Ron Paul - Help Wanted

POSTED BY: SevenPercent
UPDATED: Friday, August 31, 2007 20:14
VIEWED: 12322
PAGE 7 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 1:37 PM

Quote:
FremDFirma- Also Diesm includes, quite specifically.. "I don't know" as effective Diesm because it involves the personal search for, and resolution of, those questions and answers without regard to an established religion.

ok.. but lets concede, thats still not atheism. i think its quite insulting as an American to listen to people deny our heritage like has been done by secular revisionist historians

Quote:
Frankly, your coming off as exactly the kind of psycho that I take most christans for once the phony mask of tolerance and understanding slips, showing the iron-fisted dogma underneath, and thus I do not think this conversation and tpic are productive in any way and will end it here.

and now its time to attack the messenger. well i could say the same for you Frem. it seems like splitting hairs to me when people go to such lengths to deny any christian influence among our founders, only to claim they were "deists". its just a complete misunderstanding of the circumstances. and youre not acknowledging the POINT, which is the neccessity for a higher power, with specifically defined moral absolutes. check out the definition of atheism, it has no set standards of ideals. the founders understood this, and fashioned our government around established theistic/deistic principles, regardless of the peoples attempts to marginalize(and undermine) this bit of truth

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
ok... but Deism is still a belief in a God! its still not atheism! that is highly significant. just read about why Karl Marx became an atheist, Lenin said "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." do you know why that is??

True, but what you neglect is that most folks that are 'deist' or even Christian who don't have a severe fundamentalist, 'need to literally interpret the bible' don't really have a problem with the teaching of evolution, etc. They recognize that science is nothing more than attempt to explain natural order (quite possibly established by God). They have no need to pretend that science is a religion, or mince words like 'world view'. ID, as a wedge method, is not science, it's a device to get religion into school. And not just any religion, but Christianity. And not just any particular form of Christianity, but a very Fundamentalist, literal bible interpretation perspective.

I went to Catholic Schools for 8 years, including High School when science tends to hit on the "Darwin stuff". They really managed to not so much as cross their eyes on these topics that have you in such a bind. Do not even pretend to speak for all Christians. And speaking for Diests, I'd have to laugh at you being a spokes person. Again, one simple step is all it takes, 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.' To me, that is -all- science is doing; the more accurate it becomes, the better it serves its purpose. There is -nothing- about science that denies the -existence- of God. Your stating otherwise is simply a matter of your opinion.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 2, 2007 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i think its quite insulting as an American to listen to people deny our heritage like has been done by secular revisionist historians

Fair enough, but this can be reversed as well. The founders of our nation were free-thinking, enlightenment philosophers who sought to create a government that refrained from endorsing religion in general, much less any particular brand. It's fair to say that most of the people coming to America at the time were christians, so naturally you're going to see a lot of that influence. But the founders deliberately created a government free from any particular religious influence. It's just as insulting to hear religious revisionist historians try to pretend that the radicals who started our country were good christian boys.

Regardless, the alliance between the two - free thinkers and fundamentalist christians - was crucial to the make up of our nation. The combination is central to our greatest strengths (and weaknesses). The goal that they shared was religious freedom. The freedom to worship in any way we choose, and the freedom to openly question religion as well.

It's interesting that the two groups I mention above - free thinkers and fundamentalists - make up two of the most enthusiastic camps in the libertarian cause - which is the beauty of staying out of each others business. We CAN live together, each holding radically different beliefs. It's when we forget that it's about the freedom that things become a problem.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 2, 2007 5:28 PM

I'm 150% for Ron Paul 45% of the time. But I wonder how he views the role of government in protecting individuals from corporatism? I know that our government has leaned very heavily towards supporting corporations and withrawing those privileges would be a refreshing change, but at this point the corps are so internationalized that establishing some "balance of power" may require a more active stance that "lack of support for".

Comments?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 2, 2007 6:02 PM

Ron Paul is very much opposed to corporate welfare. Moreover, he sees our interventionist foreign policy as a direct outgrowth of corporate control over our government. We're out there fighting wars to protect the foreign markets of our corporations.

The problem you'll have with his POV will be similar to the disagreements we've had over the years. He sees the usual liberal approach to the problem as naive and counterproductive - in much the same way that they neo-cons approach to terrorism is naive and counterproductive.

Government regulation as a means to control corporate abuses usually follows the same path. A group of experts are brought together and rules are hashed out that will, presumably, protect the interests of the public while allowing companies to do their necessary work. The problem with this is that the process of creating these rules is intensely political. That can't be avoided. And the vested interests in a given business will be sure to influence that process in a way that benefits them, often in a way that reduces competition from upstart companies as well.

Anyway, you'll find plenty about Ron Paul that you won't like. There are several things about him I'm less than enthused about, but politicians are always a package deal. The one thing you will get is a very clear picture of his ideology. He doesn't formulate opinions based on polls and public whim and he's not for sale. That makes him unique as a politician in my book.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 6:08 PM

O, right. Ron Paul.

I have to agree, it's a concern for me. The company I work for just shifted 6 jobs from Canada to India; and another 8 from the US to India.** I'm one of the few US workers left in my department. And these are good paying jobs which require a college degree. On the flip side, if you are going to let companies simply "start anew" in a foreign country and compete for the work my company is now doing (computer services), what choices do the companies have? Not sure what sort of 'protection' you can put in place that will help the workers and not cause problems for companies that ultimately are forced to compete with foreign providers? Anyone happen to know where Dr. Paul is on this one?

**Edit: Clarification; the company moved a ton more jobs than that, I was just referring to those in my dept. as I don't have figures 'over all'.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 2, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
posted by Leadb- 'The Natural World is what God created, we are merely learning it's way.'

we agree on this. what im objecting to is other scientists telling me there is no evidence for a Creator. im asking how it is they know that?

Quote:
To me, that is -all- science is doing; the more accurate it becomes, the better it serves its purpose. There is -nothing- about science that denies the -existence- of God. Your stating otherwise is simply a matter of your opinion.

I, never said otherwise. i think you are referring to some others around here who have made that claim

LEADB

Saturday, June 2, 2007 9:00 PM

Antimason,
I would like to leave this thread for the RP folk to discuss RP; I think we have cleanly broken from that topic. I've opened a thread here and invite you to join me there:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29034

(and anyone else wishing to air a position, as well)

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:00 AM

@mason

I'm replying to your post here in the other thread.

LEADB

Sunday, June 3, 2007 4:29 PM

This web site seems interesting; and a direct link to Ron Paul's 'review' there:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Reading thru this and other sites, my guess is he would tend to not take much action regarding trying to retain jobs in the US; I believe he would indicate that a 'free market' is the best overall long term economic approach.

And while I'm posting, from Ron Paul's site:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/Issues_fx.html

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE