stainless1911
Banned
If you knew our history as well as you claim, you wouldn't have made that statement.
If I recall correctly, many of our Founding Fathers were Deists. So what Godly foundations are you referring to? They were men of a great many different beliefs, doctrines and political views.
You wouldn't, perchance, be projecting your personal beliefs and views on history to reflect what you want to reflect, would you?
(snip) Are you trying to suggest Deists were UnGodly?
Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator(s).
It's cause and effect. History shows that when these things are allowed to flourish in society, as God is shunned away, the nation ceases to be. The writing is on the wall here too.
It's cause and effect. History shows that when these things are allowed to flourish in society, as God is shunned away, the nation ceases to be. The writing is on the wall here too.
So your solution is to have government legislate morality?
Then how did you come to the conclusion that Paul is un-electable? Because that's what you've heard via popular opinion? You yourself said he was the only true American in Washington, so why wouldn't you vote for him? And you said that "a vote for Paul was a vote for Obama", but Romney is Obama lite, so a vote for Romney is still a vote for Obama's type of leadership.
...Unless you just want a Republican in the White House so you can "relax"...
Maybe you didn't see the primary results? Myself and about 6 other people voted for Paul.
You and about half the population whom have had their head in the sand the last 3 years will vote for Obummer, then if the 6 of us that voted for Paul in the primary do so again in November it will be a repete of 1992.
Your president recently shut down a natural gas project to satisfy the tree huggers, that decision has caused my business to lose a lot, yet I would bet a dollar the blind folks that vote for him will somehow say it is Bush's fault my business took a giant cut in revenue. His admin took a piss all over the 1A rights we used to have (H.R. 347), but by golly that must be W's fault as well. Can't wait until the anti 2A bills get passed in the backroom without many folks knowledge as he has done with other stuff, Go Obummer.
Maybe you didn't see the primary results? Myself and about 6 other people voted for Paul.
You and about half the population whom have had their head in the sand the last 3 years will vote for Obummer, then if the 6 of us that voted for Paul in the primary do so again in November it will be a repete of 1992.
Your president recently shut down a natural gas project to satisfy the tree huggers, that decision has caused my business to lose a lot, yet I would bet a dollar the blind folks that vote for him will somehow say it is Bush's fault my business took a giant cut in revenue. His admin took a piss all over the 1A rights we used to have (H.R. 347), but by golly that must be W's fault as well. Can't wait until the anti 2A bills get passed in the backroom without many folks knowledge as he has done with other stuff, Go Obummer.
Lol...PPM is most definitely NOT an Obamaton.
Remember, bud, ready, aim, and then fire.
Sugar, he ain't MY president. Let's put it this way; if Paul doesn't win this election, I'm seceding from the Union
:lol:
And here's the philosophical contradiction in the liberty movement today: Too many of those who say they want the government out of their lives on issues like vaccines, parenting and local farm food are the very same people who demand government intervention on issues where someone else lives by a different moral code than their own (or a non-existent moral code, in some cases).
Same-sex marriage, prostitution, abortion, recreational drug use... you name it. Suddenly the call for liberty becomes something far less noble: a demand for moral conformity administered via an all-powerful government. This is exactly what gives rise to government tyranny! Because any time you call for government to intervene in the lives of others with which you disagree, you also empower that same government with the power to rule over your own life.
I would not hold up Thailand as an example of anything other than state sanctioned/not discouraged decadence.Oh really?
Thailand has an extremely decadent society, where the rich spend insane sums on trifles, and any earthly pleasure can be had for a price. It has always been this way; Buddhist cultures do not generally take a hard line on deviancy and other moral failings.
It was also the only Southeast Asian nation to avoid colonization by European powers. The current monarchic dynasty goes back to the 1700s.
Now, why don't you tell us how it is you want the government to not allow those behaviors you disapprove of to flourish?
And then, you can really entertain us by explaining how you believe in the limited government, libertarian principles of Ron Paul.
From the linked article.
So, Mike, you state that government should intervene, but you will not call for intervention....interesting.(Where should government get involved?
When somebody is being harmed, of course. That's where government intervention comes into play.
This argument can logically be made for government intervention on the abortion issue, actually, as an unborn baby is still a living human being.
That's a reasonable and valid argument that should be deeply considered.
But as I said above, I do not believe that my own views on this matter should be forced upon anyone else, especially not by government.
Regardless of my own view on the abortion issue, I am bound by philosophical consistency to respect other peoples' views on this matter, even if I personally disagree with them. That is the essence of liberty: Tolerance.)
I would not hold up Thailand as an example of anything other than state sanctioned/not discouraged decadence.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/291528/police-launch-guns-blitz
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/19/world/la-fg-thailand-law-20120320
There are more stories. However, it is obvious that we are referring to the USA and not how Thailand is such a nice place to live. Which Thailand is not....vacation at the beach for a couple of weeks, you bet.
From the linked article.
So, Mike, you state that government should intervene, but you will not call for intervention....interesting.
Citizens tolerating each other is not liberty. The government being prohibited from injecting itself into the citizenry's lives is liberty.
Automatically? You may be right on that point. But, 'The Fall of the Roman Empire', interesting read.I was more or less disputing his assertion that a nation automatically disappears when it become decadent. This is obviously and patently false.
Mike Adams, who wrote the article that you provided a link to. Just pointing out one of the dichotomies in his position, which seems sound at first look.Who is Mike?
And I did not say whether I personally 100% supported or unsupported the article. I suggested it as literature for someone who claims to support the cause for liberty, and yet preaches tyranny.
If you have a link to an article that is absolutely perfect in this example, please share with the class.