Right, returning to the founders, which is NOT taking apart the nation. It is decentralizing, yet you continue to pretend the founders didn't create what he wants to return to.
I ask AGAIN, what system are you talking about? They already existed in a system of the decentralized power of nation-states. They became founders because they recognized the need for a more centralized government and laid they framework and foundation for that with the Constituition.
It was clearly pointed out. Saying, "He wants to cancel the United States!" is clearly an exaggeration of his position to decentralize and return to what the founders created, the very nation you say he wants to take apart.
Post where I said "he wants to cancel the United States." Strawman my ass, this is disingenuous argument. You altered what I said because it's easier for you to create an argument from there, not from what I actually said.
Are you having difficulty in responding to the words I actually say, rather than your re-invention? I respond to what you and Paul have actually said and often quote the exact words.
I said that Paul wants to break America up into smaller nation-states. Paul SAID he wants to break up "the United States into smaller government units".
Would the argument of why decentralized (nation-state) government won't work also be inappropriate as a critcism of what Paul said? I have no problem arguing this against what you're saying Paul proposes.
I am suggesting that he promote decentralization and a return to what the founders set up. It is out of context because it ignores that he wants to 'return to what the founders' set up, which is the nation that you way he wants to get rid of. The government is not the nation, decentralizing is not the same thing as taking apart the nation. That is exaggeration and ignores portions of the statement to emphasize others, the very definition of 'taken out of context'.
Explain what the founders set up in your view. Centralized government appears to be exactly what the founders set up from my perspective and time has taught us that states are not equal.
Rubbish, I spoke of decentralizing power, just as the founders had it set up.
The Founders set up centralized power for the common defense, the preservation of public peace against internal convulsions as external attacks, the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states, and the common interaction, political and commercial, with foreign countries.
His highly illogical use of "There's no Cold War and no Communist threat" so we don't need the federal government is stupid as hell. Neither the federal government or centralized were formed to simply address the Cold War or a communist threat. You're dancing around the issue.
Rubbish, he believes that smaller bureaucracies are more efficient. Those other nations are not disbanding their government, they are simply making more localized bureaucracies.
Is the man too stupid to know how to put english words together that accurately reflect his thoughts? ..
"Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?" .. Is a long way from your reinterpretation. Perhaps you should be his speech writer.
But even your reinterpretation should be challenged in my opinion.
No, but it takes one to spin it into, "He wants the US to no longer exist" when he clearly wants a return to more state power, not the destruction of the nation.
Post where I said this or stop lying saying that I did.
And I ask again, is Ron Paul the only authority on when a "different time" is applicable to the argument. The reason states are regulated is because in THIS TIME in our history time has taught us that all states are not equal, but the American people should be. Thus, federal guidelines, restrictions, funding, and oversight has developed over time to accomodate the needs of modern society.
I have no problem moving this conversation to what's wrong with his "smaller government" notion. I have no problem discussing why getting rid of the Department of Education and creating an "unsupervised educational free-for-all among all the states and thousands of countless districts", is a dumb idea.
Yet I will ask again, do you not think I can find quotes that support the other position? Cherry-picking quotes is one of your largest complaints against libertarians, yet you do it here without shame.
What you and most Paul supporters do without shame my brother is run from the words of the person you support. Whether that comes from blind loyalty or just ignorance of history makes no difference.
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Are you suggesting that you didn't already know this was a lie? You didn't know that most of the Founders weren't christians? They were Deists who didn't believe in the bible and thought Jesus was a good man but certainly not divine or the son of God. What Paul says here is remarkably dumb and devoid of any historical perspective. I would not imagine someone as informed as you not to know this.
Would you have believed or defended that bullshit if Jerry Falwell had said it?
Rubbish, whole books have been written on the subject from both camps using quotes from the very same people.
WHAT? You believe the the US was founded on christianity?
Does this help ...
From the 1796 treaty with Tripoli, which states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" . This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims, they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
I never suggested that, this is a strawman.
You may not have suggested it BUT IT IS EXACTLY WHAT PAUL SAID.
" .. with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Your "strawman" is a dodge from dealing with his lunatic ramblings.
I never suggested this either. I said that they more often associate themselves to Jefferson than to Paine, it was not any sort of a statement on religion. The fact is that Jefferson was not a Christian in any modern sense of it, and I know it. That does not change that he wasn't for hiding all religion from public life.
I ask again, where is religion forbidden from public life? Are you saying that you do not know that Jefferson was FOR forbidding religion from government .. which is the question that you keep dodging by talking about "public life". Where did I say religion shouldn't be part of public life?
Just a ton more straw for the strawman. I, once again, stated only that libertarians far more associate with Jefferson than with Paine, and never stated that it was because he was "Christian".
Funny, because I never said that either.
First, I am not a Christian. Yes, I claim an affinity often with Jefferson, but I didn't present that affinity as anything other than against your assertion that libertarians, as a whole, claim affiliation with Paine. I suggested that they more often associate themselves with Jefferson than Paine and never suggested that it was anything to do with Paul's religious position. You have attempted to suggest I asserted what I have not, and this is extremely disingenuous.
Read this closely ..
Not only do I not believe in religion in government, neither did Jefferson, whom you claim an affinity with. What I said in simplistic terms is that Jefferson didn't believe in religion in government, but you disagree with that or merely feel compelled to defend Paul.
Rubbish, I have never suggested the founders had an intent to make a Christian government, this is more strawman argument based on what you wanted me to argue rather than what I actually said.
There you go again.
And there you are again. As I said, you think Bush would be a better President than Paul solely for his position on decentralizing power. I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
Read this slowly ..
But I cannot think of a worse candidate for president than someone so completely removed from reality and so compltely devoid of any sense of socio-ethical responsibility as Ron Paul. In simple terms, in my opinion Ron Paul is every bit the kook many people think him to be. He's not connected the this century and his flaws and faults go way beyond the issue of centralized government.
...Never mind ya never told me...I left along time ago too...Just because I thought organized religion was going down the wrong path!...We must discuss this issue when you come up ...I never really knew why you left... I thought for the same reasons I did...dunno!
