Ron Paul 2008
Offline Ron Paul has been shaking up the scene of the republican party debates lately with his open opposition to the war in Iraq, big government, and the curtailing of constitutional rights. He's a pro-lifer (His greatest flaw in my view) but he thinks it should be left to the states, and besides, the president doesnt have any serious influence over that anyway. He was the libertarian party candidate in '88 and has been a congressman from Tesxas for 10 terms. He's also a doctor (obstetrician) by trade, meaning he's a pretty smart guy.
Take a look at his statements in the first two republican debates, he's the only real conservative on the stage in either one.
First Debate: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FPaFWUaF-uA
Second Debate: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hy6yjenLf4o
And he was just interviewed on CNN and took the opportunity to bash Guliani for his statement about 9/11. He brought up the fact that the 9/11 commission report agreed with him and that Guliani really ought to read it before running on the "I was mayor on 9/11, vote for me" platform.
I encourage everyone to consider voting for him in the primaries, I'm going to register republican just to do it. He may just be what we need to wake the republicans up to how far they've drifted from their real mission.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - Voltaire
- Login to post comments
Offline You should embed your video so that everyone can easily compare your information and comments to mine without leaving the site.
I have tried many times to embed a video on here and haven't been able to do it. The code shows up instead of the video and " 's becomee quot? and other garbled junk.
Many nations have different abortion laws and restrictions than the US and they are not theocracies. Perhaps you should elaborate on this. exactly how many steps are we from theocracy right now? Are we two steps from theocracy or are we two hundred steps from theocracy?
Do you not see abortion as a church/state issue? Well I do.
I didn't think we were awful close to a theocracy until I started seeing atheists pulling for a Christian Revisionist in an election.
Abortion is not in the constitution so it would not be disregarding it. And there are more people in a community than churches and church members so it would be putting the power into the hands of the community not the churches.
Abortion is not in the Constitution, but it sets a hell of a precedent to allow states to vote on disregarding Supreme Court decisions. Seeing Ron Paul's a Christian Revisionist, what makes you think he wouldn't put it up for a vote to the states if they wanted to kick all the atheists out? He doesn't think there is such things as seperation of church and state as we know it in the Constituion.
Putting things in the hands of the community is the same as putting it in the hands of the churches when you live in a country that's 80% Christian. Especially in the South. Ever been here?
You left out Declaration of independence which does contain references to god. I can't defen every statement that a person makes I would assume that in reference to the constitution he was referring to the first amendment which does have a reference to religion.
I didn't leave out the DoI. We weren't talking about the DoI, we were talking about the Constitution.He was not referenicing the first ammendment and he does say "replete with references to god".. here's his exact quote and a link to the source..
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.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
It actually does in private schools. Public schools exist outside of this and the standards are unaffected.
Are you saying that there is no competition amongst public colleges? A student doesn't try to get a scholarship, or afford to go to the state university rather than Southeastern Middle State Tech etc..
You already have a large inefficient government that you are unhappy with and your solution is to make it larger. Ive never heard of streamlining something by making it larger. How does this work?
Do you think that if all of the board members here were invited to be members of the Senate in addition to those already there that we could make a positive impact? Or are you deadset on just eliminating the government? Yes I am unhappy with the government, but many parents are unhappy with their children, do they just resort to offing them?
- Login to post comments
Offline I watched the first 10 minutes of the video. That part did not tell me anything that I did not already know. Due to its length, I prefer that you summed up what bits of logic that you were using to support your arguments. I appreciate that you provided that logic, which I am examining below.
Lower taxes = less government services.
This does not reflect our discussion. If services are moved from federal to state, your federal taxes decrease and your state taxes go up. All logic dependent on "lower federal taxes = less services between federal and state" being true becomes invalid, but I will address them individually anyway.
Abolishing government departments = less government services
Same as above. They will be transitioned to the state, assuming congress goes along with it.
Less government services = people seeking those services elsewhere = more church involvement.
I proved that the premise is not necessarily true. If you do not want the church to fill the void, vote that the state fills the void.
More church involvement in basic human needs, education included = the importance of the church surpasses the importance of government = fertile ground for theocracy.
I proved that the premise is not necessarily true. Again, vote at the state and local level to address this.
Again, keep in mind that as a constitutionalist and president, he will still need congress to work with him on this. As much as I would like a smaller federal government with Ron Paul, I doubt that Ron Paul will be able to provide it with our current congress. I expect that he will be unable to shrink the federal government as desired, but his advice to congress for fixing everything else will be very helpful.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
- Login to post comments
Offline If you cut taxes, work at dismantling the government and you are a Christian Revisionist, then chances are close to 100% you have some sort of theocracy in mind.
JFK cut taxes, he signed an executive order to dismantle the federal reserve and he was catholic. Do you believe that he had a theocracy in mind?
Gauche wrote:Ron Paul is a constitutionalist he is not against the constitution.Ron Paul wrote:
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.
Its sort of like a Christian who says they follow the Bible.
Ok, we've been through this once before but we can go through it as many times as you want. How is Ron Pauls position on this worse than any other president in the last 30 years? You are taking the phrase "rigid separation of church and state" to mean any separation of church and state. Show me the legislation that Ron Paul has introduced to establish state religion. Show me anything at all to support your position that he wants a theocracy. Not what you think or believe show me links show me house resolution numbers.
How many secular organizations are ready to set up free schools across the country? How many are ready to start homeless shelters? How many would build houses for the poor when HUD goes away? I'm not saying there wouldn't be any, I am just saying that we are so far out-numbered that there is no way we could compete.
People fill market when they exist again it's business. There are millions of non-religious people in this country if people want secular schools there will be secular schools. And if think the federal government should control education then you ammend the constitution you don't ignore it.
Does the Constitution not also say that the Supreme Courts rulings on matters are the law of the land? I could be wrong about that, but if not then I don't suspect that Ron Paul cares.
