This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ron Paul Launches Presidential Campaign, Tells Truth To Whoopi's View

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Well, it's official: Ron Paul has launched his 2012 presidential campaign. Per the National Journal: "Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he's going to try a third time. Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year."

More:

Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his “money bomb” fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.

Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshire’s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paul’s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008.

Unfortunately, with the ridiculous publicity stunt that is the parallel campaign of Trump, whose only redeeming feature is that he knows more about bankruptcy and nuisance value than any other human being alive, a feature that will come in very handy to the US over the next 5 years, it would appear that Paul's campaign has the usual snowball's chance in a corrupt 7th circle of hell... Which is sad, because Paul, with all his faults, really continues to be the only sane alternative to completel meltdown of this once great country.

That said, we hope Paul has more appearances such as this on The View, where he did not pander to his female hosts, and told the truth about many contentuous issues including the military industrial complex, planned parenthood, and the US outlook.

One piece of advice for Ron: stay away from Bruno please.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:21 | 1205696 Aengrod
Aengrod's picture

Whats wrong with You America? Seriously.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:47 | 1205852 macholatte
macholatte's picture

Exactly!

Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Bahar are totally disgusting.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:58 | 1205907 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

What's wrong with America? I'll tell you in just two words.

Ridiculous, monkey-tribe religions.

Oops, that's three words. But you can imagine them all out in the woods at night, beating on their hollow logs in the light of the full moon, howling, cacaphonous, drunk.

That's America.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:10 | 1206185 Forward History
Forward History's picture

Really? Oh how convenient is the single source of blame for the easily swayed.

Consider that if maybe more had listened to a certain monkey-tribe religion's core beliefs, there might not have been the greed\envy\sloth debt bubble and the real-estate crash. It's hard to cook books when you truly obey the good book. I'm not saying it would have instantly prevented all this, but if you're on here day in and out decrying apathy, greed, corruption, and political pandering, you're basically taking issue with the same thing Christ does. Ironic, no?

You want to blame the "monkeys"? I'm a Christian, and I object to you calling human beings monkeys. Apes don't fashion half the bludgeons we do with anywhere near the enthusiasm. That's an insult to good apes everywhere, sir.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:48 | 1206285 azusgm
azusgm's picture

+1 from another Christian.

Matthew 7:12 - "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 23:46 | 1206570 mfoste1
mfoste1's picture

religions are ponzi schemes....

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:33 | 1206648 Bolweevil
Bolweevil's picture

...spirituality an investment

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:09 | 1206701 Michael
Michael's picture

I Love Dr Ronald Ernest Paul!

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:53 | 1206766 Michael
Michael's picture

Ron Paul ran for president in 2008 and look what happened; The Tea Party was born.

What happened when John McCain and Obama ran, NOTHING!

Who knows what will happen when Ron Paul runs in 2012, perhaps all incumbents will be thrown out of office and people will have confidence and trust in their elected officials for the first time since 1787.

Or maybe even something more historic?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:05 | 1206783 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Can I suggest also that nothing good would have happened had McCain been elected, too? It would have been more of the status quo, samo, samo stuff we've seen for most all of my life. He (McCain) is one of the prototypical go-along, get-along Republicans that are routinely duped into compromising left. Virtually all of McCain's significant legislation has a Democrat attached.

Also, I would suggest that Obama has more to do with the start of the Tea Party but the roots of it come from Ron Paul type people and ideologies.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:07 | 1206786 Michael
Michael's picture

I like reading all the defeatist prole attitudes in this thread. It is emblematic of what the American people have become.

Yes, this is my objective to make you think you have been defeated by the super mega wealthy elite. Keep thinking that way.

The super mega wealthy elite brainwashing is virtually complete. Everyone has a defeatist attitude now.

The super mega wealthy elite have beaten your brains to a pulp and you can never form a cognitive thought of ever being equal tho them.

This is everything the mainstream media has taught you.

Your MSM education is worthless!

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:41 | 1206866 Michael
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 22:47 | 1206440 Frein
Frein's picture

Those core beliefs have nothing to do with a "good" book. I guess it helps to pick and choose the nice parts and ignore the contradictions and other junk.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 22:58 | 1206471 Kopfjager
Kopfjager's picture

They like to pretend they have a monopoly on morality.  

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 23:47 | 1206561 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

20. A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. – Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

19. Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. – Anonymous

18. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg

17. Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going? – Anonymous

16. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. – Delos B. McKown

15. Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. – Anonymous

14. Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence. – Anonymous

13. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. – Christopher Hitchens

12. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. – Stephen Roberts

11. It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. – Mark Twain

10. Atheism is a non-prophet organization. – George Carlin

9. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power but absolute power is corrupt only in the hands of the absolutely faithful. – Anonymous

8. Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. – Chapman Cohen

7. When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. – Robert Pirsig

6. Animals do not have gods, they are smarter than that. – Ronnie Snow

5. Most religions prophecy the end of the world and then consistently work together to ensure that these prophecies come true. – Anonymous

4. Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing. – Anonymous

3. If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. – Isaac Asimov

2. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. – Seneca the Younger

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? – Epicurus

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:18 | 1206617 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I could refute virtually every post but frankly atheists bore me these days. What I would sincerely ask is: When the atheists are in charge, how well have they done in improving the lot of mankind?

What is that score compared with theists? Do some theists do better than others?

Jesus said, "You will know a tree by it's fruit."

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:24 | 1206632 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

I agree. why bother.......

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:40 | 1206662 Ben Fleeced
Ben Fleeced's picture

II Kings 18:27

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:33 | 1206718 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

Here come the Lambs..... chances are you all might be from different sects of christianity.

