Ron Paul: Crazy person?... or craziest person?
 

A governmentless, corporation dominated Christian theocracy shut off from the outside world except for free trade? What could go wrong?

I dunno if he's running again in 2012, but just in case I say we do something right now to kill anyone that could potentially vote for him.

I don't think a Christian theocracy can be possible without a government...

He is a lunatic in that he strictly adheres to the constitution as if it were from heaven. I don't think his stance on free market economics or a limited government can be considered lunacy. I mean, it is just as much of a crazy idea, if not less, as paying for welfare systems we cannot afford.

Ultimately, the duty ethics which you want everybody to live by are just as much of a nuance as the religious people though. They tell you believe in God. You tell other people that they should live self-sacrificially.

I was going to vote for him.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1130/...674650d2b4.jpg

Wrong.

If there's no government, people are gonna start depending on some other kind of governing body. Religion and corporations would have no restraints, they could pretty much have full reign over anything.

He doesn't believe in a limited government, he believes in no government, I'm sorry, anyone who wants to get rid of the CIA and FBI and withdraw from the UN is f*cking insane.

He wants a non interventionist US, at the same time he doesn't mind if we remain free trade dependent and despite his reputation as a "liberal conservative" he's far from it, he's very anti seperation of church and state and xenophobic. So yeah, to hell with huminatarian causes, we only care about little brown people if they make our products.

So I think he really is the "true" conservative presidential candidate. He thinks government's only function is national security (and what a sh*tty one we'd have without the CIA I might add) and enforcing a few laws based on Christian doctrine, and that's it, everything else is "up to the states". :laughing:

I don't know where you've been getting your information from, but I was watching him pretty closely in 2007-2008. Where is this "Christian Theocracy" theory coming from? I've never seen anything remotely close to that in his campaign outline. From what I gathered in getting involved with his campaign, these were the fundamentals of his plan: Abolition of the IRS, CIA and Free Trade Organizations that take the work out of the country, Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, Utilizing the military to guard our borders more closely, and withdrawal from the World Central Bank.

I don't understand how you get the idea that he was trying to create a Theocracy out of the United States government. A prime example is his stance on abortion. Ron Paul, the person, is against abortion. However, he recognizes that people have the choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and its not up to the government to tell people what they can do with their bodies.

He's just a guy that was trying to make the government realize its boundaries. If that makes him crazy, then what is sane?

Boundries? He thinks the government has no function at all, that's a pretty big difference.

Also he thinks the abortion/*** rights issues should be left up to the states, but like I said he's also very anti seperation of church and state so he has a pretty clear Christian agenda.

And he does seem to get a surprising amount of support from religious crazies because they love the idea of a nation where government doesn't tread on religion at all.

Boobs, you found something we agree on. Congratulations. Ron Paul is a total nut, and government is necessary to see that the infringement of rights is at least halfway regulated.

I feel rumbling beneath my feet....

If government didn't have control, corporations and religion would, and I'm sorry if I'm not one of the people who thinks that would be a wonderful utopia.

I am pretty sure he believes that the government does have a function. The function: to protect individual rights.

No, I am not. If you look at the definition of theocracy, it necessitates a government for a religion to rule over. If there is no government, there is no theocracy.

The government has no restraints, yet we still manage to live under it without being oppressed. There is, in fact, a restraint. It is the body the government rules, or the people. If a corporation did something the people really didn't like, the people could rebel and violence and chaos would control. Don't mistake me for believing this is right.

Anyone who is remotely intellectual and pays attention to right-politics would know that he is more conservatives than the conservatives. I think he even said this all the time during his campaign. He wants to restore the country back to the state it had at the time of the constitution, minus the flaws like slavery.

Secondly, reading your posts is like watching a liberal faux news. You never give me any quotes or such to back up your ridiculous statements. You might as well say we never landed on the moon. You will get just as much recognition at this point. I don't ask for quotes unless you go out and call some one "xenophobic."

Secondly:

Then:

It is all propaganda to me, when I read your posts.

That is absolutely right. We don't care about people unless they are a value to us. Thanks for stating the obvious and then manipulating it so that you make a group of people look "extra greedy." Humanitarianism is a stain on humanity, just like all of the duty ethics you propose. You voluntarilly chain yourself to others and expect me to do the same with my life. You recognize the physical realm, but the spiritual (not religious) realm means nothing. You propose a system where people are paid to survive because that is what makes people happy. A little more money to pay for that kids surgery, then he'll be closer to happiness. However, when it comes to what actually makes people happy, the self-esteem, you disregard it as if it is non-existent. Having money is a virtue to you. Having too much, a vice. Earning that money, an action that does not amount to anything. I judge that solely on your political stance, and the fact that you are so cynical (in the modern sense) when it comes to business men. You lump them all together and view them as people who tie others to machines to work long hours. However, you forget to mention the fact that you wish to tie them up to their machine too. Is their no double standard?