That was decided in Mauberry v Madison it is not in the constitution. But you act as if Ron Paul would become the king. Are you familiar with the concept of separation of powers?
Voting is different than actually seeing what goes on inside government everyday and having the power to change it or blow the whistle on wrong-doings.
Yes it is different. How does having a larger more powerful centralized government make it easier to do those things? Having a smaller decentralized government makes it easier because the people who are making decisions are in your community without bureaucracies to hide behind so transparency can be forced by the community.
I don't think the number of people in government makes it harder for a revolution to happen. That has more to do with the number of loyalists in the military.
You don't think that 2 million police officers can quell a revolution easier than a quarter million police officers?
I applaud Ron Paul for lowering taxes on the impoverished. I'm not calling him ALL bad.
If I thought that somebody wanted to turn my country into a theocracy I would think they were all bad no matter what else they did.
I need not have a candidate who supports my position on tax reform in order to know that I don't support Ron Paul.
So you reject the one man who supports you on this issue.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline Ron Paul wrote: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.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
I read the entire page from that quote. I would expect the differences about this to be minor among the presidential candidates considering all of them are not atheists. At least with Ron Paul, you would not see any government sponsored faith based initiatives. Again, his power to act on his views in this matter would not change much. I agree with Gauche on this:
Ok, we've been through this once before but we can go through it as many times as you want. How is Ron Pauls position on this worse than any other president in the last 30 years? You are taking the phrase "rigid separation of church and state" to mean any separation of church and state.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
- Login to post comments
Offline Do you not see abortion as a church/state issue? Well I do.
I didn't think we were awful close to a theocracy until I started seeing atheists pulling for a Christian Revisionist in an election.
I see abortion as a human rights issue. Unfortunatly, our legal system doesnt acknowledge the concept. The solution to this is making your case in the courts and the legislature or ammending the constitution not pretending that the constitution says things that it doesn't.
Being an atheist doesn't mean that your whole world turns on the concept. I care about my family, myself and my country in that order and just because I'm an atheist that doesn't mean that I have to share your political views which quite frankly seem very biggoted to me.
I didn't leave out the DoI. We weren't talking about the DoI, we were talking about the Constitution.He was not referenicing the first ammendment and he does say "replete with references to god".. here's his exact quote and a link to the source..
As I said earlier I don't defend everything that comes out of that man's mouth i support his voting record but you don't attack his voting record because you can't. You throw up a quote that shows nothing more than he has a different interpretation of the constitution than you do. If he considers the DOI and the constitution to be a single entity then that's his interpretation. Where are the flaws in his voting record where are the quotes saying that he want's to create a theocracy?
Are you saying that there is no competition amongst public colleges? A student doesn't try to get a scholarship, or afford to go to the state university rather than Southeastern Middle State Tech etc..
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that public colleges and community colleges are not actually public, they recieve money from the federal government in grants but they're still private institutions.
Do you think that if all of the board members here were invited to be members of the Senate in addition to those already there that we could make a positive impact? Or are you deadset on just eliminating the government? Yes I am unhappy with the government, but many parents are unhappy with their children, do they just resort to offing them?
Who said they wanted to eliminate the government? What if instead of doing that I kept the senate the same size but I only gave the federal government the powers that the constitution says they can have and the I left the other powers to the states or the people. Do you think this might work? Thomas Jefferson did.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline How do you think that Ron Paul will help churches take over education? Education is an issue that belongs at the state. This is consistent with Ron Paul's agenda. Education has been and is paid for by state and local taxes. Since Ron Paul believes at leaving it at the state level, how is it that you expect that Ron Paul will give the power to the churches that already is at the state level? This is the logical gap in your argument that I would like to have you fill.
Well I thought that schools were paid for in part by federal taxes, but I was mistaken. They are still paid for indirectly. If the state didn't get funds in another area the funding of the schools would suffer.
Ron Paul will help churches take over education by cutting taxes and if he's true to his party's agenda by doing away with the Department of Education. Also, given that he's a revisionist, I am sure he would support teaching religion in public schools or he'd at least allow for it to be put up for a vote. We all know the value of education and teaching religion as fact in public schools could take back all the progress we have made in the zeigeist.
If the state fails to pay for education properly, vote to fix it. Organizations exist to unite and coordinate voters. These volunteer run organizations are more effective than the federal government.
Faith based innitaitives are already in place. What's to stop people from voting to allow all the church schools to get public funding? At that point, as a secularist, would you want to vote to give them more funds?
Church funded education? I used to live in a red state. The churches were not funded enough to provide any decent level of education. Their pews were mostly empty. I doubt it will work. I believe in keeping education accountable by the state government. If your state redirects money from local property taxes and state taxes to church run organizations to provide education, vote to fix it.
There are many large church schools in my city. There is even a large compound in the rich part of town that contains all kinds of church schools of different denominations. Mega-churches are everywhere here. As for voting to fix it...why haven't we just voted to fix faith-based innitatives already?
As for poor people having to go to the church to eat: we have that now. What is wrong with asking your state government to fill that need?
We have that now, and if Ron Paul is true to his party's agenda then the Department of Health and Human Services will be done away with and no more food stamps for poor people.
The government needs to fill that need in my opinion as well. I guess they don't because they don't have enough tax revenue coming in.
We have rules at the federal level that prevent the state from doing certain things, such as having a state religion. Our founding fathers thought of this; it works.
Is it not a rule at the federal level that the Supreme Court's decisions become federal law? Ron Paul doesn't care about that. Ron Paul may or may not be against states voting on their own religion, he has alread displayed a complete lack of understanding of the establishment clause...who knows. Even if states aren't allowed to vote on a state religion, if they are allowed to vote on such things as abortion then the damage they can do is immense. Like I said before, until the zeitgeist changes, we best shy away from putting too many social issues up for a vote.
