Jeremy,
Barney Frank, Ron Paul and 55 others advocate for defense cuts
Debt,Deficits, and Defense A Way Forward[url]
[url=http://i55.tinypic.com/zwb11w.gif]2009 Discretionary budget chart
I'm not sure how representative the last 2 are of Paul's position, but I found them interesting. I'll try to add some more.
EDIT:
OK you have convinced me that he is serious about defense cuts. Now to see if he or anyone else can actually implement them - or alternatively admit to the idea that the job of the US military is to carry out a Pax Americana, which is a fine activity for a super power - its the mass self delusion that some how this massive military exists for 'self defense' that really irks me.
|
I'm thoroughly convinced that Paizo has the smartest, most civil messageboards in the whole web. BT, I agree with you pretty much 100%. Abraham Spalding, May I ask what your ideal canidate would be like? Not being snarky or facetious or anything, just curious, because I think you do make some very good points.
We need some more (strong) political parties. Seriously, we do.
That might be a good starter for a new, truly civil, thread.
I'm the kinda guy who'd love to see more than a two-party system and I'm always interested in hearing other people's thoughts.
I'd love for there to be more than two parties. I don't see how that will ever happen in the US though.
"Go ahead, throw your vote away"
*sigh*
I'm not sure why his personal beliefs would matter. I personally think ID is hooey, but I won't change my vote over that. Most presidential candidates paint themselves as avid churchgoers and fervent Christians, including the present one. Paul has stated more than once he is not out to run anyone's life, and I'm sure that would include curricula.One thing that concerns me - while it may be a minor thing for some - is his position supporting intelligent design over the theory of evolution. With regard to teaching sciences and critical thinking in the schools, it's a big deal for me.+1
Knowing that a canditate is both sciencetificially illiterate and willfully ignorant would be enough to stop me supporting them even if they where going to do everything i wanted them to do in government.
A man who think 'god gone done it' is an acceptable explination for anything( let alone biological diversity) isn't qualified for high office.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing that a canditate is both sciencetificially illiterate and willfully ignorant would be enough to stop me supporting them even if they where going to do everything i wanted them to do in government.
A man who think 'god gone done it' is an acceptable explination for anything( let alone biological diversity) isn't qualified for high office.
Ron Paul is a well-educated doctor, who believes in God. Painting him as some backwoods hick for believing such is disingenuous. I may not believe in ID, but a lot of folks put it forth as a possible theory. Ridiculing those that put it forth is just as bad as those who ridicule evolutionists for being 'descended from monkeys'. I'd rather vote for a person of faith who wanted to accomplish what I saw as good political goals than a lawyer belonging to a radical church whose agenda is antithetical to my views.
OK you have convinced me that he is serious about defense cuts. Now to see if he or anyone else can actually implement them - or alternatively admit to the idea that the job of the US military is to carry out a Pax Americana, which is a fine activity for a super power - its the mass self delusion that some how this massive military exists for 'self defense' that really irks me.Jeremy,
Barney Frank, Ron Paul and 55 others advocate for defense cuts
Debt,Deficits, and Defense A Way Forward[url]
[url=http://i55.tinypic.com/zwb11w.gif]2009 Discretionary budget chart
I'm not sure how representative the last 2 are of Paul's position, but I found them interesting. I'll try to add some more.
EDIT:
Implementing the cuts is indeed a huge challenge. It looks like one we are going to fail miserably at this year. If the House defense budget goes forward as it now stands spending will actually increase. It looks like my party is failing to impose any meaningful cuts.
I would equate a Pax Americana to policing the world and oppose what I see as an imperial policy, but I share your frustration that the US justifies a dozen carrier groups with Orwellian terms like "defense" and "national security". This seems absurd on its face, but I guarantee that Paul will be attacked by both sides of the aisle for being week on national security and defense.
I'm thoroughly convinced that Paizo has the smartest, most civil messageboards in the whole web. BT, I agree with you pretty much 100%. Abraham Spalding, May I ask what your ideal canidate would be like? Not being snarky or facetious or anything, just curious, because I think you do make some very good points.
We need some more (strong) political parties. Seriously, we do.
That might be a good starter for a new, truly civil, thread.
I'm the kinda guy who'd love to see more than a two-party system and I'm always interested in hearing other people's thoughts.
I'd love for there to be more than two parties. I don't see how that will ever happen in the US though.
"Go ahead, throw your vote away"
*sigh*
Classic :)
Hnn.
My main problem about Ron Paul?
I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him.
As to religion:
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
As to "intelligent design"
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another — but which one? Differences are crucial
As to my idea of a proper candidate for president? Hm... I'll post on that later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
Would they need to be members of the Libertarian party or is being philosophically libertarian sufficient? Do they need to be in Texas?
Knowing that a canditate is both sciencetificially illiterate
O.o
It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
Indeed, this is my issue with libertarianism as well. I also find it interesting that although many agree with the idea of a small government, their ideas towards what they feel that small government should be capable of sometimes differs greatly on an individual level(and sometimes rivals that of a soveirgn king, but that's only in terms of one person I know who calls himself libertarian that I dont' think really is); fights between individual libertarians get truly ugly.
Anyone that supports Ayn Rand is someone I can't support. She held a convicted 1020's serial killer as her ideal "superman" of her philosophy. I would rather support a Scientologist.
An ugly point, but a good one. Ayn Rand can get scary at times, and this is coming from someone who LOVES The Girl Who Owned A City.
It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.
As long as the person the thread is about is firmly ensconced in its camp, then the topic is less a rabbit hole and more of an unavoidable pothole.
It seems that people have hot buttons that they can't get past, but is there really any candidate that is truly without something you disagree with? And one that no one can find something to disagree with? A seriously high standard, and a flawed one. No one can genuinely 'know' someone from media clips and editorials. You only know 'about' them, and prognosticate how they would act in a given situation. Then you base your judgment on 'my POV is right' and yours 'isn't'.
'Believing' in ID does not equal dismissing evolution.
But really, the guy has two first names. You can't trust people with two first names. Last names need to be distinct. ;P
Meh, that's why we have elections. So more people can decide for themselves.
~Looks around.~
Yup, all the usual suspects.
Kaiser Sozhe?!?! Where?
~Looks around.~
Yup, all the usual suspects.
No, you're wrong. It's not a party 'til Sissyl shows up!
Right so where is what I am looking for in a candidate. These are summations, not complete answers. Consider it a bullet list, and not my full solutions to the problems. I doubt I'll find it but all the same:
Social Issues -- Let homosexuals get married, don't force the churches to do it, and stay away from gun control (as I stated above the best gun control is self control). Abortion is between a woman, her doctor and whatever god she believes in -- if you want a say offer to adopt the child... otherwise shut up.
Economy Issues -- Have few but extremely strong regulations. Hold corporations responsible for their blunders and don't save them. If they fail to fund their employees' retirements and pensions as they promised to put the board, CEO and chief Financial officer in jail for financial crimes. Then sale the company to pay the pensions. If personal finances and loans cannot be learned in one high school class -- revisit the system. Fees for the sake of fees, or outrageous interest rates are wrong.
Health Insurance -- Look when you have a company that you pay for a product that profits off you *not* using that product you have a problem. When they also produce nothing of actual value and tack their fees onto another *viable* business you have a parasitic relationship between the customer, the actual supplier and the tick. Kill the tick, and go to either national health care (you go to the hospital you get treated you go home or tell everyone "tough if you can't afford it you don't get treated. *Stop* the current sham that is health insurance.
Military -- We are responsible to have enough troops to fight two wars, have something going on at the side and still defend ourselves. This isn't a bad thing. However in order to cut costs quit paying a third party to build the nation's infrastructure (a third party that will likely be gone next week and will not return a dime even if they completely screw things up) and have the military build it. They can be held responsible, you are paying them anyways, and it gives them training in coordinating efforts, physical exercise, and logistical support. The Army's Corps of Engineers and the Navy's Seabees do great work -- lets keep them busy.
