SCOTUS For President

If you knew our history as well as you claim, you wouldn't have made that statement.

I'm aware that we are one nation, founded under God, but your previous statement seemed to imply that our nation was founded on the principles that YOU hold dear, not the ones our forefathers cherished.

PistolPackingMomma said:

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?

Click to expand...

Are you trying to suggest Deists were UnGodly? The prohibition on the Federal government enacting laws pertaining to religion was because Europe just went through some terribly bloody internal wars over religion and the Founders sought to keep such a thing from happening here. Not to mention they were big on liberty of the individual and limited government; governments that legislate for the divine seem to legislate about everything.

Daylen said:

(snip) Are you trying to suggest Deists were UnGodly?

Click to expand...

Not at all.

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).

Click to expand...

Link

Stainless1911 brought up homosexuality, evolution, etc, as if when our nation was founded that these were concerns of our forefathers, and those things are what caused our downfall as a country. While I don't support those things, I'm not about to use government, past or present, to eradicate them or justify anyone else doing so just because it doesn't mesh with my personal world view.

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.

stainless1911 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stainless1911 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So your solution is to have government legislate morality?

PistolPackingMomma said:

So your solution is to have government legislate morality?

Click to expand...

Apparently, since the Government is already legislating immorality...according to 1911.

PistolPackingMomma said:

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"...

Click to expand...

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.

Super Trucker said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lol...PPM is most definitely NOT an Obamaton.

Remember, bud, ready, aim, and then fire.

Super Trucker said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

ManInBlack said:

Lol...PPM is most definitely NOT an Obamaton.

Remember, bud, ready, aim, and then fire.

Click to expand...

:lol:

PistolPackingMomma said:

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:

Click to expand...

I do appoligise. That was an insult too you. I thought you were...... well I won't insult you again by saying her name, this mistake WILL NOT happen again.

No worries sugar. I thought it was actually kind of funny.

Stainless1911, this is something you should read in it's entirety

Link

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.

Click to expand...

ManInBlack said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

PistolPackingMomma said:

Stainless1911, this is something you should read in it's entirety

Link

Click to expand...

From the linked article.

(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.)

Click to expand...

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.

OC for ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was more or less disputing his assertion that a nation automatically disappears when it become decadent. This is obviously and patently false.

OC for ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ManInBlack said:

I was more or less disputing his assertion that a nation automatically disappears when it become decadent. This is obviously and patently false.

Click to expand...

Automatically? You may be right on that point. But, 'The Fall of the Roman Empire', interesting read.

PistolPackingMomma said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

First and foremost, liberty is being reasonably free from government interference. We are a nation of laws and not a nation of men. With this out of the way let us look further at Mike's article.

If you and I were neighbors, and I had a yard as Mike describes his yard, I may not want you to get government involved. But, being a rational citizen, I know that me not mowing my yard does harm you, or more correctly, harms your property value which harms you financially.

Me 'watering' on my fruit trees, as mike describes how he 'waters' his, may or may not harm you, but what about your young kids? Only you can decide if I harmed your kids if they see me 'watering' my fruit trees.

My chickens may not harm you, but your hard working husband, now gets fewer hours of sleep due to my chickens. This lack of restful sleep may affect his performance at work or his familial relationship because my chickens keeps him awake.

I understand where he is coming from, but tolerance does not equal liberty, and the government should intervene on your behalf if I 'harm' you because of my choices.