Ron Paul is about half genius.

Kucinich is the equal and opposite of R. Paul. Just in a different party. IMO. Both men have their strong convictions, they both stick to them hard. You fall more into the Kucinich category I fall more into the Paul category. Who do you think I would support?

On many important issues I don't disagree with that.

Anyway, If the Constitution needs fixing, there is a process for that other than just ignoring it. It is called Amendments.

The Declaration protects states from just such messes as this one. It was there for a reason.

The Constitution will always need fixing which is why I call it a living document. Thus, the argument that "it's not in the Constitution" isn't really much of an argument given that there is a world of issues that aren't in the Constitution. Often it doesn't require amending the Constitution to put any particular issue there, but simply passing the law or creating a program that deals with it.

Social Security isn't in the Constitution isn't really an argument.
 
But it is a clear position based on an interpretation. Clearly the SCOTUS believes that the SS program is within the purview of the Federal government, thus that argument is long over.

However, attempting to simplify that the argument is solely that is pretense. It isn't that simple. It hasn't been for a long time. Most simply disagree that the federal government is the best place to handle it, you disagree with them, there is a debate and a vote of representatives. It is how government works.

"Ron Paul will return us to Feudalism" is much the same type of argument. First, he wouldn't. He has never argued the dissolution of the Constitution and a return to Serfs, nor is he ever going to.

However, he has argued for the dissolution of the United States, which is odd to say the least for someone so wed to the Constitution. He believes there is no need for the Federal government at all and America should be reduced to a bunch of nation-states. .. which lends people to believe he's crazy.

His narrow view of the Constitution is agenda-driven interpretation.

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.

Find "God" in the Constitution. "Replete" means that you'd expect to find references to God all over the Constitution, but it's not there ONCE.

The Declaration refers to the "creator" and has NO references to anything like the Church of England. The man wants an official religion.

That is crazy
 
Blackascoal, the social security system, a ponzi scheme, should be disbanded immediately. The government has an out clause, all those letters they send say these estimations are subject to change. Tell the old folks the system was a scam from the beginning and must be stopped so the young are not made victims under a confiscatory and unrealistic tax burden, and that old people are to sacrifice for the young, not the other way around.
 
More trance-like zombie thinking.

I know his positions and what you quote make its clear. He intends no overnight dissolution of ss.

INCREDIBLY ridiculous. "Charities" .. Leave seniors to "charity"????

That's half of what I said.

I call this trance-like whatthefuck duplicity.

First you argue that Paul doesn't want to eliminate SS, then you try to explain why it's a good idea.

I call this a lie. I never said he did not want to eliminate SS. I said he did not want to and could not do it overnight. You apparnetly have troubles with intellectual honesty.

Yes, I think it is a good idea.
 
Okay, I wan to see a show of hands:

How many conservatives wish to start leaving the elderly on icebergs, again?

How many conservatives want to place children who have been saved from abortions immediately into prison?

How many conservatives wish to give every American citizen a gun and do away with a formal military?

How many conservatives want Jesus to be the national mascot?

How many conservatives just want to do away with schools, altogether and require parents to teach their kids at home?

How many conservatives want to do away with Medicare and all other programs which help with medical assistance and return to the "only the strong or the rich survive", funny, they don't like it taught in science class, though, but that is another questions...

Just curious...
 
"Supreme" authority or not, the Constitution was not designed for a modern society. There are a plethora of modern-day issues that aren't in the Constitution .. such as ..

Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
God
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
Intellectual Property
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Privacy
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Constraints on the people
Education
Student, Animal, Gay, Lesbian Rights
The word "democracy"
Abortion
Age discrimination
Capitalism

The Constitution is a living document and is altered and amended as Americans get smarter and as society changes. Life is not static, it's dynamic, and trying to literally live by the original Constitution is like trying to literally live by the bible.

Many of those are in the consitution. Not in the same phrases you use, but who cares.

For instance...
The division of powers is explained in the consititution. There is no division of powers clause. So what?

Intellectual property is under article 1 section 8.

Slavery is, explicitly, in the constitution. 13th amendment.

Innocent until proven guilty is required by due process rights.

Right to privacy is in protection from illegal searches and seizures.

etc...

And there was common law that was clearly assumed.

Many of your examples, e.g., God, "of the people by the people, for the people," are sort of head scratchers. I have no clue why you think they need to be in the Constitution.

You seem to think the government should express itself on everything and decide all matters. Our founders did NOT believe the government (and especially the federal government) should be all powerful and so there was no need for them to attempt to address everything.