Foreign Policy -- Cut them off -- they need us more than we need them. If we give them aid and then they don't do what we want we cut off the aid. You don't pay a waiter that doesn't do his job, don't pay foreign governments that don't do theirs. Do business with whom we *must* but in such cases *only* do business. If they can't manage their country without us then why are they in charge? Don't support incompetence.
Religion -- All priests and preachers should be considered guilty until proven innocent. Remember they have to convince you -- not the other way around. Finally I don't have a problem with those that listen to God -- it is the ones that talk for him that scare me.
Anything else?
It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.As long as the person the thread is about is firmly ensconced in its camp, then the topic is less a rabbit hole and more of an unavoidable pothole.
I understand it as a personal objection like in zombieneighbors' case. That's a personal characteristic that is an automatic deal breaker, but it's not a legitimate policy issue when the candidate has no interest in making it policy.
Right so where is what I am looking for in a candidate. These are summations, not complete answers. Consider it a bullet list, and not my full solutions to the problems. I doubt I'll find it but all the same:
Social Issues -- Let homosexuals get married, don't force the churches to do it, and stay away from gun control (as I stated above the best gun control is self control). Abortion is between a woman, her doctor and whatever god she believes in -- if you want a say offer to adopt the child... otherwise shut up.
Economy Issues -- Have few but extremely strong regulations. Hold corporations responsible for their blunders and don't save them. If they fail to fund their employees' retirements and pensions as they promised to put the board, CEO and chief Financial officer in jail for financial crimes. Then sale the company to pay the pensions. If personal finances and loans cannot be learned in one high school class -- revisit the system. Fees for the sake of fees, or outrageous interest rates are wrong.
Health Insurance -- Look when you have a company that you pay for a product that profits off you *not* using that product you have a problem. When they also produce nothing of actual value and tack their fees onto another *viable* business you have a parasitic relationship between the customer, the actual supplier and the tick. Kill the tick, and go to either national health care (you go to the hospital you get treated you go home or tell everyone "tough if you can't afford it you don't get treated. *Stop* the current sham that is health insurance.
Military -- We are responsible to have enough troops to fight two wars, have something going on at the side and still defend ourselves. This isn't a bad thing. However in order to cut costs quit paying a third party to build the nation's infrastructure (a third party that will likely be gone next week and will not return a dime even if they completely screw things up) and have the military build it. They can be held...
Have you looked at Gary Johnson?
Would they need to be members of the Libertarian party or is being philosophically libertarian sufficient? Do they need to be in Texas?
Anyone -- if you know of a presidential candidate who fits the bill, let me know ASAP!
Would they need to be members of the Libertarian party or is being philosophically libertarian sufficient? Do they need to be in Texas?Anyone -- if you know of a presidential candidate who fits the bill, let me know ASAP!
I think both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fit the bill, and I imagine the Libertarian candidates will as well. They would at least view these issues as personal or local as opposed to federal.
Have you looked at Gary Johnson?
Specific points I disagree with him on:
Net Neutrality -- I'll liken it to renting. If the ISP's are allowed to control access as they like it then they effectively have a monopoly and strangle hold to internet business -- unless the government is going to take over the ISP position and simply allow everyone to use it as they will. I don't mind this last option honestly. The problem with letting go of Net Neutrality is then you need laws preventing ISPs from blocking free speech -- which gets us into regulating the internet. Instead if we simply hold everyone to the free access of net neutrality we can avoid that ugly mess.
Military Deployment -- I don't mind having our troops abroad when they are asked for, and when the power that asks for our help is in line with our principles and positions. At the point of divergence I still don't mind, but they better be paying us for our time and resources spent on their behalf, not visa versa.
Federal Reserve -- this is a bigger problem and much more complex than his platform suggests. Provided that is simply his power point presentation that's not bad, but I need a lot more detail before I'm willing to let him have anything here.
