Topic: How can you not support Ron Paul?
+Anonymous A — 15.2 years ago #7,257
If you are not corrupt, or a special interest group how can you not support Ron Paul?
Obviously the following will not support him:
Israel lobby
Prohibition lobby
Military-industrial complex (soldiers do though! last election he got the highest military donations)
Neo-cons
Socialists/Communists
Welfare recipients
Government employees
But if you are not one of those groups how can you not support him?
Obviously the following will not support him:
Israel lobby
Prohibition lobby
Military-industrial complex (soldiers do though! last election he got the highest military donations)
Neo-cons
Socialists/Communists
Welfare recipients
Government employees
But if you are not one of those groups how can you not support him?
+Bucket !lQ4yMsZAso — 15.2 years ago, 14 minutes later[T] [B] #98,991
Ionize OP for starting an intelligent conversation.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #98,997
+Django — 15.2 years ago, 51 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #98,999
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
- Ron Paul
Check and mate good sir.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
- Ron Paul
Check and mate good sir.
+Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,000
I can't not not support Ron Paul. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
·Bucket !lQ4yMsZAso — 15.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,002
·mountainman (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,009
@98,999 (Django )
Can you comprehend what you are actually reading? From your statement at the end it would appear that you can not. Can you summarize or restate what he is saying there in your own words?
Can you comprehend what you are actually reading? From your statement at the end it would appear that you can not. Can you summarize or restate what he is saying there in your own words?
·mountainman (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,011
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 6 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,012
·mountainman (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 16 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,014
·mountainman (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 34 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,015
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,017
Well, you certainly sound like a dickbag. must be the real mountainman.·Anonymous A (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,021
@previous (D)
Compelling ad hominem. Have you heard of the debate triangle? Name-calling is the lowest form of argument.
Compelling ad hominem. Have you heard of the debate triangle? Name-calling is the lowest form of argument.
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,031
@previous (A)But you are a bag of dicks, that's already been well established (by you) in many threads and in many places. And i could give a fuck about your silly little argument rules. This isn't parliament,
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,038
+NameShy !BLUES7.oeQ — 15.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,050
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
lol
> anonymous A
> suddenly mountainman
silly anon, namefagging is not for amateurs.
lol
> anonymous A
> suddenly mountainman
silly anon, namefagging is not for amateurs.
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 52 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #99,055
·Django — 15.2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #99,068
@99,009 (mountainman )
Aside from his idea that the founding fathers were deeply religious is dead wrong, my interpretation is that he believes the purpose of the establishment clause is merely to prevent the establishment of an official government church. It's also my understanding that he believes the founding fathers intended for religion, specifically christianity, to be of greater importance in the every day lives of people than government and that morality is rooted in said religion, and cannot be found or established elsewhere. The rest gets even more herpy-derpy but is basically just him railing against secularists and how they're trying to destroy this nation founded upon Christian principles (which it wasn't) and maybe even ruin Christmas with their two-sizes-too-small hearts.
In short, there's no two ways about it; Ron Paul is a religious fanatic. He seems more devout than Romney and Huckabee combined, which is why I'm convinced, among many other reasons, that he should never set foot in the oval office. How did you interpret it?
Aside from his idea that the founding fathers were deeply religious is dead wrong, my interpretation is that he believes the purpose of the establishment clause is merely to prevent the establishment of an official government church. It's also my understanding that he believes the founding fathers intended for religion, specifically christianity, to be of greater importance in the every day lives of people than government and that morality is rooted in said religion, and cannot be found or established elsewhere. The rest gets even more herpy-derpy but is basically just him railing against secularists and how they're trying to destroy this nation founded upon Christian principles (which it wasn't) and maybe even ruin Christmas with their two-sizes-too-small hearts.
In short, there's no two ways about it; Ron Paul is a religious fanatic. He seems more devout than Romney and Huckabee combined, which is why I'm convinced, among many other reasons, that he should never set foot in the oval office. How did you interpret it?
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 15.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #99,082
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #99,086
·Django — 15.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #99,090
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #99,091
@99,068 (Django )
I interpret it in the light of hundreds of other speeches he has given.
You may wish to read more about the founding fathers. Dr Paul does not claim they were traditional, orthodox Christians (many of them were not, having spent much time investigating and sorting out their religious beliefs) yet they were "religious".