It is harder to fix something that is not accountable to voters. Federal programs are not influenced by voters as much as state programs are. We need to move programs to the state level.
I am generally opposed to moving things to a state level until I am able to afford to move to a blue state
But, I am not oppposed to the idea, so as long as our Constitution is firmly in place and our elected officals display that they have an understanding of it.As for Christians getting what they vote for: good, as long as it was a fair vote. Government should be doing what the people want. If you do not like what the people want, start or support an organization like the RRS to educate people. But do not build a government that assumes that the people do not know what is best for them. That is how we get our liberties and rights taken away from us.
The Constitution saves us from the majority imposing it's beliefs onto us. Where I am at, I am all but positive that if you let the voters have their way, and everyone voted, all of the atheists would be kicked out of the state and no telling what else. Given Ron Paul's interpretation of the establishment clause, there is not telling to what he'd be for allowing people to vote on.
"Democracy doesn't work in mental institutions." - NoFX
[quote"=Mr Xc"]I agree with you on the idea that the more people making choices, the better. However, when it comes to federal programs, very few people make those choices. So the idea that the federal government represents many people's votes breaks down. Yes, we do elect the people who make the decisions, but they make so many decisions in their long stay in office that our say on individual issues is way too diluted. I find this unacceptable.
We need to do more to get people interested in what the government is doing. I look at it as our education system's fault..among other things, but I don't want to open a huge can of worms now
About individual liberty and freedom: It is not about the size of the government, it is how accountable they are to the voters. Federal programs are less accountable to voters than state programs are. Increasing the size of the federal government will not give you more accountability. Even auditing these agencies will not make them accountable to the voters, unless we can specifically vote to influence these agencies, but I doubt that will ever happen at the federal level. If we keep social stuff on the state level like the founding fathers designed it to be, we would be a lot better off.
In a way it is our fault that we don't make the federal government more accountable. I fell if there were more of us in the federal government that that wouldn't be the case. If everyone personally knew someone involved in federal government decisions, then we would feel like there was more that we could do. A lot of people just don't think their voice is going to get heard so they never say anything..I think that attitude needs to change.
If you want to fix the national debt, look for someone who understands that our dollar is severely overvalued due to how the federal reserve has lied about our economic performance and currency status. Government spending is part of the debt, but because our money has not been devalued to reflect our true economic performance and ability to service debt, it is cheaper to buy things in China than make them at home. It is more than just wages being cheaper in China. Because our currency is propped up, our imports are much cheaper than what they should be and our exports are much more expensive than what they should be. This creates a huge economic bubble that will cause a painful burst as it continues to go uncorrected. Taxing all people in the US will not undo this bubble, so we need someone who understands this economic condition to correct it.
And this knowledge that I have obtained on an RRS forum is not avaliable to any other candidate? Are there candidates who fail to see the issue? I am not too up on economics, but I understand what you're saying and assuming it's correct I am sure that other candidates know what's going on.
There are times where religious views are less important than other issues. This is one of them in my opinion. I do not associate my views with any party. I find it better to look at what the position to be filled needs the most. We are desperately in need of a real constitutionalist in the position of president. Remember, he will only be president. We still have checks and balances with a non-constitutionalist congress and justice department. As a constitutionalist, he will reduce his power as president and restore the checks and balances that we had originally.
Or he will be another in the long line of politicans that has pulled the whool over most people's eyes to get in office and then get power hungry and further his and his party's agenda.
There is a difference between saying you are a constitutionalist and voting like one. Ron Paul votes like one. I do not think he will be able to set the conditions for a theocractic regime. Not by a long shot. Also, since we do not have any atheist candidates yet, then choosing which candidate supports our religious views better is going to be a little hard and probably ineffective.
I have studied the agenda of the Dominionists and I guarantee you they love Ron Paul. He is a perfect storm for them. He has ideas that will attract liberal voters, and at the same time will send the country a long way towards theocracy by making churches more important than the state..I mean Ron Paul has even said it himself..I dunno how much more convincing one would need to know that he at least shares some core beliefs with the Dominionists as for the direction they want the country to go.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
- Login to post comments
Ron Paul 2008. Where are the supporters?
Stephen
I like Ron Paul because he's against the federal reserve system. I can't vote in the republican primary though.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I'm against any candidate who wants to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service. I'm also against any candidate who doesn't want to tax the rich until they bleed, work for the bottom 20% of the nation, and give us nationalized (socialized) health care. Free higher education and pensions for all elderly would also be a plus.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG
Why do you like the fed so much?
He works for the IRS, I think.
Yeah, Ron Paul is refreshing and interesting... Still, I don't agree with his views.
I think that's the only way you can like it.
If it's Paul vs. Hillary, Obama, Biden, it's Paul all the way. I'd have to take Gravel or Kucinich over Paul though. A Paul/Gravel ticket would be awesome. But Kucinich still has the best ideas I've heard on universal healthcare (a non-profit system). The fair tax would be conciderably better than the income tax in general, BUT I'm still in favor of a maximum wage.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
*runs down to change his voter registration to republican so he can vote for Ron Paul in the primary*
Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evange
I like ron paul except for three little MAJOR facts, that he's pro-life, a baptist and is extremely pro corporate control of everything. Now, I understand teh reasoning behind letting the "market" dictate and control services based on the fact that government isn't doing it's job and is so corrupt that you have corporations controlling it for profit in the first place, however, I'm not sure that allowing corporations to control services is such a great idea without any kind of government oversight to ensure they are not screwing people over for profits. So I do support Ron Paul in many respects, but I do support Kuccinich in others. I also think that Ron Paul and Kuccinich are not part of the neocon zionist agenda and will not allow AIPAC, and the xtian right to get in their pockets which is one of the biggest problems facing our government today. I really like Ron Paul view in the MIC....he's completely against war profiteering.
