Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Ron Paul: The 5 Million Dollar Man
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2211
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Yeah lets just do away with the constitution and there will just be one massive set of federal laws. And who needs representatives? We could just vote every night on the internet.

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
I can't believe that you're unable to wrap your head around the idea


That just made me giggle a little. Linguistic foible I guess.

Carry on.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ironpen,Ironknee



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 237
Location: Illuminati Central Command
 Reply with quote  

We're in the middle of a fucking war and people are debating abortion.


I thought it was evident that Roe being overturned would be the worst thing that could happen to the Republican party?


I liked Obama until I found out that he was beholden to the coal industry.

I liked Paul until I found heard the secure boarder thing. I dont Immigration isn't a security issue,I think its an issue of labor exploitation. Saying secure our boarders just fuels the xenophobia. And whats wrong with a secular state, I thought religion was a personal choice?

If Hillary or Rudy becomes President I'm flagging a red A. Neither one of them would even pretend to attempt to repair Bush's abuse of executive power, they'd use it a precedent.




lol@bigsole telling people to post in bumper stickers.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
What's so great about the states? Most of the state governments are even more whack-a-mole than the federal ones. And in the age when the internet is bringing us together and making the world smaller and smaller, I think the notion of federalism is kind of antiquated. The state government is both too big, and too small to be any kind of thing close to effective in today's world.


Eh. I prefer the idea that here in the "blue states", women can have access to abortions (with state funding as assistance, if necessary) and can concede in the more red states that they will not have that access (as fucked up as it is).

To federalise the decision would mean a one-size fits all...and I just don't think that people in MA share the values of those in...say...Kentucky. Therefore, I see the decision being made by the state as the only way to currently keep abortion legal.

I think the balance of power would be ALL OFF if we went from what we've got now to one giant country. That's a TERRIBLE idea that isn't even done in those wacky european socialist countries. ;-) Then again...for me, it's pretty much the OPPOSITE of what I want...a decentralized structure with no heirarchy that is fundamentally governed by the citizens involved in their local communities. I'd further erode the notion of states and slide more into local communities for the creation of "laws". But then again, I'm one of those crazy people that thinks we'd still be alive without the government in the first place.


Quote:

And again, for the important issues for me, Ron Paul is not anything close to a viable candidate. He's an interesting novelty act at best. Libertarianism makes for some nice ideals, but it's no way to manage a country.


That's a bumper sticker.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter - but right now, out of all the candidates, he has the least obstructionist view of the things I care about.

A) He'll stop the war.
B) Homosexual marriage will be a state-controlled issue, therefore MA (and eventually hopefully others) will be able to continue that. Huge with me, second only to...
C) ...a woman's right to choose an abortion. Which will also remain up to the states, as it should so that the values of those around us are reflected in our laws (instead of the slack-jawed yokels from rural Georgia...I can't believe you think that's a good idea).


Obama...civil unions but no gay marriage. Hillary is running on a faith-based platform (hoping that Guiliani gets the nod from the Repugs)...she's visited 27 churches while campaigning to Bush's like...3 in the 2k4 campaign...I worry that will too greatly influence her stance on a woman's liberty, even being a woman herself. There's no other viable Dem. candidates (that doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for them if we want) so in the end we're left with something completely effed.


Quote:

I mean you see things like Matthew Shepard, the Jena Six case, and the California three strikes your out policy and it doesn't exactly instill you with the greatest of confidences for state governance.


Yes, yes yes yes yes. I couldn't agree more. And with so little confidence in state governance, I am a little weary to give MORE power to a BIGGER state...which will drown in the same inhumanity, complexity and inefficiencies state governments do....with the added disadvantage of applying one general set of ethics to the whole country without consideration to the actual opinions of the people who live within those communities. You do see how that sounds more than a little insane, right?


Quote:


Also I doubt the public interest in their state government. Most citizens if they follow government at all follow it at the federal level. I say gut the middle man.


