As for the religion quote, I honestly see nothing wrong with it. We actually already discussed that a few weeks ago (in another thread, I think). You should check it out.
you incredible faggot. if you agree with that, good luck in your religious candidate search
Go back and read the other thread where it was discussed. Frankly I think you are reading more into that quote than he actually expressed. He didn't call for a theocracy, like many candidates, he is just saying that is it awfully silly for the government to pretend that religion doesn't exist -- it does.
Also, he is saying that the Government's business isn't to enforce morality -- morals are the domain of religion, and ought to stay that way.
Religion does not give persons morals. People hold themselves to their own moral standards with or without religion. Your geographic culture has more to do with shaping a group of citizens moral standards than does religion. Case in point; the Moslem's in America do not stone their whorey womens to death here. They do in the middle east. Same religion, different moral standards.
Wotak: Religion does not give persons morals. People hold themselves to their own moral standards with or without religion. Your geographic culture has more to do with shaping a group of citizens moral standards than does religion. Case in point; the Moslem's in America do not stone their whorey womens to death here. They do in the middle east. Same religion, different moral standards.
nocal: in 1996, DR RON "DOCTOR" PAUL wrote (although he later claimed it was a ghostwriter[?]):
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Apparently it was published in a newsletter, which was written by someone in his employ while he was in Washington. His home office is in his district, which is in Texas -- TEXAS...
As for the religion quote, I honestly see nothing wrong with it. We actually already discussed that a few weeks ago (in another thread, I think). You should check it out.
It was on page 2 of the thread we're in now, and the current status before I got bored and wandered off to do more pressing shit was that you had made some hilarious passes at making sense, though I had some law questions I wanted to talk to you about. Kahuna had a good point about the practical consequence of Ron Paul's putative Christian-statist agenda, to wit: he's got bigger shit to worry about, and other Republican candidates have a bigger hard-on for God, so the effective god footprint was in all likelihood nil.
As for the darkie commentary, that made a slight stir a couple months ago and was pretty rapidly put down as spin of one brand or another. Not finding the analysis of it I read at the moment though.
On 2007-10-11 at 08:21:28, vasudeva craps baby wotak monkeypigeon
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
i'm reading this dumbass religious quote again, and i am actually surprised how it got glossed over in this discussion of crazy mcdoctor, obgyn.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
1st point: Dr. Ronald MacDonald actually believes that our founding fathers planned on churches being more important than government. Why the fuck did they spend so much time on the government side of things, I wonder?
2nd point: fallacious argument and also absurd. If you are the type of dumbass faggot who truly believes that morality is only taught by a church or religion, and that laws are based on religious laws, then you are a dumbass faggot. Laws and morality are typically based on morality, yes; morality typically comes from philosophy. If it came from strict interpretation of most religious texts, we would execute gays and shellfish eaters and women who are in church during their periods.
3rd point: he believes in a left wing conspiracy to get rid of religion. This is dumb for one thing because the MAJORITY of Americans believe in god, for fucks sake. There is this false sense of persectution that these religious bitches have. Beyond that, has there ever been a successful "conspiracy" that unites the entire left or right wing? That is stupid. Someone would leak the memo to the Drudge Report or Sean Hannity or some other worthless waste of nut butter.
4th point: OH MY LOL HE IS ONE OF THOSE "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" RETARDEDS. They said "Happy Holidays" to me at Super Wal-Mart GET THE RIFLE MA
YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS GUY. he is like a crazy racist miner from the 1840s
On 2007-10-11 at 22:57:40, nocal craps baby wotak monkeypigeon
snocal:...he is like a crazy racist miner from the 1840s
I'm cool with that. Actually, I'm cool with everything you just pointed out too. I'm cool with all of Dr. Dickfucks faults because, you see, he wants to do some pretty smart, and FUCKING IMPERATIVE things if we are to stand as a country for much longer. Some of which are getting rid of the IRS, an entity which just so happens to do exactly what we fought 'our' first war over. He also wants to dump several other worthless and wasteful federal agencies with DHS and DOE being some of them. He also wants our American Dollar to be worth something...even THEY admit it's doomed. He wants a non-interventionist foreign policy and most importantly, he speaks the truth.
These are a few reasons on why I will give my time and my money to help this man(he is just a man, not God....or is HE?) and talk to anyone I can about his cool ideas, which seem so far-fetched when compared to todays corporate controlled political landscape.
Even if can only bring 10% of his ideas to fruition, with balls of steel and a knack for delivering the truth in a whiney but intellectually educated manner, this nigga right hurr is mah boyee.
____________________ "Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
If you want to keep your tongue, don't lick me in the Winter!
SSHOLE
Posts: 512 Registered: 10/14/2004 Offline
10/12/2007 at 13:11
Hey nocal... Who are you voting for? Maybe that way we can debate who is better... Its always easy to find something that you don't like about a particular dude... but showing that someone else is better, that may not be as easy a debate?
nocal: i'm reading this dumbass religious quote again, and i am actually surprised how it got glossed over in this discussion of crazy mcdoctor, obgyn.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
1st point: Dr. Ronald MacDonald actually believes that our founding fathers planned on churches being more important than government. Why the fuck did they spend so much time on the government side of things, I wonder?
2nd point: fallacious argument and also absurd. If you are the type of dumbass faggot who truly believes that morality is only taught by a church or religion, and that laws are based on religious laws, then you are a dumbass faggot. Laws and morality are typically based on morality, yes; morality typically comes from philosophy. If it came from strict interpretation of most religious texts, we would execute gays and shellfish eaters and women who are in church during their periods.