All in all...if I knew Kuccinich would have a chance in hell, he'd have my vote, however, I may have to weigh the pro's and con's and vote Ron Paul. Which would be the first time ever me voting republican.....
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
If he runs as an independent after losing the nomination, I might give him my protest vote.
Of course, not being American I cannot vote for anyone in America (surprise surprise). I wouldn't vote for this guy though, he might be somewhat more liberal but is still a Republican, still free-markety, and still Right-Wing. In this country the Conservative leader David Cameron looks on the surface much more left-wing and environmentalist than Blair, but at heart he's still just a Tory.
Atheist Books
I'm not a fan of the Republican party, however Ron Paul isn't your typical far-right republican either. Most modern day republicans do not actually follow the basic ideology that the republican party was formed on.
"I liked the old idea that you could do what you wanted as long as you weren't hurting others." - Ron Paul
Ron Paul has my vote, but regardless he most likely won't win. He simply doesn't have the campaign money to win.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
I know what you mean Larry I have issues with is religious and the abotion issues and I have concern about his corporate leanings but all in all his political view line up with mine the best (as far as the political canidates I have read up on thus far).
The good thing is that the fact chances of him appointing a new supreme court justice is slim to none so the abortion stance doesn't seem to be an issue.
Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evange
I generally like Paul's positions but his religious views do give me pause. Paul thinks that not only abortion, but also prayer in school should be left up to the states. You might also want to have a look at these two articles:
The War on Religion
Theology, Not Politics
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
From what I've read and heard about Ron Paul, which is not a whole lot, some of his ideas play right into the hands of the Dominionists.
Dominionists want massive tax cuts so that funding of education and welfare will suffer allowing for churches to play a larger role and eventually totally taking over.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/texas_gop.htm
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominionism-256kbps.wmv
[MOD EDIT - fixed link]
Scary stuff. I noticed that many of the best videos of him in the first debate were on the TheocracyNow YouTube account. Makes some sense in light of the purported dominionist goals. I never knew that dismantling the Federal Government (other than public schools) was part of their plan. That is really disturbing considering how many of us atheists are Libertarians, me included.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
The court is the final arbiter of those issues not the executive branch so I don't think that really matters. He takes those positions because he's a constitutonalist. But even if it were left up to the states you could still get an abortion anywhere in the country only you may also need a bus ticket. Big hairy deal.
What other candidate will reverse the patriot act or the military commissions act or end the iraq war or get rid of the FED or ask for independent investigations of any of the myriad of crimes that people in the govenment have commited in the last seven years.
Nobody, that's who.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Having to buy a bus ticket might be big deal to some. Plus some states are fucking big. However I'd agree with you, issues like that would most likly end up in the courts as I'm pretty sure the executive doesn't decide those issues
Its probably going to come down to who is up for the election, like it always does. That said I'd think a fundamentalist who thinks I have rights and we have a secular government is better then a moderate who thinks we don't have any of that. If you think about it tho any talk of religion is going to give an atheist pause, I know it does for me.
Not being able to get an abortion as conveniently as you can now would not be good but Ron Paul doesn’t want to take away your right to do anything, he wants to take away the federal governments power to dictate what you can do in matters where the constitution doesn’t grant them the authority to do so.
I don’t want to vote for somebody who believes that jesus is going to come back to life period. But that’s what we have. You are worrying about losing things that you won’t lose anyway instead of getting back the things that you’ve already lost.
free speech zones
patriot act
patriot act II
military commisions act
Between those four things the government has the right to spy on you, expatriate you, lock you up, and kill you and stop you from even complaining about it all without any warrant, any charges being filed, any court oversight or oversight by any arbitrating body other than the criminals who have done it to you in the first place. And if you don’t care about your privacy or liberty then at least care about your money.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I'm feeling good vibes about Ron Paul. However, I don't think he'll win the primaries. I would need to see the final ballots to say definitively, but like I said... good vibes.
Remember folks, he's actually a Libertarian!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I don't understand how any atheist could vote for this guy. I understand he has some good things about him, but he scares the shit out of me.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Are you saying that I should be more concerned with somebody putting a plastic baby jesus on a courthouse lawn than I should be about my privacy, my money and my life? Btw the president we have now doesn't believe in a rigid separation of church and state, Bill Clinton didn't, GHW Bush didn't, Reagan didn't. That's not one president in the last 30 years and probably well beyond that.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
My point is that this country is in danger of becoming a theocracy and no candidate will get us there faster than Ron Paul.
Jesus on a courthouse lawn is miniscule compared to some of the implications of his positions. I am talking about much bigger issues like public school systems shrinking and church schools popping up everywhere, poor people having to rely on churches for welfare, abortions becoming illegal in many/most states, creationism being taught in public schools etc.. and things getting worse from there.
I am not down-playing the importance of privacy and economic issues, but surely the best way to make progress in those areas is not to elect a guy whose positions line up nicely with those who wish to make America a Christian theocracy. Are there no other candidates who wish to pull back from the Bush administration's policies?
Also, I am not saying our recent presidents were firm supporters of the seperation of church and state, but one thing is for sure Ron Paul doesn't support it at all. He doesn't even properly understand the concept. He claims to be all about the Constitutionn, but then says stupid shit like it's replete with references to god.
Have you watched the video I posted or do you know about the plan that RJ Rushdoony, who also was a Christian Libertarian, laid out for making America become a theocracy?
I want liberty and freedom just as much as the next guy, but Ron Paul's plan of turning major decisions over to the states and local governments is bound to cause all kinds of problems. I'm in a red state and it's a very scary idea.
"Democracy doesn't work in mental institutions." -NoFX
Ron would get rid of the "inflation tax" which negatively affects the bottom 20% more than the rich. When dollars buy less due to bad monetary policy, the poor are hurt the most; because they cannot buy as much food and energy. Ron is the only candidate to address this that I have seen so far. This would help the poor more than increased taxes ever could.