I agree with the diagnosis - but not the prescription. The idea here would be to make people ignore the federal elections and instead focus on the shit that's close to home since it actually affects them...and is easier to be affected BY them. You say it's not working - I say that my friends can finally get married regardless of their orientation and that there's legislation pending regularly for state-funded access to things like gender realignment surgery, abortion, transitional assistance and a bunch of things I don't think you're going to get rural america (i.e. MOST OF THE COUNTRY) to vote for on a federal level.

I don't support government...but I support centralized government even less.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6297
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
Oh my God. Ron Paul is a Christian? You mean he is a Christian just like all the other candidates?

Was that quote supposed to paint him as a zealot, because I do not think it succeeded.

What is funny is that you are the exact type of person that Ron Paul is talking about when he says, "anti-religious, elitest, secular left." I thought you guys were a myth created by republicans, but you really do exist, making complicated issues black and white while passing judgment like a Christian.

You are really not that different from what you fight against. Hopefully you realize it someday.


Okay, Tommi. Let's slow this down for you.

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.


Apart from being historically inaccurate, that's not a signifier of him being merely "Christian" like "everybody else." That is him clearly stating that he believes that the federal government should embrace religious principles that I do not share when writing and enforcing laws. He will not get my vote ever. I am a student of history, tommi. When Christianity gets married to politics, people get marginalized and oppressed. Theistic religion is sanctimonious and indifferent to the perspectives of those who do not share its core mythology. If that makes me some kind of stereotype in your mind, I really don't give a shit.

I have a great deal of respect for many aspects of the Christian tradition. I also think it's been responsible for horrible injustice, and as such I'm not comfortable with its presence in Washington, DC. There is a difference between saying "I am a Christian, it guides my values," and saying "my perspective on this issue was formed almost solely by my religious beliefs." I have never heard one pro life politician make the case against abortion using an argument that wasn't primarily based on their theological background. I won't vote for someone like that, no matter how right they are on other issues, because I question the fundamental underpinnings of their judgment. Does this make any sense to you?

Now, about the anti-abortion movement. I agree that there are people who, for ethical reasons that are unrelated to their religious beliefs, disagree with abortion. I will submit to you that the vast majority of the organized pro-life movement, and virtually 100% of the Washington anti-abortion lobby, is guided by religious principles. Arguments about states rights and federalism are a smokescreen for their belief that biblical values should at least partially guide federal policy. Their movement is part of a larger backlash against socially progressive court decisions that run contrary to Calvinist beliefs. When I speak of the "pro life" movement, I'm talking about them, because they are in the drivers seat of that movement. Their money, labor, and resources are its currency.

You're a shifty guy, man. It's hard to argue with you, because you keep dumbing down what I'm saying so much.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:23 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
thecontractor



Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 99
 Reply with quote  

The authors of the constitution and the foundations an which their principles are based on only work if there is a concept of faith in a deity. If one does not have faith, then one cannot derive such concepts as "law" and "truth". We have a freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Without religion, how can one justify existence? Where does purpose in being come from? Is there meaning? To postulate that one can derive purpose in existence without the omnipresence of religion is folly and resounds of cretinous sophomoric asinine drivel.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:09 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

wowwww, contractor, you just outdid yourself.

The founders were, by and large, deists and atheists. Many of them felt that if there had been a God, he had set things in motion and long been gone, not interested in human affairs or wellbeing. It's important to remember that both rights (invented by liberal thought) and God are social constructions. Therefore rights do not derive from God, they derive from our concept of God, or godliness, or our sense of shared ethic. Rights are a social contract, pure and simple, and a belief in God is not prerequisite. You're twisting yourself around backwards but the basic fact is that Ron Paul is just another soldier in the White Christian army, regardless of whether or not he likes its chosen war.