I mean, there is nothing in the constitution about the right to wipe your ass (I hope you still exercise that right) either. Did the founders overlook this need of the people or did they just not feel it was necessary to address it? Obviously, it is the latter.
 
Okay, I wan to see a show of hands:

How many conservatives wish to start leaving the elderly on icebergs, again?

How many conservatives want to place children who have been saved from abortions immediately into prison?

How many conservatives wish to give every American citizen a gun and do away with a formal military?

How many conservatives want Jesus to be the national mascot?

How many conservatives just want to do away with schools, altogether and require parents to teach their kids at home?

How many conservatives want to do away with Medicare and all other programs which help with medical assistance and return to the "only the strong or the rich survive", funny, they don't like it taught in science class, though, but that is another questions...

Just curious...

When did you stop beating your wife/husband? Your questions are stupid. Wanting to get rid of the SS system does not amount to wanting to leave seniors on icebergs???

They're all melting anyways so we will have to come up with a new one. :)
 
Marriage in the Constitution...oh the Fathers are spinning I tell you, spinning!

God in the Constitution, I think they left him out for a very good reason.
They wished for the USA to remain secular.

Abortion, oh man! I personally think the Constitution needs to be left alone!
 
The funny thing is, is bac claims I see the Consititution as a bible. This is ridiculous. I have said it was a noble yet failed experiment. And it was doomed from the outset. I have ideas about how it might be amended to effectively limit government, but I am skeptical that they would work.

It is bac that, apparently, views it as a bible. He just thinks it is missing too many chapters and wants the feds to fill them in. He wants a government bible to decide all matters and tell him when he can wipe.

The constitution is simply a charter for the federal government. If it continuously and unabashadly violates its charter then it's is no longer legitimate (and maybe, as Spooner would argue, it never was) and clearly no limits may be trusted.
 
Kucinich is the equal and opposite of R. Paul. Just in a different party. IMO. Both men have their strong convictions, they both stick to them hard. You fall more into the Kucinich category I fall more into the Paul category. Who do you think I would support?

Anyway, If the Constitution needs fixing, there is a process for that other than just ignoring it. It is called Amendments.

The Declaration protects states from just such messes as this one. It was there for a reason.

Kucinich is about the same on social issues as Paul, but they are very different in economic issues. I'd really say a fascist like Tancredo or Hunter would be the opposite of Kucinich, and half-opposite of Paul.
 
Uhhh...........

Lol...remember why I left the church?



Because they restricted your access to the wine cellar?:cof1: ...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!
 
Kucinich is about the same on social issues as Paul, but they are very different in economic issues. I'd really say a fascist like Tancredo or Hunter would be the opposite of Kucinich, and half-opposite of Paul.

You have that backwards. Don't know much about Tancredo's economics but fascist economics are far more in line with Kucinich than Paul.
 
I know his positions and what you quote make its clear. He intends no overnight dissolution of ss.
//

I am sure not overnight, it would take at least a few months :)
 
However, he has argued for the dissolution of the United States, which is odd to say the least for someone so wed to the Constitution. He believes there is no need for the Federal government at all and America should be reduced to a bunch of nation-states. .. which lends people to believe he's crazy.

Rubbish, he has never stated he wished for the Federal Government to be dissolved. This is exaggeration, and not worthy of somebody so clearly intelligent. Once again disagreement must be seen as 'evil'. He wants to dissolve the nation! He has never argued for this, he simply argues for stronger state rights.

His narrow view of the Constitution is agenda-driven interpretation.

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.

Find "God" in the Constitution. "Replete" means that you'd expect to find references to God all over the Constitution, but it's not there ONCE.

There is no mention of God in the constitution, however the founders made it clear that the separation was not made to be exclusive to religion but inclusive to it.

The Declaration refers to the "creator" and has NO references to anything like the Church of England. The man wants an official religion.

That is crazy

He does not want an official religion, he wants religion included rather than excluded from public life.

This is again exaggeration and deliberate misinterpretation.
 
Rubbish, he has never stated he wished for the Federal Government to be dissolved. This is exaggeration, and not worthy of somebody so clearly intelligent. Once again disagreement must be seen as 'evil'. He wants to dissolve the nation! He has never argued for this, he simply argues for stronger state rights.

"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?" .. Ron Paul

Keep in mind his participations with the Neo-Confederate Movement, even being a guest speaker for their symposium on ""Secession, State, and Economy".

He also has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) and actually attended a LvMI secession conference
http://www.mises.org/

What is distrubing is that many of those who support him don't even know who he is.

There is no mention of God in the constitution, however the founders made it clear that the separation was not made to be exclusive to religion but inclusive to it.

However, the Constitution is NOT "replete" with references to God. This was pure ideological fabrication by Paul.

He does not want an official religion, he wants religion included rather than excluded from public life.

How much more should religion be included in public life? He also fabricates where he claims religion is not included.

This is again exaggeration and deliberate misinterpretation.

You keep saying that and I keep demonstrating his lunacy by using his own words. Ron Paul speaks to those ignorant of truth and too intellectually lazy to seek it. I'm not implying that you are in that category whatsoever

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Ron Paul, War on Religion

Only those who know nothing of the Founders or the Constitution would believe that bullshit.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).
James Madison, principal author of the constitution.

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform"
Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789.

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ."
Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"
George Washington, 1789.

"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst."
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...."
John Adams, 1787

CLEARLY, Paul has lied and grossly misstated the intentions of the Founders. He is NOT a strict constitutionalist, he's a strict RonPaulist and that narrow interpretation.

Libertarians consider themselves to have a deep affinity and connection to Thomas Paine. Paul's narrow interpretation of religion is even counter to Paine's ...

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, appear to me nothing other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?"
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
 
bac, you are ridiculous and absurd. He is obviously entertaining an idea not proposing it. You offer no context and, I would guess,for good reason. You are just throwing mud.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute's focus is on economics. Many of their contributors do endorse the right of secession. They will also remark on the truth about the tyrant Lincoln. But that is not their focus and to call them Neo Confederate is like calling the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan the same.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Ron Paul, War on Religion

None of your quotes from the founders or Paine contradict this notion. No where in this statement does he call for a state church.
 
"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?" .. Ron Paul

In your very own quote he speaks of returning to the system of the Founders. This once again exaggerates his point and pretends that the US didn't exist when they had founded it. As I said, exaggeration and hyperbole. Decentralization of Government is not the same thing as disbanding the government.

The only way you can take this to mean he wants to totally disband the US is if you somehow believe that the people who actually founded the government didn't want it to exist!

Keep in mind his participations with the Neo-Confederate Movement, even being a guest speaker for their symposium on ""Secession, State, and Economy".

He also has an extensive record with the Neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) and actually attended a LvMI secession conference
http://www.mises.org/

What is distrubing is that many of those who support him don't even know who he is.



However, the Constitution is NOT "replete" with references to God. This was pure ideological fabrication by Paul.

As I stated, the Constitution does not mention God.

How much more should religion be included in public life? He also fabricates where he claims religion is not included.

He often appears to use the same exaggeration to which you seem prone.

You keep saying that and I keep demonstrating his lunacy by using his own words. Ron Paul speaks to those ignorant of truth and too intellectually lazy to seek it. I'm not implying that you are in that category whatsoever

Which you take out of context, ignore portions that you dislike such as "return to the system of our Founders" and then pretend that means we should dissolve the Constitution and remove all of the Federal Government. That is exaggeration and pretense, and deliberately removing part of the meaning of the phrase to suggest that it means only what you want it to mean. That is disingenuous, and deliberately so.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Ron Paul, War on Religion

Only those who know nothing of the Founders or the Constitution would believe that bullshit.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists.


"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).
James Madison, principal author of the constitution.

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform"
Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789.

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ."
Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country"
George Washington, 1789.


"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst."
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...."
John Adams, 1787

CLEARLY, Paul has lied and grossly misstated the intentions of the Founders. He is NOT a strict constitutionalist, he's a strict RonPaulist and that narrow interpretation.

Do you not think that I can find quotes that support religion from founders? Or do you believe that these are the only founders?

Libertarians consider themselves to have a deep affinity and connection to Thomas Paine. Paul's narrow interpretation of religion is even counter to Paine's ...

I do not, you ascribe something of which I do not believe. Paine was mostly a Socialist, not a libertarian. More often they believe that they have an affinity with Jefferson, Paine... not so much.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, appear to me nothing other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?"
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Anyway whole books have been written that support and do not support religion in public life, you tend to lean in the direction that it should not be present, R. Paul believes the opposite. I do not fear him for that, nor do I fear decentralization of the government as you do. Nor do I believe, nor he, that he could do it be fiat in seconds and that your fear-mongering is pretense.

I find it hard to take somebody seriously that actually believes that Bush would be the better President solely because he would grow government bigger.
 