Stem cell research -- Congress has a mandate to promote the sciences and arts. This research is (in my opinion) rather vital and should not be left to the devices of corporations. Corporations are (rightfully) notorious for half developing, half reseaching, and completely lying about their products on a regular basis -- no matter what type of corporation it is (from drug companies, to cigarette companies, to wall street companies, to insurance companies).
Business Approach -- I don't trust business -- and for good reason. Business is in business solely to make money and to continue existing to make more money. Anyone that tells you differently is either a fool or a liar.
Debt -- Okay we all know there is a problem. What are the facts of the solution? We all know one horse is faster the key is which one -- give me the facts of your position, not the intentions. He talks of cuts but the problem is 85% of the budget cannot be cut -- we can't cut more than we spend (consider -- if the debt is 8.9 trillion dollars, and it grows at almost half a trillion a year then... you can't cut a trillion dollars from the budget because the budget isn't over 1 trillion dollars -- this point worries me. Those that fail at math are not human, they are at best subhumans that have learned to dress, walk, and not make a mess in the house.
Medicare -- Ironically the best way to save money and solvency is to go further into a socialist medical system. Insurance companies are a tick -- it is time to remove them.
Education -- Soundbite drivel. I'm honestly offended by his official site on this point. Lets actually return the teacher position to one of respect instead of attacking them and constantly harassing them. Standardized testing is a very bad joke. You cannot test something with a different subset each year. We are not testing the teacher, we are testing this year's students against last year's students. This makes no sense. The money for education is already in the state and local hands. Grants from the federal government come with strings because the funds are supposed to provide for specific needs -- not just to be used however people want. Grants from private industry work the same way -- why should we expect anything different from federal grants?
No New Taxes -- Really? If we really want to pay the debt faster then that means spending more money on paying that debt. Which means more money needs to come in. At some point you must rise the price to cover expenses. Our government actually runs on a very tight budget, and a lot smaller (percentage wise) than any other G8 nation. Perhaps it's time to allow it something to actually work with instead of telling it to 'trim the fat'.
**************************
ALL that said: He's got my attention -- lets see if he can provide a bit more substance, and perhaps a bit more logic to some of these positions. As they stand now -- well they don't.
Ben Bernanke is now doing press conferences.He is doing it because of Ron Paul. A Federal Reserve chairman is forced to do press conferences because of Ron Paul.
That is an enormous accomplishment. Winning the war in Iraq or Afghanistan(neither of which will happen) is miniscule in comparison.
Go back and watch clips of Alan Greenspan testify to Congress and engage in "syntax destruction" to understand what I mean.
For the first time, the Federal Reserve, which rips us off every day and provides the money needed to fund all of these costly wars is on the defensive.
Long term, that is greater change, in a positive direction, than the last six Presidents combined have managed to accomplish.
I'm not so sure I would attribute that directly to Ron Paul, and I am equally not as sure as you are that it is a good thing. I am not of the opinion that the federal reserve as the devil that many want to make it out to be, especially considering how very crappy things were on a continuous basis before it was formed.
That said -- A monarch should always have a noose around his neck -- It helps him sit up straighter.
|
|
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
I suppose you mean one "libertarian" in elected office...
Because I know a fair number who are fine with all of that being legal.
Ben Bernanke is now doing press conferences.He is doing it because of Ron Paul. A Federal Reserve chairman is forced to do press conferences because of Ron Paul.
That is an enormous accomplishment. Winning the war in Iraq or Afghanistan(neither of which will happen) is miniscule in comparison.
Go back and watch clips of Alan Greenspan testify to Congress and engage in "syntax destruction" to understand what I mean.
For the first time, the Federal Reserve, which rips us off every day and provides the money needed to fund all of these costly wars is on the defensive.
Long term, that is greater change, in a positive direction, than the last six Presidents combined have managed to accomplish.