And as for purpose, that's your own quandary. That's why we have freedom of religion, so that we all may have the freedom to have answers, or not, to unanswerable questions. The freedom to not have is just as important as the freedom to have.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:16 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
The authors of the constitution and the foundations an which their principles are based on only work if there is a concept of faith in a deity. If one does not have faith, then one cannot derive such concepts as "law" and "truth".


Ummmm....no. Yowsa. Even if this is how you feel, you have to know that it's highly debatable among most people.


Quote:

We have a freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.


I'll agree with that, on paper. That DOES include, however, freedom FROM having to have a religion to be treated equally under the rule of law.


Quote:

Without religion, how can one justify existence?


One does not have to "justify existence" (??? That's on some Koresh shit...) in order to purport laws and structure as a good idea.


Quote:

Where does purpose in being come from? Is there meaning? To postulate that one can derive purpose in existence without the omnipresence of religion is folly and resounds of cretinous sophomoric asinine drivel.


Suffice it to say that I, and many many many others, disagree with you. I believe that "purpose" isn't even necessary to ascertain and is largely derived from human...not divine...origins.

But this at least makes it a little clear why you don't have a problem with that Ron Paul quote.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:20 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2211
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Shambhala, I totally understand what you are saying. I guess the reason religion in politics does not scare me so much is because, first, politics and law are inexplicably rooted in the idea of morality, and most peoples' morality comes from some form of religion(and in this country it is usually Christianity).

So I guess I sort of agree with Ron Paul. I agree that the Contitution was looking to get rid of a state sanctioned church. I do not think it was calling for absolutely no religion in any governmental setting. So while I agree with you that many of these pro lifers are fanatics, and I would love to see logic and reason placed above blind faith, the fact that I disagree with them is not enough for me to think that their view has no place in our society.

And I guess it is refreshing to me that Ron Paul actually has a genuine opinion on the issue, whether I disagree with it or not. He is not merely appealing to his constituency like the other candidates.

I guess more than anything, I am disappointed that you, someone who appears to be extremely involved in making things better, are willing to support a candidate that carries the same baggage of party politics and corporate influence as anyone else because their feelings about secularism are more closely in line with yours.

In short, I understand why you do not like Ron Paul. I agree with you on some of those things. It is just that I am so disillusioned with our potential leaders, that I am intrigued that he actually brings some new ideas to the table. He is a throwback to minimalist government, and it is exciting to see and hear someone getting support when their views are so radical in this day and age. He is an enemy of both Republicans and Democrats.

Think about why that is.

I dont agree with thecontractors last post. I think we can still justify laws based on the simple idea of, "I dont want someone to do that to me, so I agree not to do it to them." That is the essence of a law. Usually it is tied to faith and God, but not for everyone. Athiests can still see the value in some form of morality.

And Embryo. White Christian Army? Really? You have your mind made up, so there really is no use talking about it. White christian republican = racist religious fanatic to you. I wish I could live in a world as simplistic as yours.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
The founders were, by and large, deists and atheists. Many of them felt that if there had been a God, he had set things in motion and long been gone, not interested in human affairs or wellbeing. It's important to remember that both rights (invented by liberal thought) and God are social constructions.


While I LOVE the notion that this is true, reading biographies on some of the founders showed me that the "deists", while doubtful, were still involved in the churches of their communities. That would definitely cause the confusion as to whether or not the founders were or weren't operating on "christian principles".

But the ultimate hilarity is that most "christian principles" are actually a GREAT way to run a country. It's the added bonuses I don't like.

Thou shalt not kill. Word. Make murder illegal.

Respect your elders...aiight...social security...I'm with it.

Don't covet the neighbours wife...eh...lukewarm on this one... :-P

But then you get to "don't have gay sex or you'll burn in HELL!!!"...that's a leap I'm not ready to put into penal code. ;-)
Evidently Texas disagrees.

Of the "christian principles" that the founders adopted, the reality is that if you showed them the machines necessary for an abortion procedure they would have denounced Christ and declared YOU their g-d. How the FUCK were they supposed to address this issue before it was even on anyone's radar as something easy enough to do that a woman can have it done on her lunch break and go back to work?

