Ron Paul's glaring downfall

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul's only downfall is idiot sheeple who can't understand what he's saying. I don't know if it's because they're really stupid or because they're so used to politicians with no principles saying whatever people want to hear in the most dumbed down way possible.

For example:

RP: I want to abolish the IRS

sheeple: ZOMG the govt can't function without the IRS!

RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

sheeple: ZOMG RP wants to abolish public schools! How are the poor kids supposed to go to school?????

RP: Religious institutions should be more important than government

sheeple: ZOMG Christian supremecist!


Ron Paul's campaign slogan is "Hope for America." I don't see how anyone could have hope for America when so many of us can't comprehend simple statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Democrats and Republicans at least peripherally connected to actual politics, as well as most intelligent people in general, have one thing in common with their counterparts across the globe - they don't think of the other side as sheep, stupid, actively evil, and so on, and sometimes even *gasp* agree with them on some of their platform. For example, I think the Republicans are by far the worse of the two parties to lead the US in the near future, but I agree with them on affirmative action, would be willing to listen re: gun control and school vouchers and think the estate tax is a bad thing, among others. Similarly, aside from true shills like Coulter, you won't find many secular GOP members who don't understand the Democrats at all; that's for the religious right, which, as a whole, has a moral superiority complex because they get everything out of their (to them, infallible) interpretation of a single book.

Speaking of the FOF, every (religious, political, you name it) zealot whose cause turned out terrible throughout history has shared one thing in common, too; they refer to their opponents as sheep, oppressors, blind, misguided, etc. You won't find this in mainstream political discourse, but it's funny how if you change around the facts in the post I quoted, it could just as well have come from LaRouche, Stormfront, the Russian Communist message boards, or even Fred Phelps. It's all about "people are too dumb to get my savior's message that would fix their lives if they'd just listened. Instead, they misinterpret it to say some other terrible thing will happen, which isn't true at all because ".

This is despite the fact that 99.99% of the world, which surely has some intelligent people in it, seemingly disagrees after all.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul's only downfall is idiot sheeple who can't understand what he's saying. I don't know if it's because they're really stupid or because they're so used to politicians with no principles saying whatever people want to hear in the most dumbed down way possible.

For example:

RP: I want to abolish the IRS

sheeple: ZOMG the govt can't function without the IRS!

RP: I want to abolish the Dept of Education

sheeple: ZOMG RP wants to abolish public schools! How are the poor kids supposed to go to school?????

RP: Religious institutions should be more important than government

sheeple: ZOMG Christian supremecist!


Ron Paul's campaign slogan is "Hope for America." I don't see how anyone could have hope for America when so many of us can't comprehend simple statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Democrats and Republicans at least peripherally connected to actual politics, as well as most intelligent people in general, have one thing in common with their counterparts across the globe - they don't think of the other side as sheep, stupid, actively evil, and so on, and sometimes even *gasp* agree with them on some of their platform. For example, I think the Republicans are by far the worse of the two parties to lead the US in the near future, but I agree with them on affirmative action, would be willing to listen re: gun control and school vouchers and think the estate tax is a bad thing, among others. Similarly, aside from true shills like Coulter, you won't find many secular GOP members who don't understand the Democrats at all; that's for the religious right, which, as a whole, has a moral superiority complex because they get everything out of their (to them, infallible) interpretation of a single book.

Speaking of the FOF, every (religious, political, you name it) zealot whose cause turned out terrible throughout history has shared one thing in common, too; they refer to their opponents as sheep, oppressors, blind, misguided, etc. You won't find this in mainstream political discourse, but it's funny how if you change around the facts in the post I quoted, it could just as well have come from LaRouche, Stormfront, the Russian Communist message boards, or even Fred Phelps. It's all about "people are too dumb to get my savior's message that would fix their lives if they'd just listened. Instead, they misinterpret it to say some other terrible thing will happen, which isn't true at all because ".

This is despite the fact that 99.99% of the world, which surely has some intelligent people in it, seemingly disagrees after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, god forbid people act condescending.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the key, the real reason Ron Paul emphasizes this is because he believes many of the financial burdens placed on the federal government (disaster relief, [federal?] welfare, etc) were intended to be handled by those "vital institutions", the churches - or other charities. I could be wrong though, but I know I've heard him advocate churches helping.

[/ QUOTE ]

you and I, sir, are in complete agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

please never stop posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

what'd I do?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that government was envisioned to be very small.

Also, churches can do voluntarily a lot of the things government does coercively, such as raise money for Katrina relief or feed the poor or house the homeless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus!!! You're talking about giving billions of dollars to church leaders (who molest children & buy 23k marble toilets) to distribute to those in need.

And I thought I needed help.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's not talking about giving billions of dollars to church leaders. It's not like taxes will be collected the same way as they are now, then handed over to churches to distribute.

The status quo inovolves "giving" billions of dollars to state leaders who molest children and buy $400M bridges to nowhere, $2,000,000,000,000 wars in iraq, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was levelling. Hard to say in this forum though.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of the FOF, every (religious, political, you name it) zealot whose cause turned out terrible throughout history has shared one thing in common, too; they refer to their opponents as sheep, oppressors, blind, misguided, etc. You won't find this in mainstream political discourse

[/ QUOTE ]

lol wow dude, I thought you were a little crazy and liked to exaggerate before but this takes it too a new level.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of the FOF, every (religious, political, you name it) zealot whose cause turned out terrible throughout history has shared one thing in common, too; they refer to their opponents as sheep, oppressors, blind, misguided, etc. You won't find this in mainstream political discourse

[/ QUOTE ]

lol wow dude, I thought you were a little crazy and liked to exaggerate before but this takes it too a new level.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of ideologues that do this/have done this. Not one of them is, today, viewed by history as a good leader with good ideas. Nor will you find a mainstream politician referring to the other side as oppressors or sheep. People like Coulter do that all the time, which is why only the fringe pay any attention to them.

[Ron Burgundy]

Dude first of all, I never said anyone who disagrees with me is a "sheep." I said the people who make no effort to understand what RP, or anyone, is saying are, and they come from all across the political spectrum.

Second, you're incredibly naive if you think the typical politician believes that his/her opponents are never misguided or trying to promote ideas they view as oppressive.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All the Constitution says about religion is that Congress may not pass a law establishing a State Church, and neither can Congress pass laws that prohibit people from practicing religion.

The words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no idea. Where did this phrase come from?

Do you believe, that if schools were fully funded through property taxes, i.e citizens in the school district, that neither the state nor the federal government would have any say as to whether they pray or honor the flag/country in home period (start of the day) if that school district, by vote of its citizens, chose to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

The phrase comes from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he assured them that they would have no fear of govenment interfering with religious expression.

I believe in school privitization. No govt schools at all.

Absent that, religion should be taught in elective religion classes. In truth, there's too much BS in US schools as it is.

As for the Constitution, maybe you ought to read it sometime.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All the Constitution says about religion is that Congress may not pass a law establishing a State Church, and neither can Congress pass laws that prohibit people from practicing religion.

The words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no idea. Where did this phrase come from?

Do you believe, that if schools were fully funded through property taxes, i.e citizens in the school district, that neither the state nor the federal government would have any say as to whether they pray or honor the flag/country in home period (start of the day) if that school district, by vote of its citizens, chose to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Jefferson

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for the link!

Here is his quote I like the most, that references the 1st Amendment:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God , that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on that quote, I can answer my own question about prayer in school. It has no place in that type a public setting, because if 51% of the citizens in the school district vote in favor of prayer in school, the other 49% are denied the opportunity to exercise Jefferson's beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, when I was in public elementary school, the Lord's Prayer started every day (up until I think I was in 5th grade). The teacher (even my Jewish 4th grade teacher).

It didn't offend me, nor did it turn me into a bible-thumper.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his summary is probably correct (although it doesn't hold for Jefferson). That said, what the Founding Fathers felt about a robustly Christian America should have no effect on what our society should think about religion's place in America today. And I would worry about a man who thinks it should.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I think you and I agree that there was no monolithic thought attributable to the founders and they agreed on the basis for governance as put down in the Constitution after rancorous debate.

However, and you know I'm an atheist, don't you think it is wrong, that the White House lights a menorah, and calls it a Menorah (not a holiday candelabra). The White House hosts a post Ramadan meal, and calls it by its Muslim name. Yet when they light a Christmas tree, they somehow decide they have to deny what it is and call it a "holiday" tree.

I mean, a thing is what it is, right?