I'm not so sure I would attribute that directly to Ron Paul, and I am equally not as sure as you are that it is a good thing. I am not of the opinion that the federal reserve as the devil that many want to make it out to be, especially considering how very crappy things were on a continuous basis before it was formed.
That said -- A monarch should always have a noose around his neck -- It helps him sit up straighter.
I know that we disagree on merit on central banking and economic control, but do you think the Fed should be more transparent? Do you support a comprehensive audit of the Fed?
I know that we disagree on merit on central banking and economic control, but do you think the Fed should be more transparent? Do you support a comprehensive audit of the Fed?
I'm on the fence about it honestly. Not because I implicitly trust the Fed, however -- it is more along the lines of the reason companies don't share their own financial information freely, or other intellectual property. Part of why the Fed works is due to the fact that it isn't transparent about its methods. If everyone knew the exact rules the Fed followed in how it did things then everyone would also know what the Fed was doing where it was going and how to manipulate it (if I get something to this position then they'll do this...).
I also highly doubt that a comprehensive audit would be needed. While there maybe some ominous practices at the Fed (I'm not going to say there is or isn't -- I don't work for the Fed, I don't know), I very much doubt they don't have every last cent accounted for already.
One of the things to remember about the Fed is the fact that it isn't actually a government entity -- it has a government mandate -- but it very much operates on its own, and without direct tax payer support. It puts together its own money. It is a profit based business that has congressional oversight but is private in nature (when it comes to the sector it operates from) -- all of its revenues go to the government, meaning that it very much is a socialist institution ran by capitalist (which honestly doesn't seem to be a bad way to do it). Of its $82,000,000,000 profit last year $79,000,000,000 went straight to the government.
Also it is separate from the US treasury -- a fact I think a lot of people forget very often.
In practice the Fed puts the private sector in charge of the constitutional duty of Congress to maintain currency and the value of said currency.
The biggest problems with the Fed (in my view) right now is the stagnation of worker compensation for the lower 97% of USA citizens. Their money policies and methods for determining both inflation and deflation are directly to blame for this -- however I am of the belief that they are secretly trying to allow deflation to help with this by bring prices lower without actually raising minimum wage, or paying workers any less (or more) than they are already making. If you are making the same amount and everything starts costing less then you have a net wealth gain -- which is what I believe they are trying to do.
|
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
I am one such "libertarian". Actually, formally, I'm a libertarian fiscal conservative. My brother, who lives in Austin and is very active in the libertarian party there is also one such "libertarian". I'm sure he can find you more. He is an adamant atheist. Or maybe he's a Pastaferian, I don't remember.
Religiously speaking, I'm a New Paradigm Evoker, but I could be converted to the Worship of the Old Ones.
I personally don't think that Evolution should be taught as factual, when it is a theory (that cannot be proven given our current science). I personally feel that if we must study Origin sciences in school, we should have Comparative Origin Studies: Biblical Creationism, Intelligent Design, Vedic Creationism, Evolution, Cthulhu Mythos, and whatever it is that Scientologists believe.
|
|
Knowing that a canditate is both sciencetificially illiterate and willfully ignorant would be enough to stop me supporting them even if they where going to do everything i wanted them to do in government.
A man who think 'god gone done it' is an acceptable explination for anything( let alone biological diversity) isn't qualified for high office.
Ron Paul is a well-educated doctor, who believes in God. Painting him as some backwoods hick for believing such is disingenuous. I may not believe in ID, but a lot of folks put it forth as a possible theory. Ridiculing those that put it forth is just as bad as those who ridicule evolutionists for being 'descended from monkeys'. I'd rather vote for a person of faith who wanted to accomplish what I saw as good political goals than a lawyer belonging to a radical church whose agenda is antithetical to my views.
oh for cryin' out loud. ID is not a theory. It isn't even a cogent hypothsis. It is an illogical idea, that has been shown to be wrong about everything it claims. Every single example that has been forwards of an irreducibly complex structure has been shown not to be so. It has as an idea been discredited in the litriture and in the courts. Even stand up has taken it to pieces
I didn't make any reference to hickdom (save perhapes the phrase "god gone done it" which is as much a reference to the meme "magic man done it" as anything else). His apparent scientific illiteracy has nothing to do with his class or educational, save that if he where just ill educated we could leave it at say the poor bloke got buggered by the education system.
The fact that Ron Paul is a doctor only works against him. Ron should know better. The fact that he believes in ID and trained as a biologist really opens up two possible explinations. Ron is pretty dumb, or Ron is cynically playing on peoples beliefs.
1. Ron paul is Stupid.
When equiped with the tools to form an opinion about evolution...
Well, having met the man in person several times, I can safely say that the Good Doctor is neither Stupid nor Cynical. And indeed, I withhold such judgments about people until I have met them in person and had a conversation. Although, legally speaking, if we are to stand by the Declaration of Independence, which contains within it the charter for our rights, Intelligent Design at least provides a cursory reason for rights to exist in the first place: those being granted by God, or endowed by a Creator. Although it doesn't specifically say what the Creating Force is, it is implied that the rights of man are specifically endowed to him. And that would generally infer intelligence of some type. This is the strongest defense of liberty we have on this planet. :) At least, in my humble opinion.
I don't think that makes me either Stupid or Cynical, but what do I know? I just live here.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think of it, most medical practitioners that I have personally spoken with are believers in Intelligent Design. I usually make it a point to ask. =)
I know that we disagree on merit on central banking and economic control, but do you think the Fed should be more transparent? Do you support a comprehensive audit of the Fed?I'm on the fence about it honestly. Not because I implicitly trust the Fed, however -- it is more along the lines of the reason companies don't share their own financial information freely, or other intellectual property. Part of why the Fed works is due to the fact that it isn't transparent about its methods. If everyone knew the exact rules the Fed followed in how it did things then everyone would also know what the Fed was doing where it was going and how to manipulate it (if I get something to this position then they'll do this...).
I also highly doubt that a comprehensive audit would be needed. While there maybe some ominous practices at the Fed (I'm not going to say there is or isn't -- I don't work for the Fed, I don't know), I very much doubt they don't have every last cent accounted for already.
One of the things to remember about the Fed is the fact that it isn't actually a government entity -- it has a government mandate -- but it very much operates on its own, and without direct tax payer support. It puts together its own money. It is a profit based business that has congressional oversight but is private in nature (when it comes to the sector it operates from) -- all of its revenues go to the government, meaning that it very much is a socialist institution ran by capitalist (which honestly doesn't seem to be a bad way to do it). Of its $82,000,000,000 profit last year $79,000,000,000 went straight to the government.
Also it is separate from the US treasury -- a fact I think a lot of people forget very often.
In practice the Fed puts the private sector in charge of the constitutional duty of Congress to maintain currency and the value of said currency.
The biggest problems with the Fed (in my view) right now is the stagnation of worker compensation...
OK. Thanks for the reply.
Although, legally speaking, if we are to stand by the Declaration of Independence, which contains within it the charter for our rights,
The Declaration of Independence has no actual legal ramifications for the USA.
Intelligent Design at least provides a cursory reason for rights to exist in the first place: those being granted by God, or endowed by a Creator.
A bit more Heinlein:
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.
Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative.
Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.
OK. Thanks for the reply.
No problem -- I hope it make sense. I am not adverse to the thought of more oversight -- but at the same time I remember what happens when more men -- especially politicians -- get more involved with something than they should.
Of all the things politicians should be kept the farthest from money is the first -- followed closely by the bedroom.
|
|
If the Declaration of Independence has no legal ramifications for the USA, then we are still a protectorate of the United Kingdom, and the Revolutionary War meant nothing. The Declaration of Independence has always been, at least so I was taught, the charter of principles for the foundation of this country.