3rd point: he believes in a left wing conspiracy to get rid of religion. This is dumb for one thing because the MAJORITY of Americans believe in god, for fucks sake. There is this false sense of persectution that these religious bitches have. Beyond that, has there ever been a successful "conspiracy" that unites the entire left or right wing? That is stupid. Someone would leak the memo to the Drudge Report or Sean Hannity or some other worthless waste of nut butter.
4th point: OH MY LOL HE IS ONE OF THOSE "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" RETARDEDS. They said "Happy Holidays" to me at Super Wal-Mart GET THE RIFLE MA
YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS GUY. he is like a crazy racist miner from the 1840s
On 2007-10-11 at 22:57:40, nocal craps baby wotak monkeypigeon
Your entire argument boils down to ad hominem.
1) "Church > State" -- Yes, the founding fathers MAY have thought this way, I dunno, they didn't want a particularly powerful state anyway, so in theory you could also argue that they wanted Ice Cream to be more important that the state...
2) Morality isn't the sole domain of religion, but it is MORE a domain for Religion to deal with the DISCUSSION of Morality and Duty than it is for the STATE to discuss and impose such things. Who would you rather have telling you how to live? 100 Senators who pass a law and MAKE you do something, or Rev. Jimbob who you can laugh at and walk away from?
3) He didn't say that the left-wing was succeeding in that conspiracy, necessarily, but it's true to an extent that the left has changed the meaning of "separation of church and state" to mean something that it has never meant (that the state has to pretend that religion doesn't exist, etc).
4) This stuff really doesn't seem to be a priority for him at all. Even if it was, he would probably deal with it through rather reasonable means. In the abortion issue, for example, Dr. Paul's position is that it should be a state issue -- you live in CA... think they will REALLY outlaw abortion in CA? Ron Paul's campaign is all about NOT running your life, at least at the federal level.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
I think uart's right on this one. It seems likely not that he envisioned churches leading a moral crusade for humans, but rather that some institution other than the state itself would be the focal point for moral guidance. This is good, though there are a bunch of other nouns I would have liked to see him use in addition to 'churches'.
This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion
Seems indistinguishable from the kind of crazy absolutist bogey-man speech that makes modern Wal-Mart conservatives so intellectually starved and ideological. The entire "Left" "hates" religion? Really? Where do they gather when hating religion? Have you been to the Leftist "Rock the Godhate" Concert? Was exactly 51% of voting America there, or did anyone stay home?
I wonder if he really meant 'collectivist' or if he meant 'collective'. Both would apply, one sensibly and one not so.
Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
Legitimate crazy talk, and fairly distressing in terms of showcasing his critical faculty. The concept of a "War on Christmas" neatly wraps up at least 4 disturbing zealot ideas that are wrong in substance and thrust.
Uart: Your entire argument boils down to ad hominem.
I submit that, in this narrow endeavor, it must. We are voting for a man here, and however sexy his ideals may be, they get channelled through his foibles. He's not a pristine and mathematically perfect instrument of Constitutionality.
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
Be sure to register or Re-Register (if primary is CLOSED in your state) to vote. After clicking on clicky, click your state for info and maybe even an on-line voter reg. form for you extra lazy fucks.
____________________ "Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
Buy a Ron Paul STAMP fo that ass!
When mine comes im gonna stamp the shit out of everything. Leave no penix or college urinal un-stamped(most people stamp their dollar bills).
(edit for moar poopsnax)
On 2007-10-23 at 23:23:50, shitbox craps baby wotak monkeypigeon
____________________ "Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
2) Morality isn't the sole domain of religion, but it is MORE a domain for Religion to deal with the DISCUSSION of Morality and Duty than it is for the STATE to discuss and impose such things. Who would you rather have telling you how to live? 100 Senators who pass a law and MAKE you do something, or Rev. Jimbob who you can laugh at and walk away from?
Until Rev. Jimbob becomes a senator, or worse, since"churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance" sounds like a solid step towards theocracy. Which, given Ron Paul's nature, justs seems out of place.
No offense to anyone here, but Ron Paul supporters have got to be some of the most annoying and misguided people I've ever seen (I'm talking about the people who stand on the corner and 'preach' ron paul). The only good thing about them is that you can call them on their bullshit, but even that's starting to lose interest.
Also, at least half of Ron Paul's supposed supporters appear to be the young, internet hip crowd - the same crowd that doesn't bother to fucking vote come November.
Mofo: No offense to anyone here, but Ron Paul supporters have got to be some of the most annoying and misguided people I've ever seen (I'm talking about the people who stand on the corner and 'preach' ron paul). The only good thing about them is that you can call them on their bullshit, but even that's starting to lose interest.
No offense, but you should attempt to "call me" on my "bullshit" and see how it works out for you.
No offense, but you should attempt to "call me" on my "bullshit" and see how it works out for you.
(I'm talking about the people who stand on the corner and 'preach' ron paul)
Do you stand on the corner and preach? If you don't, then: I wouldn't think that'd be a big priority then reading comprehension, but hey, what do I know?
I never understood why Libertarianism gives you a mega boner loki, but to each his own I guess. I'm somewhat interested in what all the supports plan to do when Ron Paul doesn't get elected, but then again, I have shit to do.
Do you like someone else running your life? If so, then vote Xtian/Neocon/Hillary. If not, Libertarian.
So, wait, voting Ron Paul means that I don't have to work my ass off in college then spend the rest of my life working for someone else? Because if voting libertarian means that I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life working some shitty job I'll probably hate just to continue to pay off bills and feed myself, sign me up. Tell me how libertarianism plans to liberate me from a future that 99% of us are destined for before we are even born.
Even if Ron Paul did get elected, he'd end up in a Democrat-controlled Congress. And I'm sure getting Libertarian policies passed through a Democrat congress is just easy as pie.
