
What happen to your Debussey, Livewire, Mr.Cortisol, and Delusional Liberal account?
???
I have never had anything to do with the last 3.
Debussey sent me a telepathic message, saying he's still abducted, having anal probes of epic proportions stuck in his ass.
Who this Debussey is, I do not know, but the telepathic messages = alarming.
-
I've been strongly considering the flaws Ron Paul has with regards to abolishing some of the governments most useful departments and programs and also his supposed belief that there should be no separation between church and state. First of all, yes, he is very strict with some of the actions he wishes to carry out but he's going to have to comply with congress AND public opinion if he's able to restore democracy and the constitution. With that said, I really doubt ANY majority would agree to cut funding for NASA and other agencies for technological and economic progression. Ron Paul will do many great things and just may consider doing some things that might not work out so well (and in such a case it is the obligation of the people to confront and object such actions).
The other story from ATHEIST.com does not agree with the message of personal liberties that Ron Paul is spreading throughout his campaign. He has said countless times that it is the right of the people to live their lives the way they wish without government interference and that includes their right to religious choice. I believe some things within that article are taken out of context and Ron Paul would not go to such extremes with his own religious beliefs.
Despite these flaws of his, I've decided to continue supporting him with all of my passion because he is the best man for the job.
-He is the only candidate with a shot who is going to face off with this country's corporate and banking ownership and end their control over this country which has become an oligarchy, which will crumble like a house of cards within weeks of his presidency.
-Restore a foreign policy of non-intervention and trade/talk/travel with other countries.
-He is very knowledgable on the economy and the monetary system and has the best ideas for what's to be done about them (&feature=bz301)
-Abolish the IRS and the income tax.
-Restore openness to government and one that exists to protect our liberties.
-End the war on drugs.
He may have his shortcomings but goddamn he is a great leap in the right direction.
GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!
Very good post as usual figgs!
-
That's a nice synopsis figgs. The pros certainly outweigh the cons with Ron Paul. I happen to like Mike Gravel quite a bit as well, but Ron Paul is the best choice. The mainstream media wants everyone to believe RP doesn't have a chance, but I think we supporters know better by now. Ron Paul has an excellent chance of winning the nomination and the Presidency.
-
Ron Paul on CNN Late Edition w/ Wolf Blitzer PT.1of2 12-2-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BVzrjSkfww (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BVzrjSkfww)
What I find more interesting apart from Ron Paul. Is the key words opponents of Ron Paul's make and politicians in general. They label him as an isolationist then include hitler in the same sentence. Duping the viewer with this garbage. There is so much disinformation being spread to keep the average person stupid. I find it amazing from an outside looking in perspective.
-
I realise Ron Paul is a bit of a Christian wack job but he talks intelligently about monetary policy and foreign policy. I am voting for him. I am an Independent expat so lots of the stuff in the states doesn't affect me...the money issue does though as does foreign policy...
-
I realise Ron Paul is a bit of a Christian wack job
you might want to read this before calling him a wack job
this sounds pretty reasonable to me.
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
-
you might want to read this before calling him a wack job
this sounds pretty reasonable to me.
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
That just proves how nutso Christian he is. Truly a disgrace to the founding fathers of the Constitution.
Perhaps you should read the works by the definitive historian of the revolutionary generation of founding fathers, Joesph Ellis.
Once you realize the true intent of the constitution and how it was to be interpreted, you will then see just how far off base Ron Paul is from that ideal.
The problem is, most people do not read or cannot read. Therefore fiction and propaganda then supplant truth. Such is the case with Mr. Ron Paul. What a hillarious disgrace.
-
That just proves how nutso Christian he is. Truly a disgrace to the founding fathers of the Constitution.
Perhaps you should read the works by the definitive historian of the revolutionary generation of founding fathers, Joesph Ellis.
Once you realize the true intent of the constitution and how it was to be interpreted, you will then see just how far off base Ron Paul is from that ideal.
The problem is, most people do not read or cannot read. Therefore fiction and propaganda then supplant truth. Such is the case with Mr. Ron Paul. What a hillarious disgrace.
No, the problem is that you are an atheist that is trying to rewrite the intent of the founding fathers by removing God from the equation.
What is the first two words on the Great Seal of the United States?
"Annuit Coeptis"
" A common English translation for this phrase is "by the Grace of God."
Since you love to Copy/Paste so much, I will save you the time.
The problem is, most people you do not read or cannot read.
===============================================================================
Annuit Cœptis (pronounced /ˈænjuːɪt ˈsɛptɨs/) is one of two mottos (the other being Novus Ordo Seclorum) on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. Taken from the Latin words annuo (to nod, approve) and cœpio (to begin, undertake), it literally means "He approves the things which have been begun."