The establishment clause is merely to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
Religion, of course, would only be of greater importance to religious people, and to the people aided by religious charity. This woulod not be achieved by increasing religion, but by decreasing government.
Christian morality is rooted in the Christian religion and can not be founded and established elsewhere. Other systems of morality - Islamic, Buddhist, utilitarian, etc can be.
He states that "statist" opposition to the church is because it takes people's allegiance away from the state. Romans persecuted Christians for this reason, it is not herpy-derpy.
I do not know when or why this speech was given, but it sounds like it was given in response to an attempt to remove Christmas iconography from federal government property.
Ron Paul is a devout Christian. He is also a devout libertarian. Libertarianism is the freedom to make your own choices. You would be more at threat from a "less devout" neo con than from Ron Paul, who legislates on logic and reason - not on party lines, not from lobby groups, not from religious law.
Ron Paul will end foreign intervention. Ron Paul will end the War on Drugs. Ron Paul will end government interference in private life. To oppose Ron Paul is to oppose liberty.
I interpret it in the light of hundreds of other speeches he has given.
You may wish to read more about the founding fathers. Dr Paul does not claim they were traditional, orthodox Christians (many of them were not, having spent much time investigating and sorting out their religious beliefs) yet they were "religious".
The establishment clause is merely to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
Religion, of course, would only be of greater importance to religious people, and to the people aided by religious charity. This woulod not be achieved by increasing religion, but by decreasing government.
Christian morality is rooted in the Christian religion and can not be founded and established elsewhere. Other systems of morality - Islamic, Buddhist, utilitarian, etc can be.
He states that "statist" opposition to the church is because it takes people's allegiance away from the state. Romans persecuted Christians for this reason, it is not herpy-derpy.
I do not know when or why this speech was given, but it sounds like it was given in response to an attempt to remove Christmas iconography from federal government property.
Ron Paul is a devout Christian. He is also a devout libertarian. Libertarianism is the freedom to make your own choices. You would be more at threat from a "less devout" neo con than from Ron Paul, who legislates on logic and reason - not on party lines, not from lobby groups, not from religious law.
Ron Paul will end foreign intervention. Ron Paul will end the War on Drugs. Ron Paul will end government interference in private life. To oppose Ron Paul is to oppose liberty.
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #99,092
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #99,111
@99,091 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Ron Paul can't end foreign intervention. Ron Paul can't end the War on Drugs. Ron Paul won't end government interference in private life.
Because: the President doesn't get to declare things like war. Congress declares war and funds them. He can't end the war on drugs because the President doesn't have the ability to defund or dissolve an agency. I believe that too would be an act of congress. And Ron Paul won't end government intrusion into private lives because it's a 'national security issue,' just like Obama kept in place many Bushian policies.
> Ron Paul can't end foreign intervention. Ron Paul can't end the War on Drugs. Ron Paul won't end government interference in private life.
Because: the President doesn't get to declare things like war. Congress declares war and funds them. He can't end the war on drugs because the President doesn't have the ability to defund or dissolve an agency. I believe that too would be an act of congress. And Ron Paul won't end government intrusion into private lives because it's a 'national security issue,' just like Obama kept in place many Bushian policies.
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,163
@previous (D)
> the President doesn't get to declare things like war.
You are correct! Yet we see, time and time again, US president comitting acts of war without congressional approval. Ron Paul will not engage in this type of unconstitutional behavior.
> He can't end the war on drugs because the President doesn't have the ability to defund or dissolve an agency. I believe that too would be an act of congress.
He can prevent new legislation. As president he will restore the national debate on drug laws, and his support will do much to encourage lawmakers and leaders to oppose the fundamentalist loby groups.
> And Ron Paul won't end government intrusion into private lives because it's a 'national security issue,' just like Obama kept in place many Bushian policies.
Look at his voting record. For 30 years he has resisted all attempts to curtail our liberty. Ron Paul opposed the PATRIOT Act. Obama is a hypocrite. Obama promised change but has continued Bush's policies, and even extended them.
> the President doesn't get to declare things like war.
You are correct! Yet we see, time and time again, US president comitting acts of war without congressional approval. Ron Paul will not engage in this type of unconstitutional behavior.