In your very own quote he speaks of returning to the system of the Founders. This once again exaggerates his point and pretends that the US didn't exist when they had founded it. As I said, exaggeration and hyperbole. Decentralization of Government is not the same thing as disbanding the government.

The only way you can take this to mean he wants to totally disband the US is if you somehow believe that the people who actually founded the government didn't want it to exist!

"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?"

Self-explanatory. It does not require a constitutional lawyer to interpret what he's saying.

As I stated, the Constitution does not mention God.

Of course it doesn't .. but one would not know that listening to Ron Paul.

He often appears to use the same exaggeration to which you seem prone.

I have no problem with you believing that .. but I don't. "Exaggeration" is a favorite term for Paul supporters when he's called on what he's said by his critics. Or is it that you believe he shouldn't have critics?

Which you take out of context, ignore portions that you dislike such as "return to the system of our Founders" and then pretend that means we should dissolve the Constitution and remove all of the Federal Government. That is exaggeration and pretense, and deliberately removing part of the meaning of the phrase to suggest that it means only what you want it to mean. That is disingenuous, and deliberately so.

That's absolutely ridiculous brother and in my opinion, indicative of why his supporters are ridiculed and not taken seriously. Are you suggesting that there is another definition for "Why not think about getting rid of the federal government" other than "Why not think of getting rid of the federal government"? How is the literal interpretation of this "out of context"?

Return to WHAT system of the Founders is he talking about? They were "founders" because they founded a system of federal government. I am anxious to hear you elaborate on what system he talking about .. which you did not do in your response.

"Many nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces" Is this not what I said he believes, that the US should be broken into nation-states?

"The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time." The Constitution occured in a different time, which is exactly what I and many others who do not believe in strict adherence to it have been saying. Is the reality of a "different time" only applicable to his narrow interpretation?

" .. and breaking up the United States into smaller government units" Is a linguist required to interpret this?

Do you not think that I can find quotes that support religion from founders? Or do you believe that these are the only founders?

Once again, you run from what he said. "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." He did not say a few of them. He catagorically spoke for the body of them, which is false. I quoted Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Adams, THE most influential of the founders. The principal Founding Fathers .. Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, were in fact deeply suspicious of religion. Ben Franklin was even less religious than the others and did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Didn't you already know this?

You can find quotes from some, but you will not find anything that remotely validates what Paul has said here.

Do you think Paul the only authority on the Constitution and Founders? Did you not already know that the Founders were not deeply steeped in religion? How is it that you didn't challenge Paul on this yourself when you certainly must have known his assertion to be false?

Show me ANYTHING that demonstrates the Founders believed that churches should eclipse the state in importance .. If you cannot, and you can't, then this is a lie and you know it.

I do not, you ascribe something of which I do not believe. Paine was mostly a Socialist, not a libertarian. More often they believe that they have an affinity with Jefferson, Paine... not so much.

You may not, but I know enough about libertarians to know that they frequently refer to Paine as their ideological founder and his works "The Age of Reason" as their bible. They even hand out "Thomas Paine Awards"
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/thomas-paine.html
http://www.wyolp.org/paine.html

Your argument also falls flat using Jefferson, who also was not deeply religious and in fact, took a scientific and ethical approach to religion. He even went so far as to rewrite his own version of the bible which removed what he called "mystical elements".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."


Thomas Jefferson

No matter how you try to spin it, Paul's interpretation is CLEARLY false and is only designed to manipulate the minds of those who are not studied.

Anyway whole books have been written that support and do not support religion in public life, you tend to lean in the direction that it should not be present, R. Paul believes the opposite. I do not fear him for that, nor do I fear decentralization of the government as you do. Nor do I believe, nor he, that he could do it be fiat in seconds and that your fear-mongering is pretense.

There is absolutely NOTHING that prevents religion in public life. This is another lie that is not supported by reality. Religion in GOVERNMENT is the question. I consider myself a Jeffersonian, and I believe as he does about religion in government.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

Not only do I not believe in religion in government, neither did Jefferson, whom you claim an affinity with.

I find it hard to take somebody seriously that actually believes that Bush would be the better President solely because he would grow government bigger.

Again, that's your opinion and I respect it. However, the problem for you and Paul's supporters is that he has said a lot of really dumb and unfounded shit that usually plays well to the crowds he's used to talking to. Now that dumb shit is being analyzed by the general public, and his supporters are scrambling to re-interpret what he said to make it sound the less bit sane, and deny anything he said that cannot be made to appear that it didn't come from a deranged mind. His appeal is to people who don't know much about politics or history.