In 1782, Congress appointed a design artist, William Barton of Philadelphia, to bring a proposal for the national seal.[1] For the reverse, Barton suggested a thirteen layered pyramid underneath the Eye of Providence. The motto which Barton chose to accompany the design was, "Deo Favente." The proper Latin translation of Deo (ablative of Deus, the Deity) is "with God." "Deo Favente" is Latin for "with God favoring." A common English translation for this phrase is "by the Grace of God."
Barton's Design with Deo Favente PerennisBarton explained that the motto alluded to the Eye of Providence: "'Deo Favente' which alludes to the Eye in the Arms, meant for the Eye of Providence."[2] For Barton, Deus (God) and The Eye of Providence were the same entity.
In light of the fact that the theme "13" was included throughout both sides of the seal, a month later, Charles Thomson amended Barton's motto with a phrase containing 13 letters. The motto on the front of the seal (E Pluribus Unum) already had 13 letters. Thomson suggested a phrase that was synonymous to "Deo Favente" but with thirteen letters: Annuit Coeptis.
When Charles Thomson provided his official explanation of the meaning of this motto, he wrote:
"The Eye over it [the pyramid] and the motto Annuit Coeptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favor of the American cause."[3]
Hence, the motto and the Eye of Providence both alluded to the same reality. The Eye of Providence was commonly understood as a symbol for God and destiny. Hence, Annuit Coeptis is translated by the U.S. State Department, The U.S. Mint,[4] and the U.S. Treasury[5] as "He (God) has favored our undertakings." (brackets in original).[6]
"Annuit Coeptis" and the other motto on the reverse of the Great Seal, "Novus Ordo Seclorum," can both be traced to lines by the Roman poet Virgil. "Annuit Coeptis" comes from the Aeneid, book IX, line 625, which reads, "Iuppiter omnipotens, audacibus adnue coeptis." It is a prayer by Ascanius, the son of the hero of the story, Aeneas, which translates to, "Jupiter Almighty, favour [my] daring undertakings." According to the ancient state religion of Rome, properly called the Cultus Deorum Romanum, Jupiter was head of the pantheon of Gods.
-
Here is more, in the True Adonis fashion....
You want more? I can copy/paste all day...
========================================
ANNUIT COEPTIS – Origin and Meaning
of the Motto Above the Eye
Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson suggested "Annuit Coeptis" when he put together the final design of the Great Seal in June 1782.
He placed the motto at the top of the Seal's reverse side, where its meaning is associated with the Eye of Providence in a triangle surrounded by light rays.
Thomson did not provide an exact translation of the motto, but he explained its symbolism: The Eye and the motto Annuit Coeptis "allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause."
"Signal" means unusual, notable, outstanding.
"Interposition" means intervention. (In this case, a divine intervention.)
Many leaders of the American Revolution felt that Providence had a hand in securing their Independence, particularly George Washington who often referred to the "smiles of Providence."
"I salute you Gentlemen most Affectionately, and beg leave to remind you, that Liberty, Honor, and Safety are all at stake, and I trust Providence will smile upon our Efforts, and establish us once more, the Inhabitants of a free and happy Country." (August 8, 1776)
"The many remarkable interpositions of the divine government. in the hours of our deepest distress and darkness, have been too luminous to suffer me to doubt the happy issue of the present contest." (March 26, 1781)
"The Commander in Chief earnestly recommends that the troops not on duty should universally attend with that seriousness of Deportment and gratitude of Heart which the recognition of such reiterated and astonishing interpositions of Providence demand of us." (October 20, 1781)
Translating ANNUIT COEPTIS
Annuit means to nod assent, to favor, to smile upon.
Coeptis means undertakings, endeavors, beginnings.
Annuit coeptis means "favors (lit., gives the nod to) undertakings." The subject must be supplied. Who favors? The Eye (Providence) does.
The verb annuit can be either present tense or perfect tense, therefore an accurate translation of the motto is: "Providence favors our undertakings" or "Providence has favored our undertakings." (The word "our" is supplied.)
(It has also been translated as: "He favors our undertakings" or "He has prospered our endeavors.")
The meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original classical context.
Discover the source of Annuit Coeptis.
On June 20, 1782, Congress approved Thomson's design for both sides of the Great Seal, whose official description states:
"A Pyramid unfinished. In the Zenith
an Eye in a triangle surrounded with a glory proper.
Over the Eye these words 'Annuit Cœptis'."
NOTE: "Coeptis" is interchangeable with "cœptis." That "œ" is an example of a ligature where two letters are combined into a single character.
"Annuit" does not mean "to announce" (which is annuntio).
Annuit Coeptis reflects the mottoes suggested for the third committee's reverse side
and Ben Franklin's suggestion for the first committee's reverse.
-
a little bodybuilding dont hurt
-
For worse. He is anti gay and pro big business. He is pro christian. He is no better then bush.
Big difference between Dr Paul and Pres Bush.
Dr Paul is an actual MD, while Bush can't spell doctor.
Dr Paul is for ending the IRS,, ending the war in Iraq and is a true fiscal conservative.
Pres Bush ended up being a corperate pawn and useing BIG gov to give major finanical favors to big oil and millitary contractors.
I support Dr Paul, he has nearly 20 yrs in congress and stellar record on voting to cut spending and to preserve the individual liberty we cherish.
-
Big difference between Dr Paul and Pres Bush.
Dr Paul is an actual MD, while Bush can't spell doctor.
Dr Paul is for ending the IRS,, ending the war in Iraq and is a true fiscal conservative.
Pres Bush ended up being a corperate pawn and useing BIG gov to give major finanical favors to big oil and millitary contractors.
I support Dr Paul, he has nearly 20 yrs in congress and stellar record on voting to cut spending and to preserve the individual liberty we cherish.
Excellent post!
-
its great that all of you guys are supporint somebody and gettig active. and i wouldnt dissuade you from trying your best to help ron paul get the repub. nomination; however, he isnt going to win that nomination. no way will he do it.
so i ask you guys, out of the peopl who actually have a chance (hillary, obama, edwards, guliana, romney, huckabee) who do you guys support?
-
Adonis, stop trying to run down Ron Paul...Mike Gravel likes Ron Paul and agrees with him on many issues. Instead of being your typical divisive self, give Ron Paul a little credit for being head and shoulders above the other Republican and Democratic talking heads. I found this posted on Mike's own website for a rally being held here in LA on Dec. 10th. I am a Ron Paul supporter but also have immense respect for Mike Gravel and will be attending this rally.
http://www.interiorstate.com/gravel.htm
-
however, he isnt going to win that nomination. no way will he do it.
This is part of the problem with our country right now. The propaganda machines known as Fox, CNN and the like have convinced you and many others that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. Why doesn't he have a shot? Why buy into what they want you to believe so you go vote for a candidate who you don't have much confidence in? The polls right now mean nothing - other candidates have won the nomination with less support than Ron Paul has right now at this point in the campaign. I've watched the debates and found most of these so called "mainstream" candidates open their mouths without saying anything substantial.
-
Adonis, stop trying to run down Ron Paul...Mike Gravel likes Ron Paul and agrees with him on many issues. Instead of being your typical divisive self, give Ron Paul a little credit for being head and shoulders above the other Republican and Democratic talking heads. I found this posted on Mike's own website for a rally being held here in LA on Dec. 10th. I am a Ron Paul supporter but also have immense respect for Mike Gravel and will be attending this rally.
http://www.interiorstate.com/gravel.htm
ron paul is head and shoulders above ALL of the other candidates? lol. com one now...Biden, Obama, and Edwards are all unquestionably better candidates for the oval office than ron paul. i would argue that dodd, kucinich, and mccain are all better as well; but i would only argue that, its not as unquestionable...
This is part of the problem with our country right now.
i completely agree. the publishing of the polls is horrible for the oval office...it takes away all competition, and limits the office to those with ample amounts of money and news coverage. but sadyly, thats how american politics is done right now. its reality that ron pual doesnt have a chance.
-
its reality that ron pual doesnt have a chance.
I disagree with you on this. Ron Paul represents the views of many, many people who are very passionate about his candidacy. The lack of direction from the leaders of this country is leading to a disaster. Which of the "mainstream" candidates do you actually think has the sack to make a difference? Obama and Edwards are nothing but professional politicians, not representatives of the people.
-
I disagree with you on this. Ron Paul represents the views of many, many people who are very passionate about his candidacy. The lack of direction from the leaders of this country is leading to a disaster. Which of the "mainstream" candidates do you actually think has the sack to make a difference? Obama and Edwards are nothing but professional politicians, not representatives of the people.
edwards is a GOOD politician. obama, however, is not. obama is very good in isolated circumstances. (ex= dem convention 2004),, but on the whole he is very poor at "politics'. if he was on the same level as hillary or edwards or guliani...he would have the lead by 30%.
i think hillary and guliani and two of the only people who are actually more of the same old, actually. most of the other candidates are pretty genuine...with the top of the list(in amount of sincerity) being#1 mccain #2 obama #3kusinich
4#gravel #6paul #5 huckabee #6edwards IMO
-
If Ron Paul doesnt win the nomination, i see no point in voting for someone else...If im wrong on this, then can someone point out why?