> He can't end the war on drugs because the President doesn't have the ability to defund or dissolve an agency. I believe that too would be an act of congress.
He can prevent new legislation. As president he will restore the national debate on drug laws, and his support will do much to encourage lawmakers and leaders to oppose the fundamentalist loby groups.
> And Ron Paul won't end government intrusion into private lives because it's a 'national security issue,' just like Obama kept in place many Bushian policies.
Look at his voting record. For 30 years he has resisted all attempts to curtail our liberty. Ron Paul opposed the PATRIOT Act. Obama is a hypocrite. Obama promised change but has continued Bush's policies, and even extended them.
·mountainman — 15.2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,181
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
You may wish to read more about the founding fathers. Dr Paul does not claim they were traditional, orthodox Christians (many of them were not, having spent much time investigating and sorting out their religious beliefs) yet they were "religious".
The establishment clause is merely to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
Religion, of course, would only be of greater importance to religious people, and to the people aided by religious charity. This woulod not be achieved by increasing religion, but by decreasing government.
Christian morality is rooted in the Christian religion and can not be founded and established elsewhere. Other systems of morality - Islamic, Buddhist, utilitarian, etc can be.
He states that "statist" opposition to the church is because it takes people's allegiance away from the state. Romans persecuted Christians for this reason, it is not herpy-derpy.
I do not know when or why this speech was given, but it sounds like it was given in response to an attempt to remove Christmas iconography from federal government property.
Ron Paul is a devout Christian. He is also a devout libertarian. Libertarianism is the freedom to make your own choices. You would be more at threat from a "less devout" neo con than from Ron Paul, who legislates on logic and reason - not on party lines, not from lobby groups, not from religious law.
Ron Paul will end foreign intervention. Ron Paul will end the War on Drugs. Ron Paul will end government interference in private life. To oppose Ron Paul is to oppose liberty.
You may wish to read more about the founding fathers. Dr Paul does not claim they were traditional, orthodox Christians (many of them were not, having spent much time investigating and sorting out their religious beliefs) yet they were "religious".
The establishment clause is merely to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
Religion, of course, would only be of greater importance to religious people, and to the people aided by religious charity. This woulod not be achieved by increasing religion, but by decreasing government.
Christian morality is rooted in the Christian religion and can not be founded and established elsewhere. Other systems of morality - Islamic, Buddhist, utilitarian, etc can be.
He states that "statist" opposition to the church is because it takes people's allegiance away from the state. Romans persecuted Christians for this reason, it is not herpy-derpy.
I do not know when or why this speech was given, but it sounds like it was given in response to an attempt to remove Christmas iconography from federal government property.
Ron Paul is a devout Christian. He is also a devout libertarian. Libertarianism is the freedom to make your own choices. You would be more at threat from a "less devout" neo con than from Ron Paul, who legislates on logic and reason - not on party lines, not from lobby groups, not from religious law.
Ron Paul will end foreign intervention. Ron Paul will end the War on Drugs. Ron Paul will end government interference in private life. To oppose Ron Paul is to oppose liberty.
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,210
@99,163 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> You are correct! Yet we see, time and time again, US president comitting acts of war without congressional approval. Ron Paul will not engage in this type of unconstitutional behavior.
your're not going to kill Osama with an attitude like that, child.
> He can prevent new legislation. As president he will restore the national debate on drug laws, and his support will do much to encourage lawmakers and leaders to oppose the fundamentalist loby groups.
>
By veto, sure, but his support will do nothing to the 'lobby groups' and will do nothing but keep him unelectable.
> Look at his voting record. For 30 years he has resisted all attempts to curtail our liberty. Ron Paul opposed the PATRIOT Act. Obama is a hypocrite. Obama promised change but has continued Bush's policies, and even extended them.
Still not gonna get back habeas corpus.
> You are correct! Yet we see, time and time again, US president comitting acts of war without congressional approval. Ron Paul will not engage in this type of unconstitutional behavior.
your're not going to kill Osama with an attitude like that, child.
> He can prevent new legislation. As president he will restore the national debate on drug laws, and his support will do much to encourage lawmakers and leaders to oppose the fundamentalist loby groups.
>
By veto, sure, but his support will do nothing to the 'lobby groups' and will do nothing but keep him unelectable.