What I find hard to take serious is your belief that no one knows the Founders had no intention of creating a Christian government. The questions be asked and raised are legitimate questions but his supporters pretend they no one has the right to raise these questions.

As I'm sure you're aware, I do not, and have never supported George Bush. 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.
 
Last edited:
"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?"

Self-explanatory. It does not require a constitutional lawyer to interpret what he's saying.

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.

Of course it doesn't .. but one would not know that listening to Ron Paul.



I have no problem with you believing that .. but I don't. "Exaggeration" is a favorite term for Paul supporters when he's called on what he's said by his critics. Or is it that you believe he shouldn't have critics?

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.

That's absolutely ridiculous brother and in my opinion, indicative of why his supporters are ridiculed and not taken seriously. Are you suggesting that there is another definition for "Why not think about getting rid of the federal government" other than "Why not think of getting rid of the federal government"? How is the literal interpretation of this "out of context"?

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'.


Return to WHAT system of the Founders is he talking about? They were "founders" because they founded a system of federal government. I am anxious to hear you elaborate on what system he talking about .. which you did not do in your response.

Rubbish, I spoke of decentralizing power, just as the founders had it set up.


"Many nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces" Is this not what I said he believes, that the US should be broken into nation-states?

Rubbish, he believes that smaller bureaucracies are more efficient. Those other nations are not disbanding their government, they are simply making more localized bureaucracies.

"The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time." The Constitution occured in a different time, which is exactly what I and many others who do not believe in strict adherence to it have been saying. Is the reality of a "different time" only applicable to his narrow interpretation?

" .. and breaking up the United States into smaller government units" Is a linguist required to interpret this?

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.

Once again, you run from what he said. "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." He did not say a few of them. He catagorically spoke for the body of them, which is false. I quoted Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Adams, THE most influential of the founders. The principal Founding Fathers .. Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, were in fact deeply suspicious of religion. Ben Franklin was even less religious than the others and did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Didn't you already know this?

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.

You can find quotes from some, but you will not find anything that remotely validates what Paul has said here.

Rubbish, whole books have been written on the subject from both camps using quotes from the very same people.

Do you think Paul the only authority on the Constitution and Founders? Did you not already know that the Founders were not deeply steeped in religion? How is it that you didn't challenge Paul on this yourself when you certainly must have known his assertion to be false?

No, of course he isn't, just one that I agree with more often than not.

Show me ANYTHING that demonstrates the Founders believed that churches should eclipse the state in importance .. If you cannot, and you can't, then this is a lie and you know it.

I never suggested that, this is a strawman.

You may not, but I know enough about libertarians to know that they frequently refer to Paine as their ideological founder and his works "The Age of Reason" as their bible. They even hand out "Thomas Paine Awards"
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/thomas-paine.html
http://www.wyolp.org/paine.html

Your argument also falls flat using Jefferson, who also was not deeply religious and in fact, took a scientific and ethical approach to religion. He even went so far as to rewrite his own version of the bible which removed what he called "mystical elements".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

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.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."


Thomas Jefferson

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".

No matter how you try to spin it, Paul's interpretation is CLEARLY false and is only designed to manipulate the minds of those who are not studied.



There is absolutely NOTHING that prevents religion in public life. This is another lie that is not supported by reality. Religion in GOVERNMENT is the question. I consider myself a Jeffersonian, and I believe as he does about religion in government.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

Not only do I not believe in religion in government, neither did Jefferson, whom you claim an affinity with.

Just more of the same strawman.

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.

Again, that's your opinion and I respect it. However, the problem for you and Paul's supporters is that he has said a lot of really dumb and unfounded shit that usually plays well to the crowds he's used to talking to. Now that dumb shit is being analyzed by the general public, and his supporters are scrambling to re-interpret what he said to make it sound the less bit sane, and deny anything he said that cannot be made to appear that it didn't come from a deranged mind. His appeal is to people who don't know much about politics or history.

No, it is the people who pretend that the founders wanted to take apart the government that they created who attempt to reinterpret what he said to mean something else.

What I find hard to take serious is your belief that no one knows the Founders had no intention of creating a Christian government. The questions be asked and raised are legitimate questions but his supporters pretend they no one has the right to raise these questions.

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.

As I'm sure you're aware, I do not, and have never supported George Bush. 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.

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.
 
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 ...

titleXI.jpg


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.
 
Back
Top