He is also aware of our national dept to the rest of the world, which will put all of the middle class into poverty if it is not addressed soon enough. Reducing that dept will prevent our currency from becoming worthless when we fail to make interest payments on that dept. If our federal government is doing only what it is supposed to be doing and we did not have such as huge dept to pay interest on, we would not need an income tax. So any candidate that does not cut back on government spending would likely bring most of the country into poverty. Much of our current wealth is borrowed from foreign governments, and that will not last forever. We all could be rich too if we could borrow $200 a day and never pay it back. But in reality, that does not work forever, even if the government does it.
If Ron Paul gets elected, I will gladly increase my contributions to help the RRS fight the religious implications (if there are any; I am unconvinced that he would use his presidential powers to further his religious views and have a real effect since he prefers to keep things on the state level). Upholding the constitution, cutting back the national dept, nonintervention foreign policy, and making the monetary policy more sound are not all found in any other candidate and are desperately needed. Remember, education is funded from local property taxes, so I think churches taking over education is not a probable outcome from his election.
To address the issue of poor people having to rely on churches: If our dollar becomes debased, then there will be more poor people going to the churches (although the churches will have less money to give out at the same time).
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul is for cutting taxes and has never raised taxes. I think taxes need to be raised a lot on the rich (Yeah, I'm a socialist). When taxes are cut education, welfare and many other social programs suffer. The dominionist's main goal is to to have taxes cut so these things will happen and churches can step in to fill the void.
As for the Constituion. I hear Ron Paul talking about it, but he has displayed his ignorance of it's content to me already.
Please show me what legislation Ron Paul has put forward that will turn america into a theocracy.
Please explain why Ron Paul's position on this issue is worse than Bill Clinton's who in my oppinion was the worst offender on church state issues in the last 30 years and also the best president we've had in the last 30 years.
You should be telling me who the better candidate is not the other way around. Tell me who is better on these issues and better on church state issues and I will vote for them instead of Ron Paul.
I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Centralization and concentration of power and authority is what is causing the majority of the problems in this country. It's clearly better to have a criminal government with a little power than it is to have a criminal government with a lot of power. As citizens of this country we can either let the crooks run wild like they've been doing or we can take away the money and spread out the power so they can do less damage.
Your argument is contradicting it'self. To have a theocracy you would need a strong centralized federal government to impose it and Ron Paul is against that.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
The biggest issues are tax cuts and dismantling federal government programs/agencies. I don't think you're understanding me, or the video if you have watched it, correctly. I am not saying that Ron Paul is going to start firing cannonballs at the wall of seperation of church and state, even though I think that he will. I am saying that he is going to weaken the state so much that the church becomes more important.
A good example would be that he wants to let states decide on abortion..this puts the power in the hands of churches rather than the government. Another example would be that if taxes are cut and welfare and/or education is underfunded, or those federal departments done away with like the Texas GOP wants - (http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001 - from page 19 , "The Federal Government has no constitutional jurisdiction over education. We call for the abolition of the U. S. Department of Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency. " - churches will take up the void. This would make churches more important than the government.
It's things like this that move us towards a theocracy. It's not something that can happen over the matter of one term, it's a long drawn out plan that if properly executed, ends with the Bible being our law book.The plan has been at work for years now though and Bush helped it along immensley.
Ron Paul wants to cut taxes at a time when our country is heavily in debt. He believes that churches should play a vital role and "eclipse the state in importance." If you haven't watched the video I posted please do - it explains everything I keep repeating to you.
Where do you think the power goes by having less government? Where does the power spread to? I am with you about the concentration of power and authority, that's why I am for more government and more oversight into its actions.
Dominionists want to do away with almost all aspects of federal government. Please watch the video I posted, and/or do some research on Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism. Tell me where Ron Paul isn't, whether he knows to what extent or not, playing right into their hands.
I am sure that just about anyone except Ron Paul, and even Ron Paul in some aspects, will be an improvement over our current president. I am not endorsing anyone just yet, I just know that I won't be voting for Ron Paul.
I skipped through some of the 43 minute long video. I have looked at Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism before. It is scary stuff, but I do not think it is a realistic threat. Theocracy is where the religion influences the government. From what you have presented so far, the government and the church would be separate; thus, no theocracy. I do not see a logical argument for: weak federal government = stronger church. If you have one that is concise, I would like to see it. If you think that argument is in your video, give me minutes and seconds for where it is located. And no, saying that the churches will pick up the slack concerning education is not a logical argument because there is no proof for that.
A weaker federal government means the states will pick up the slack. I totally agree with that. It means your vote has more control because you are only voting among everyone in your state instead of letting congress control everything at the national level. Large federal programs are wasteful, inefficient, and less accountable to the voters. I want none of those attributes for programs that I am dependent on. If a few red states adopt bad laws while the other states make laws and programs that our more sane than what we have today, I support that. Lets see which states create the laws that work, and the population will support them to the degree that they are successful. This is what distributed power is about and why it works better than more government oversight ever will.
You seem to think that less concentration of power and authority = large government. You support the federal government being larger, so I guess it is: less concentration of power and authority = large central government. Where has that worked in the favor of individual liberty and freedom in the history of humankind?
When you fix a problem, does it make sense to address the cause of the problem, or put patches over it, ignore the source of the problem and hope it does not get out of control? Our country is not in dept due to low income taxes. If you think raising income taxes will fix the dept, then you do not understand the issue. Raising income taxes will not fix the dept. It is too big. The cause of the dept is due to government spending and bad monetary policy (one example: allowing the yuan to be artificially low so that our local manufacturing base is destroyed and moved over to China, thus we import more than we can afford and rack up a huge dept due to our government issuing dept). You cannot fight those issues by raising income taxes. Ron will fix the monetary policy and reduce government spending. That will fix the cause of our national dept and raising income taxes will be unnecessary. Hurray for fixing the cause of the issue! Who else has demonstrated an understanding for why our dept is large? Maybe I will vote for them.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
Well, I can't comment on your video because that link doesn't work for me for some reason. Why don't you embed the video and then I'll comment on it.