> Look at his voting record. For 30 years he has resisted all attempts to curtail our liberty. Ron Paul opposed the PATRIOT Act. Obama is a hypocrite. Obama promised change but has continued Bush's policies, and even extended them.
Still not gonna get back habeas corpus.
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,215
@previous (D)
I don't want to kill Osama. I want justice to be done. Even the Nazis had trials.
The American people are learning more and more about the political system thanks to the internet. They are beginning to see lobby groups for what they really are.
It's in the constitution. We can't lose it.
I don't want to kill Osama. I want justice to be done. Even the Nazis had trials.
The American people are learning more and more about the political system thanks to the internet. They are beginning to see lobby groups for what they really are.
It's in the constitution. We can't lose it.
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,219
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> The American people are learning more and more about the political system thanks to the internet. They are beginning to see lobby groups for what they really are.
Listen, you pretentious Canadian fuck ---You make it sound like Americans haven't been running this political motherfucker over here for over 200 years.
And technically it's in the Bill of Rights, and yes, you can.
> The American people are learning more and more about the political system thanks to the internet. They are beginning to see lobby groups for what they really are.
Listen, you pretentious Canadian fuck ---You make it sound like Americans haven't been running this political motherfucker over here for over 200 years.
And technically it's in the Bill of Rights, and yes, you can.
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) — 15.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,221
@previous (D)
The american people have not been running the USA since at LEAST WWII
Laws can't contradict one another. You should take it to court.
The american people have not been running the USA since at LEAST WWII
Laws can't contradict one another. You should take it to court.
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,228
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> The american people have not been running the USA since at LEAST WWII
That's a pretty strong assertation coming from a Canadian. What'cha got to back that up with? Conjecture?
> The american people have not been running the USA since at LEAST WWII
That's a pretty strong assertation coming from a Canadian. What'cha got to back that up with? Conjecture?
+Anonymous G — 15.2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,244
@OP
Didn't even read your post, but Gary Johnson is a much better libertarian leaning republican than Ron Paul.
Shit doesn't even matter, because the GOP ticket for 2012 will be Romney/Pawlenty.
So, yeah. I'm voting for Obama.
Didn't even read your post, but Gary Johnson is a much better libertarian leaning republican than Ron Paul.
Shit doesn't even matter, because the GOP ticket for 2012 will be Romney/Pawlenty.
So, yeah. I'm voting for Obama.
+mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos — 15.2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,252
@previous (G)
Why do you think that? Ron Paul is a libertarian, not just libertarian-leaning. The nomination is not decided. We can start a r3VOLution!
Obama is just as bad as the Republicans. Maybe even worse, because you expect the republicans to be evil lol. also, I got sucked in by his message of change -_- and then he was exactly the same as bush -_-
Why do you think that? Ron Paul is a libertarian, not just libertarian-leaning. The nomination is not decided. We can start a r3VOLution!
Obama is just as bad as the Republicans. Maybe even worse, because you expect the republicans to be evil lol. also, I got sucked in by his message of change -_- and then he was exactly the same as bush -_-
·Anonymous D — 15.2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,266
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Said the Canadian in Canada.
I'm voting for Obama cause that nigger trolls the GOP like he's not even trying.
> Said the Canadian in Canada.
I'm voting for Obama cause that nigger trolls the GOP like he's not even trying.
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos — 15.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,274
·NameDerp !BLUES7.oeQ — 15.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,279
@99,252 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)@99,266 (D)
god you people are stupid, of course that's not the real mountainman, he is canadian.
this one is still a pedo but it's not mountainfail.
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos — 15.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,285
@previous (NameDerp !BLUES7.oeQ)
is this what passes for humor on TC? This is like the opposite of MC, where people are accused of being someone. Here, they are accused of NOT being someone lol
is this what passes for humor on TC? This is like the opposite of MC, where people are accused of being someone. Here, they are accused of NOT being someone lol
·NameDerp !BLUES7.oeQ — 15.2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,293
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)It's not humor, there was a seriously dramatastic lolcow from a year or two ago that caused a big stir on TC called mountainman/ghilliedhu/fatsweatyyellowpuswrinkledpedophile
·mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos — 15.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #99,302
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.