If it is not, then where is our charter, or a statement of principles for the establishment of the United States of America, as I would seriously like to read it? I suppose, since we are still under the British Crown (as the Declaration of Independence has no legal ramifications), we should look to British Law for our charter. The Magna Carta perhaps. Oh wait, that's been overturned by the European Union.
The idea that the Declaration of Independence having no legal ramifications is preposterous. As without it, we would still be attached to the United Kingdom. The Declaration of Independence establishes the moral and philosophical grounds for separation, and the decisiveness of the separation. It lays down in clear terms why and how the peoples of America are a separate entity from any other nation on this earth. And yet is has no legal ramifications? Legally, any nation can come over here and lay claim to American soil??? I fear I find fault in this logic. Can someone help me understand?
I also do not think this nation was founded on Heinleinian philosophy, but rather on philosophies established sometime during the Age of Enlightenment, which questioned the divine right of monarchs and began to bring forth a number of other philosophical conundrums that ultimately led to the questioning of man's responsibilities, rights, and duties.
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
Im a libertarian who believes all that should be legal. Im not from Texas, however.
The idea that the Declaration of Independence having no legal ramifications is preposterous.
It has exactly the ramification it was written for, spelled out right in the title. It is a declaration of independence. It does not in any way mandate or establish a theocratic nation, nor one founded in any manner on someone's god -- indeed, the U.S. is a "first" for specifically enumerating that the power of its government is derived from the consent of the governed, rather than from God.
Cherry-picking an invocation of your deity from it, and assuming that means the U.S. was somehow founded as a "Christian nation," is preposterous.
|
|
I said nothing about it being a Christian nation.
Only that the rights of man were endowed by their Creator, and can not be taken away by force or without their consent. I did not specify what the Creative Force was, in fact, I thought I had clarified what was generally specified as God (in society, not in the text), to that of Creator. Since God and Creative Force are not in any way, shape, or form, implied to be the same entities.
Since I'm not a Christian, why the hell would I want to enforce Christianity through the Declaration of Independence?! Not to mention that a belief in God, is not only a belief held by Christians, but also by a large and diverse mass of humans. Of course, the belief in a Creative Force, whether it be God or Entropy or some other reality-event, is also held by a large and diverse mass of humans.
I said nothing about it being a Christian nation.
Only that the rights of man were endowed by their Creator, and can not be taken away by force or without their consent. I did not specify what the Creative Force was, in fact, I thought I had clarified what was generally specified as God (in society, not in the text), to that of Creator. Since God and Creative Force are not in any way, shape, or form, implied to be the same entities.
Since I'm not a Christian, why the hell would I want to enforce Christianity through the Declaration of Independence?! Not to mention that a belief in God, is not only a belief held by Christians.
Hey, you two!
Take it to Troll Town!
'Believing' in ID does not equal dismissing evolution.
Actually it does. That is sort of the explicit point. Now you can believe in God and Evolution at the same time - its actually fairly easy and, officially speaking, all Catholics do - God is the cause of all causes being their official line.
I said nothing about it being a Christian nation.
Only that the rights of man were endowed by their Creator, and can not be taken away by force or without their consent. I did not specify what the Creative Force was, in fact, I thought I had clarified what was generally specified as God (in society, not in the text), to that of Creator. Since God and Creative Force are not in any way, shape, or form, implied to be the same entities.
Since I'm not a Christian, why the hell would I want to enforce Christianity through the Declaration of Independence?! Not to mention that a belief in God, is not only a belief held by Christians.
Hey, you two!
Take it to Troll Town!
:)
Just an FYI;
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.
In other words, dude's literally an insane bigot.
Actually it does. That is sort of the explicit point. Now you can believe in God and Evolution at the same time - its actually fairly easy and, officially speaking, all Catholics do - God is the cause of all causes being their official line.
'Believing' in ID does not equal dismissing evolution.
Maybe my Catholic upbringing is shading my understanding of mutually exclusive? That might have been a better way to posit my comment. Or, the reconciliation of differences. ??? *scratches head*