-
If Ron Paul doesnt win the nomination, i see no point in voting for someone else...If im wrong on this, then can someone point out why?
Because Mike Gravel is a better choice.
-
Take a look at this flyer from Mike Gravel's website Adonis. Stop hating on Ron Paul.
http://www.interiorstate.com/gravel.htm
-
I wonder if the Ron Paul phenomenon isn't the same thing as the big hype over Ross Perot. People who are dissatisfied with the two major parties are desperate to find something or more specifically someone to believe in. Ron Paul can be anything they want or need, what is the psychological term for this, is it projection. He plays the role as the classic outsider who supporters hope has been beyond the corruption of mainstream politics and people eat that up. On another note, I have not even made my decision yet so I don't have a horse in this race yet. I can say I am not a fan of Hilary and many of the Republican candidates are just bush lite and I personally have had enough of his antics.
-
Take a look at this flyer from Mike Gravel's website Adonis. Stop hating on Ron Paul.
http://www.interiorstate.com/gravel.htm
That's an awesome vid. I love the Bill Hicks intro. In an ideal America this race would be between Gravel and Paul, in which case I would most likely vote for Gravel because he has a LOT of courage and is very assertive in the debates, which, unfortunetely, caused him to lose his invite for the last Democratic debates. Ron Paul is open on all issues but doesn't openly attack other candidates with stinging criticisms.
-
That's an awesome vid. I love the Bill Hicks intro. In an ideal America this race would be between Gravel and Paul, in which case I would most likely vote for Gravel because he has a LOT of courage and is very assertive in the debates, which, unfortunetely, caused him to lose his invite for the last Democratic debates. Ron Paul is open on all issues but doesn't openly attack other candidates with stinging criticisms.
That isn`t the reason.
The reason has been due to critieria os "stumping" and money raised. Gravel needs a little under a million. He will be in the ABC debate and a lot of the others still.
-
That's an awesome vid. I love the Bill Hicks intro. In an ideal America this race would be between Gravel and Paul, in which case I would most likely vote for Gravel because he has a LOT of courage and is very assertive in the debates, which, unfortunetely, caused him to lose his invite for the last Democratic debates. Ron Paul is open on all issues but doesn't openly attack other candidates with stinging criticisms.
i guess its hip to root for the underdog...
paul and gravel ARE NOT the best choices!!! come one guys. yes, they are different in of that thye are not owned by the corporations and they will be bring in change..but several top candidates have those same attributes yet have more experience, are more intelligent, have better ideas, and would be better representatives for our country at home and abroad.
but you know...the cool guys always root for the underdogs.. ::)
way to waste your votes and support.
-
i guess its hip to root for the underdog...
paul and gravel ARE NOT the best choices!!! come one guys. yes, they are different in of that thye are not owned by the corporations and they will be bring in change..but several top candidates have those same attributes yet have more experience, are more intelligent, have better ideas, and would be better representatives for our country at home and abroad.
but you know...the cool guys always root for the underdogs.. ::)
way to waste your votes and support.
I hate to divert the conversation......but, do you remember when you were delusional and thought you would be well over 200 lbs and ripped?
Why did you think that?
-
i guess its hip to root for the underdog...
paul and gravel ARE NOT the best choices!!! come one guys. yes, they are different in of that thye are not owned by the corporations and they will be bring in change..but several top candidates have those same attributes yet have more experience, are more intelligent, have better ideas, and would be better representatives for our country at home and abroad.
but you know...the cool guys always root for the underdogs.. Roll Eyes
way to waste your votes and support.
Wow. Where do start with all of this gibberish? There's no point in carrying on an intelligent conversation with you. Tell me more about the other top candidates who have more experience, more intelligence and better ideas. You said it, now please back it up with facts and reasons why.
-
Wow. Where do start with all of this gibberish? There's no point in carrying on an intelligent conversation with you. Tell me more about the other top candidates who have more experience, more intelligence and better ideas. You said it, now please back it up with facts and reasons why.
Yes,
Please tell us more about the other candidates experience versus that of Ron Paul.
-
Yes,
Please tell us more about the other candidates experience versus that of Ron Paul.
Mike Gravel is the one who ENDED the draft which caused the END of the Vietnam War.
That ALONE is the most impressive action since the end of WWII.
-
I hate to divert the conversation......but, do you remember when you were delusional and thought you would be well over 200 lbs and ripped?
Why did you think that?
Candizzle is an idiot, that's why he though that...