I don't care if the states decide on abortion. That doesn't end abortion and it doesn't make the country a theocracy either. Please explain how this "puts the power in the hands of churches".
The statement in the quote you put up is true the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over education according to the constitution.
Ron Paul takes this position because he is a constitutionalist, not because he is attempting to usher in a theocratic regime. If you think that the federal government should have jurisdiction over education then you should argue that the constitution should be ammended not that it should be ignored. And what do you find so impressive about the educational standards in this country anyway? Maybe if there was competition in education instead of a government monopoly you could get a decent education in this country cheap. Churches could open schools but so could other people including RRS. That is not theocracy.
Ron Paul wants to get rid of the FED which is one of the reasons this country is so deep in debt. Did you watch the video I posted?
Any power that is not expressly granted to the federal government by the constitution automatically goes to the states or the people. That is your state and local level, your community where representatives have to answer to you. Oversight at higher levels doesn't work because they dont have to answer to you. Why do you think the government can expand the iraq war when 90% of people in this country want it to end? It's because they don't need to answer to you. They have no reason to be concerned with what you want.
Ron Paul is the worst but you cant name one better candidate. I suggest that you dedicate this time you are spending on smearing Paul on finding someone better. I am not saying this in an attempt to demean you. I dont want to vote for someone who is bad on church state either but if your house catches fire you don't fix the cracks in the drywall you put out the fire because if you don't you'll have no drywall, you'll have no wall and no house. Your constitution is under attack. Your privacy, liberty, and economic independence are paramount, chuch state needs to be fought in the trenches, at the state and local level. Your focusing on it with tunnel vision while everything else collapses around you.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
The video's URL has a few spaces at the end of it that needs to be deleted. The original poster or mod will have to fix it, or copy the URL and paste it into the web browser, while removing the junk after the .wmv.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
If this video of his is so dynamite he can just explain it, because I'm not understanding this line or argumentation anyway. If you cut taxes you are trying to create a theocracy????
So I guess all atheists should be for higher taxes because the higher our taxes are the less of a theocracy we have.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I do not see how the video provides facts that support his conclusion; so yes, I would like to hear from him how that video supports his argument without leaving gaps of missing logic.
By the way, thank you for your posts. I am glad that there are others who understand the issues and are willing to help put forth good arguments.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
Then I imagine that we will not be in agreement on many issues concerning the matters we are discussing.
I don't think that if some states criminalize abortion that that would mean we are a theocracy. My over-riding point is that Ron Paul's agenda will help make churches take over functions that are now controlled by the government. In doing that churches will become more important than the state, making conditions for an easy transistion to theocracy.
When poor people have to go down to the church in order to be able to eat, they will be thankful that they are getting to eat and do almost whatever the church tells them. Churches could impose whatever rules they wanted in order for people to be able to eat. Church schools could refuse an education to whoever they wanted etc. Couple this with the fact that giving states the right to refuse to accept Supreme Court decisions and the Constituion, allowing them to vote on whatever they want...do you see the problem here?
The federal government provides services to people in exchange for our tax dollars. The federal government works, or at least its supposed to work within the bounds of the Constituion, which is what protects us from religion. If you remove the government, the services that it provides are still going to be needed. Churches are already in the business and have the infrastructure in place to provide people services. If the government faulters, say for instance that teachers go on strike for being under-payed, or the Texas GOP succeeds in its goal of abolishing the Department of Education, churches will be the ones providing most of the education. Sure other private organizations could step in, but remember that we are in a nation that is 80% or so Christian. Also, state-funded schools would become the church schools the second that it was put up for a vote in many/most states. Not to mention, if you pulled federal funding from schools in most states, they would go under right away.
If there isn't a public school to go to, where would people get their education? Do you think there is enough secular-minded people to step in and compete with churches who already have infrastructure in place and are already funded in large part by tithes?
So you are saying we should split in to 50 different countries? Have you seen some of the insane stuff written in state's constitutions? Also, if states are free to vote on abortion, then what stops states being free to vote on a state religion? What stops people from voting on which schools the state is to fund?
Well let's work on fixing them. Not all programs are wasteful etc..
Succesful is a subjective term. Many Christians will see a child who knows the BIble cover to cover as more succesful than a child who understands history and science. It seems what you are advocating could easily lead to civil war, or the breaking apart of our nation.
There has to be a government. Anarchy will not work given how uneducated the population is. Given the choice of there being just a few people involved in making choices for the whole and having a lot of people make them, I will side with a lot of people. The reason being that the more people who are involved in the government, the better chance that some of them will have the best interests of the people in mind and can stand up for injustices. Also, the more people involved the better chances they will have the best intererst of the people in mind because they are the people themselves. I wouldn't be opposed to everyone who has a college degree having some stake in decision making. Of course, we have to stick to the Constituion otherwise minorities are not protected.
I don't understand how you tie liberty and freedom to the size of the government. History shows plenty of examples of small governments providing less freedom and liberty. Think dictators and monarchies. I'm not saying that less liberty and freedom is inevitable from having less government, but having less government certainly doesn't mean more liberty and freedom.
I never claimed that we were in debt because of low income taxes or low taxes of any kind. I just claim that the way to get out of debt is not by lowering taxes. I'm not talking about taxes on the poor either, I'm in favor of huge luxury taxes and large taxes on the top 20% in general.
I think that large corporations who have made billions off of paying workers only 10-20% of the wealth they produce should face some accountability. I think they need to be taxed the fuck out of if they continue to exploit workers like they do. I don't think income taxes should be raised on poor people. I could even be for removing income taxes for the very poor.
I understand that we need to fix the flawed government spending programs, such as the war on drugs. I also understand that there are programs that, if funded better, could help us get out of debt. As for our debt being large: The war has a whole lot to do with that, and if Ron Paul has some good ideas about fixing the monetary policy then I hope the winner of the election will adopt them. Honestly fixing the debt is not my biggest concern for this country at the moment. Helping to restore enlightenment values is.
Ron Paul on the war on drugs 1988:
Please tell me the name of another candidate who supports your position on the drug war.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
This is not the definition or purpose of government that I learned in political science 101.
Government is the social organization that has authority to rule the state.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist he is not against the constitution.
Yes I do, it is called business and it happens in america almost everyday.
This is not how federalism works. Please look up federalism.
The first ammendment in the bill of rights stops this.
No one has argued to completely dismantle the government.
Ron Paul is for this. It's called voting and everyone gets a vote.
Those governments were also overthrown by revolutions because they were small. If they were large revolutions would have been surpressed and the tyranny would have continued longer than necessary.
Ron Paul
Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification.
Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bill Rep Thomas [R, CA-22]; Bill H.R.1308 ; vote number 2004-472 on Sep 23, 2004
Immediately work to phase out the IRS
Q: If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?Immediately. You can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, & if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage, you can't get rid of the IRS. But if you want to lower taxes and stop causing all the inflation, you have to change policy.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm Please tell me the names of the other candidates who support your position on tax reform.There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Sorry about that. Things get a bit janky for me when posting on this forum for some reason. Here's the video on google -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6082626617349511699
And I'll try to repost the original -
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominionism-256kbps.wmv
And in case you're on a Mac -
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominionism.mov
I don't believe that states deciding on abortion makes us a theocracy either...just one step closer to one.
What protects us as the minority is the Constitution. When you start letting states decide if they want to disregard it then you are putting power into the hands of churches that they didn't have before. Most churches want the power for people to vote their belief system into law.
Almost every politican would say they are a constitutionalist. Ron Paul says he's a constitutionalist then says it's replete with references to god...and you trust this guy knows what the Constitution is about?
I don't think he is trying to usher in a theocractic regime. I think he is trying to set the conditions for it.
I find it VERY impressive that religion is not supposed to be taught in public schools as the truth.
I do think that education should be among the highest priorites the government takes care of. Competition already exists amongst schools, but that doesn't seem to drive the standards where they need to be. I think more can be done about raising education standards, but not without properly funding schools. Teachers should be amongst the highest paid people in our country.
How many parents do you think would send their kids to RRS school versus how many to religious schools? What I am trying to get at is that anything we put up for a vote in the public arena , the result is likley not going to be favorable to us until the zeitgesist changes. We need to ride our protection afforded in the Constitution whenever possible.
Ron wants to get rid of the fed. I am for more oversight of the fed, and expanding the things that work and getting rid of the things that don't. Yes I watched the video.
That's another reason I am for more government. Make everyone accountable for their actions by having a better system of checks and balances. I think more crooked politicans should have to face jail and stiff financial penalites for lying to the American people. If enough of us were in government and/or spent more time petitioning our our elected officals then maybe everyone wouldn't just stand like a deer in headlights when they see injustices happening.
I could name a candidate who is better in my opinion, but seeing as how you all seem to be dyed-in-the-whool Libertarians I don't think it would do any good. I hate saying that I am against Libertarianism, because I am not against Liberty. I just don't think that lessening the size of government is the way to achieve it. I believe the government has to take measures to secure Liberty for all and not just the majority. I don't want to have a debate Socialism/Libertarianism, my main goal in posting on this thread was to inform anyone who didn't know of how close Ron Paul's ideas are with RJ Rushdoony's. Also, to find out if I might be totally missing something. I haven't found anything that I was missing so far.
I know that the Constituion is under attack and I even bet that Ron Paul thinks his Christian Revisionist ideas are going to bring us to what the founding fathers wanted. I also know that RJ Rushdoony would be a proud supporter of Ron Paul and knowing that there is no way I want him in my government.
Dennis Kuchinich and to a lesser extent Mike Gravel.
You should embed your video so that everyone can easily compare your information and comments to mine without leaving the site.
Many nations have different abortion laws and restrictions than the US and they are not theocracies. Perhaps you should elaborate on this. exactly how many steps are we from theocracy right now? Are we two steps from theocracy or are we two hundred steps from theocracy?
Abortion is not in the constitution so it would not be disregarding it. And there are more people in a community than churches and church members so it would be putting the power into the hands of the community not the churches.
They would would say it but their voting record would not back it up. Ron Paul's voting record does. I don't trust Ron Paul I trust his voting record.
You left out Declaration of independence which does contain references to god. I can't defen every statement that a person makes I would assume that in reference to the constitution he was referring to the first amendment which does have a reference to religion.
You haven't displayed to me at all that he is trying to set the conditions for a theocracy.
Well, at least you have that but that is not the same as high educational standards.
It actually does in private schools. Public schools exist outside of this and the standards are unaffected.
You already have a large inefficient government that you are unhappy with and your solution is to make it larger. Ive never heard of streamlining something by making it larger. How does this work?
I can name a candidate who is better based on your own staements. Ron Paul. This is not my oppinion this is based on his record and your statements.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
If you have video of this or quotes that would be great because I want everyone to be able to compare their statements to Ron Paul's. Thanks.
Also in your first post you said that you didn't know much about Ron Paul and all your references so far have been from theocracywatch.org, is this your only source of information about him? If you have other sources can you please cite them.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
How do you think that Ron Paul will help churches take over education? Education is an issue that belongs at the state. This is consistent with Ron Paul's agenda. Education has been and is paid for by state and local taxes. Since Ron Paul believes at leaving it at the state level, how is it that you expect that Ron Paul will give the power to the churches that already is at the state level? This is the logical gap in your argument that I would like to have you fill.