But consider this...abortions weren't exactly uncommon back then, either. There were plenty of natural methods, and midwives didn't always GIVE BIRTH....sometimes, they would advise on the best natural methods of abortion. I don't remember who, but one of the founders actually mentions his daughter having done this if I'm not mistaken. But it still didn't get outlawed. I wonder why.

The point is, they wouldn't have had even the vagues notion of what a modern abortion IS - so following their guidance would be a little ridiculous to me.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ecapataz



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: Bonn, Germany
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
The authors of the constitution and the foundations an which their principles are based on only work if there is a concept of faith in a deity. If one does not have faith, then one cannot derive such concepts as "law" and "truth". We have a freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Without religion, how can one justify existence? Where does purpose in being come from? Is there meaning? To postulate that one can derive purpose in existence without the omnipresence of religion is folly and resounds of cretinous sophomoric asinine drivel.


Way off guy. Law and truth do not have much basis in religion even today.

Are you really trying to say that religion is necessary for the state to hold up? Satanism is a "religion" after all.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6297
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

I never never never said that their views don't have a place in society. But I don't think that they exist on the same plane as social constructionist theory, federalism, or any of the other legal and ethic social debates that use logic and observable reality as their basis.

And I like Obama for a number of reasons. The first is that I relate with him; I understand what it's like to be a part of the American education factory and try to retain your sense of unique self-identity in a context where it's difficult to walk that line. I think that experience has made him a very honest person, and I dig that. I also think that, as a whole, he's the first candidate that I've seen run for office in my lifetime who has most of my views on society and foreign policy, and is also actually electable. That's exciting to me. He said he'd negotiate with Ahmadinejad! That's dope to me... You can't just hang Chamberlain over people's heads for all eternity as a justification for mistrust and agression.

Anyway, I don't want to go through all of it. I just like him. I think he's right on most of the issues, and he doesn't have any huge red flag that makes me unable to vote for him, like Ron Paul.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
thecontractor



Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 99
 Reply with quote  

ecapataz wrote:
Law and truth do not have much basis in religion even today.


I dare you, I double dare you, I double dog dare you, I triple double dog dare you, I unequivocally and incontrovertibly defy you to defend this statement in a logical or rational consuetude.

As for the other doubters, it seems you are suffering from some sort of neo-nihilism. These dated ideas are so 19th century. Put tired old Bazarov to rest and get with the 21st century.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:04 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:

Eh. I prefer the idea that here in the "blue states", women can have access to abortions (with state funding as assistance, if necessary) and can concede in the more red states that they will not have that access (as fucked up as it is).



I hope I can be the first to label this perspective "blue state privilidge". Because I think that's pretty much the crux of the matter. You were fortunate enough to be born on one of the coasts bathed in liberalism and fun loving running and gunning state governments. Whereas I and many others where born in the boonies. From my perspective the federal government as bad as it is, has always been more liberal than the states in which I have lived the bulk of my life(Oklahoma and Missouri). And that can't help but color this debate for me or you.

An added benefit of doing away with states is that we could move to a popular vote instead of an electoral one, and since the population centers of the country are liberal, it would probably swing the country to the left to do so.

Why not eliminate state government and just have city and country?
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:16 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
ecapataz



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: Bonn, Germany
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
ecapataz wrote:
Law and truth do not have much basis in religion even today.


I dare you, I double dare you, I double dog dare you, I triple double dog dare you, I unequivocally and incontrovertibly defy you to defend this statement in a logical or rational consuetude.



What you are proposing is that truth isn't universal but somehow linked to a particular religion. I don't agree with this at all.

The basic tenants of being a decent human being existed before religion. Religion has been largely used to dismantle these tenants by legitimizing racist and classist doctrine for its believers to enforce. The founding fathers and early political leaders of the US were slave owners after all.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:28 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:28 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon