- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Strawman. Gun laws and right to carry have been state issues for years and many of them agree to recongnize each other's permits. While gun laws are much more simple to agree upon, it isn't impossible as you would have us believe. In addition, home school accreditation firms set standards that many state education systems agree upon all the time. For instance, we checked into homeschooling my son. If we would have chosen to do so, we had picked out a home school program that would have been recognized in North Carolina as well as by DOD schools upon our return to a military base. This is a non-issue that can be solved by the private sector and states.Which is problematic because it gets rid of national standards for education. You'll have the south teaching creationism, you'll have the liberal states teaching "feel-good" nonsense, any kid transferring from one state to another is going to walk into an entirely different educational system and high school diplomas won't mean a thing because there won't be a single standard required to receive one. No thanks.
Yes, beliefs inherently inform our actions. Your beliefs are faulty IMO so therefore I wouldn't vote for you. Just as you see Paul's beliefs as faulty so you wouldn't vote for him. Your beliefs informed your actions when choosing who to vote for. So, don't vote for a Christian if you don't like the beliefs and get over it.Beliefs inherently inform our actions. When one has faulty beliefs, even if they are not actively trying to apply them, they will impact one's decisions. Ron Paul, because of his religious beliefs, is openly against gay marriage, contraception, abortion, separation of church and state, etc. I can point out all of these in speeches he's given if you'd like.
Which is problematic because it gets rid of national standards for education.
You'll have the south teaching creationism,
you'll have the liberal states teaching "feel-good" nonsense,
any kid transferring from one state to another is going to walk into an entirely different educational system and high school diplomas won't mean a thing because there won't be a single standard required to receive one. No thanks.
Beliefs inherently inform our actions. When one has faulty beliefs, even if they are not actively trying to apply them, they will impact one's decisions.
Ron Paul, because of his religious beliefs, is openly against gay marriage,
contraception,
abortion,
separation of church and state, etc.
I can point out all of these in speeches he's given if you'd like.
I watched both. I watched Obama's conference live then i watched Ron Paul's farewell address on YouTube.
And this is what i have to say to ol Ron: Congressman Ron Paul, although i did not agree with pretty much all of your economic policies, however i did agree with your anti interventionist, anti imperialist foreign policy, and your pro civil liberties social policy, you were a great Congressman and was not afraid to speak your mind. You will be missed Congressman Paul.
Actually, its mostly the states who handle the education standards.
Some already do.
Some already do.
I think you are grossly exaggerating here.
So only atheists should be allowed into office. Gotcha.
"Faulty beliefs" is completely subjective in a religious and ideologically diverse nation.
Ron Paul on gay marriage: In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.[139] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[140] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[141][142] When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
Paul does not believe in government handing out "free" contraceptions. That is not a religious stance, its a political ideology stance. He believes in allowing the citizens to be able use and purchase contraceptives whenever they wish.
He is pro-life as are nearly all Republicans, religious or not. But he does not believe the federal government should have a say in the issue. Its a states rights issue. Once again, political ideology, not religion.
What does that mean exactly? Because it means something different for a lot of people. While Paul says he rejects the notion of "separation of church and state" he believes in "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". So for example, if a group of students at a public school wished to pray before class they should be free to do so. But no student(s) should be forced to do so.
Please do!
Which I entirely disagree with.
I don't think so. When you have high schools graduating students who cannot read, a diploma isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. That's why they came up with "no child left behind", which is equally a failure because, instead of teaching subjects, teachers just teach the test and nothing beyond it. You used to be able to get a good job straight out of high school. That's largely gone now.
No, only people who understand the separation of church and state and leave their religious views at the door.
No, a belief is either factually true or factually false. I don't care how much you believe in unicorns, how emphatically you demand they are real, how much faith you have, there's no reason to think unicorns exist. The same is true of gods.
Paul just wants to throw the question from the federal government to the states but it really cannot work that way. The Constitution already provides equal protection under the law (which gays are certainly not currently entitled to) and guarantees that contracts in one state (which marriage is) must be respected in all states. Letting states pick and choose is blatantly unconstitutional.
I didn't say anything about free contraceptives, I said that he personally opposes contraceptives.
Once again, it doesn't work as a state's rights issue. See above.
You already agreed to everything he said!
You can entirely disagree if you want but IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RON PAUL'S RELIGION
It is largely gone because almost everyone goes to college now. A college diploma is just a really expensive high school diploma.
Which Ron Paul does.
And once again, Ron Paul does not force anyone to follow his religious beliefs.
You clearly did not even read his quote because he says he doesn't see it as a state function but as a religious function. He argues for government being out of the marriage issue entirely except to oversee divorce proceedings and enforce such contracts (just like with any other private contract). And I happen to agree with that sentiment.
Prove it.
And once again, you may disagree with it being a state's rights issue but it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with political ideology.
I don't agree with everything he says. While I agree with him on reducing/eliminating taxes on things like income, sales, and capital, I disagree with him on land taxes (I believe they should be raised). I also don't completely agree with him on immigration and his overemphasis on the gold standard.
So? I didn't say I only disagreed with him on religion, did I?
Which is one reason colleges are overloaded. Most people don't need to go to college, community colleges have become a place for people to learn the things they should have learned in high school. Most blue-collar workers ought to get out of high school and be able to earn a living. There's no point in college for them. Things have only gotten to this point because high school educations have become such a joke.
Certainly he does not and hold the views he does.
But he certainly legislates with his religious beliefs in mind.
Marriage has been a civil function for a long, long, long time, in fact, religion co-opted marriage from secular society. In the United States, it's been decades upon decades since it had any meaningful religious significance. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want to, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
See his "We the People Act".
And once again, you assume that I only disagree with his religious stance. I disagree with a lot of things he says.
No, I didn't mean that. I said you agree that he said everything I stated he said, thus I didn't have to produce quotes to demonstrate he actually holds those positions. Quotes are only necessary if you think he doesn't really hold those positions.
I watched Ron Paul's farewell speech and it was very well delivered. He is one of the last true statesman in Congress, but has paved a way to a Liberty movement in this country. He has brought the ideas of fiscal responsibility, small government, and civil liberties to the people and it has been well received. Dr. Paul could not be bought. He did not support any special interest group, and was true to his principles for his entire stay in Congress.
People call him crazy, but when one actually looks into what he is saying...they find out that it makes a hell of a lot more sense then a lot of the BS going on now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?