If the state fails to pay for education properly, vote to fix it. Organizations exist to unite and coordinate voters. These volunteer run organizations are more effective than the federal government.
Church funded education? I used to live in a red state. The churches were not funded enough to provide any decent level of education. Their pews were mostly empty. I doubt it will work. I believe in keeping education accountable by the state government. If your state redirects money from local property taxes and state taxes to church run organizations to provide education, vote to fix it.
As for poor people having to go to the church to eat: we have that now. What is wrong with asking your state government to fill that need? That is where it belongs. If the economic conditions in your state are poor, it should step up to the duty of helping its citizens and correct those economic conditions. Your vote to your state or county government will do more good than relying on federal agencies who clearly cannot get their act together. I do not believe that this should be on the federal level. We tried it; it failed.
As for people voting for changing the state constitutions for various things: GOOD! That keeps power distributed and prevents corruption at the federal level. Sure, there may be corruption at the state level from time to time, but at least you can vote against it. You have little to no voice at the federal level, which is why it is a bad place to put social programs. We have rules at the federal level that prevent the state from doing certain things, such as having a state religion. Our founding fathers thought of this; it works.
It is harder to fix something that is not accountable to voters. Federal programs are not influenced by voters as much as state programs are. We need to move programs to the state level.
As for Christians getting what they vote for: good, as long as it was a fair vote. Government should be doing what the people want. If you do not like what the people want, start or support an organization like the RRS to educate people. But do not build a government that assumes that the people do not know what is best for them. That is how we get our liberties and rights taken away from us.
I agree with you on the idea that the more people making choices, the better. However, when it comes to federal programs, very few people make those choices. So the idea that the federal government represents many people's votes breaks down. Yes, we do elect the people who make the decisions, but they make so many decisions in their long stay in office that our say on individual issues is way too diluted. I find this unacceptable.
About individual liberty and freedom: It is not about the size of the government, it is how accountable they are to the voters. Federal programs are less accountable to voters than state programs are. Increasing the size of the federal government will not give you more accountability. Even auditing these agencies will not make them accountable to the voters, unless we can specifically vote to influence these agencies, but I doubt that will ever happen at the federal level. If we keep social stuff on the state level like the founding fathers designed it to be, we would be a lot better off.
If you want to fix the national debt, look for someone who understands that our dollar is severely overvalued due to how the federal reserve has lied about our economic performance and currency status. Government spending is part of the debt, but because our money has not been devalued to reflect our true economic performance and ability to service debt, it is cheaper to buy things in China than make them at home. It is more than just wages being cheaper in China. Because our currency is propped up, our imports are much cheaper than what they should be and our exports are much more expensive than what they should be. This creates a huge economic bubble that will cause a painful burst as it continues to go uncorrected. Taxing all people in the US will not undo this bubble, so we need someone who understands this economic condition to correct it.
There are times where religious views are less important than other issues. This is one of them in my opinion. I do not associate my views with any party. I find it better to look at what the position to be filled needs the most. We are desperately in need of a real constitutionalist in the position of president. Remember, he will only be president. We still have checks and balances with a non-constitutionalist congress and justice department. As a constitutionalist, he will reduce his power as president and restore the checks and balances that we had originally.
There is a difference between saying you are a constitutionalist and voting like one. Ron Paul votes like one. I do not think he will be able to set the conditions for a theocractic regime. Not by a long shot. Also, since we do not have any atheist candidates yet, then choosing which candidate supports our religious views better is going to be a little hard and probably ineffective.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
You said you just skimmed the video..which is a power point presentation by a Cornell University professor. Tell me what you're not understanding about the position.
Lower taxes = less government services. Abolishing government departments = less government services. Less government services =people seeking those services elsewhere = more church involvment. More church involvment in basic human needs, education included = the importance of the church surpasses the importance of government = fertile ground for theocracy.
If you cut taxes, work at dismantling the government and you are a Christian Revisionist, then chances are close to 100% you have some sort of theocracy in mind.
[quote"Gauche"]So I guess all atheists should be for higher taxes because the higher our taxes are the less of a theocracy we have.
No. The better off the government is in securing funds for programs that are beneficial to society the less chance that the churches need to play a role. I don't want higher taxes, I just want a government that can supply the people with their needs. If it takes higher taxes then so be it.
Its sort of like a Christian who says they follow the Bible.
How many secular organizations are ready to set up free schools across the country? How many are ready to start homeless shelters? How many would build houses for the poor when HUD goes away? I'm not saying there wouldn't be any, I am just saying that we are so far out-numbered that there is no way we could compete.
I understand federalism, but I also understand the precedent set by right off the bat allowing for states to vote on the abortion issue.
Does the Constitution not also say that the Supreme Courts rulings on matters are the law of the land? I could be wrong about that, but if not then I don't suspect that Ron Paul cares.
I wasn't saying that anyone was arguing that. I was just saying that government is necessary and if we have it, I'd rather it be large than have a few elites, a dictator or king ruling us.
Voting is different than actually seeing what goes on inside government everyday and having the power to change it or blow the whistle on wrong-doings.
I don't think the number of people in government makes it harder for a revolution to happen. That has more to do with the number of loyalists in the military.
I applaud Ron Paul for lowering taxes on the impoverished. I'm not calling him ALL bad.
I am totally against doing away with the IRS. I am only for cutting taxes on the people below the poverty line. I do think the government should take care of us from the cradle to the grave, but also provide significant incentive to work, which means you earning at least 40-50% of the wealth you produce. I am a Secular Humanist. I shudder at the fact that there are starving people while money rots in banks. I don't think that people who are capable should get free rides, I just think that science has progressed enough for everyone to have basic human needs.
I am of course not for us policing the world.
I need not have a candidate who supports my position on tax reform in order to know that I don't support Ron Paul.