 

Ok, now tell me, which one is THE sect?

catholic

anglican

protestant

lutheran

etc.....

 

Starting to see the bullshit yet?

 

Or better yet, that you were born into that religion. You think that was 'god's will'?

 

What about the people who are born into islam, judaism, scientology, buddhism etc.....? Are they just people waiting to 'see the light' as well?

 

All of them are claiming to be THE religion. So which is it?.....

 

They all hinge on the 'you must believe' bullshit that is rammed down everyone's throat. It is all the same shit, just different clothes, shrines etc....

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:49 | 1206762 MurderNeverWasLove
MurderNeverWasLove's picture

Go away.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:14 | 1206773 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

Strike a nerve did I?

 

Why don't you give it an answer, set the record straight. Or is the line of thinking a little above your usual line of thought?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 04:54 | 1206936 MurderNeverWasLove
MurderNeverWasLove's picture

Not the place for this.  Go dumb down some other board with your cut and paste list of whatever.  What is your point besides trolling?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 09:58 | 1207586 RexZeedog
RexZeedog's picture

I see that you are focusing your so-called atheist animosity towards Christian denominations and not towards other people of faith. Is that because you hate Christians? If so, you are not being intellectually honest. A true Atheist should be opposed to the beliefs of all people who believe in God.

Also, the word "Atheist" comes from the Greek word for godless, so it seems to me you need a new name. What is the point of defining yourself by what you don't believe in?

Frankly, it seems like you are trying to prove a negative, which from a logical standpoint, is impossible.

Suffice it to say, your comments today reinforce once again for me that most so-called "Atheists" are nothing more than anti-Christian bigots who hate the Christian concept of God and also hate those who love Jesus.

I am sorry to see that you are so resentful of Christians that you seek out ways to try and provoke them. And interestingly enough, the stronger the faith of the Christian, the less reactive their replies to you will be.

For this reason, your past bad experiences are biased due to sampling errors. When a weak Christian reacts in anger to you, you come away thinking that's how Christian are, but in fact they are not.

In fact, most Christians who've walked the path for a while would be sad for you (as I am) not angry.

In any case, let's sum up:

1) The term "Atheist" is an oxymoron as commonly used because most "Athiests" hate Christians chiefly, and other people of faith to a lesser degree and actually hate the idea of God (as opposed to not believing it).

2) An intelectually honest Atheist would not mock people, but would reason with them - out of genuine concern that they are believing in something which (acording to the Atheist), does not exist.

3) Jesus loves you.

4) Have a nice daye.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 20:10 | 1209697 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

The rest of us intellectually honest atheists are staying out of it, because really, nothing that you believe has any bearing on my life. (Until it does, and then: watch out theocrats.)

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:17 | 1206791 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

You atheists have a common theme. You take 10 seconds and two line comments and essentially say "You explain to me..." followed by expletives. How about this. You put on your big boy pants and go find the answer yourself? How about you look into yourself and see why you fundamentally hate theology? If you can even get past that one, then go do some research with a little humility. If you do it on your own with your own genius you won't have anything rammed down your throat now will you? I know. It's that other guy. However, you are free to explore Truth as you wish. Isn't that why you are here on ZH? You see lots of different economic and governmental theories here and you have to discern and choose. That's the way of life. Rarely do any of you do that. God or chance chemical reactions gave you a mind. Go use it. You prefer the dismissive approach. Statists use the same approach by the way to rule you.

Pearls and.....??? Now what was that quote?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:23 | 1206800 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

You theists have a common theme. You take logic and twist it.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 09:04 | 1207363 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Do as you're told soldier, don't question.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:01 | 1206686 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

You are sidelining the issue with such a poor argument? How pitiful......

 

Then just refute post #1. I would like to see you try.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:55 | 1206765 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I just wrote a substantial rebuttal but a stray finger on the laptop eliminated it. Makes me want to use bad words.

Let me say that the quotations above are in fact witty and are useful in challenging theology. However, most are based on the observation of common fallible men and not refutations or even confrontations of deeper theological works. There is also the nearly invisible assumption that theists are idiots and atheists much smarter. It is actually the same assumption statists use to rule you. I read Dawkins "The God Delusion" and it was so specious, puerile and arrogant that I could only do about half of it. I saw him on TV and realized the man behind the work.

Put Twain, Dawkins, Epicurus up against Augustine, Aquinas, and one of my favorites, Francis Schaeffer (How Shall We Then Live). Punditry and sarcasm will evaporate. At a minimum there would be respect. Great intellect exists in many religions. I prefer the Western Christian religion in general because of it's historical roots, ability to withstand critique and rational aspects.

What should give an atheist some pause is to realize that our way of life, our Constitution and ultimately the relative prosperity we enjoy are built upon a culture that is built upon a theology. We get the fruits of that. My questions posed above are not merely jest or joust. You have to answer those questions if you hope to progress to something better.

Let me briefly take on Epicurus...with trepidation.

I suggest to you that Epicurus has a flawed idea of what God, His methods and purposes are for men. Analogy speeds up understanding so try this one even with its shortcomings.

Let's say you are facing an Army obstacle course. I will presume you have at least seen one on TV. Your life is this course. You are appointed a path with many obstacles or trials. They look imposing and in your mind are evil. They may in fact defeat you. However, you run them and negotiate them as best you can having had some instruction on how to do that. You will even get instruction along the way. You will still find it difficult to do in reality. The drill instructor will watch your progress and those around you. He may even seem harsh at times and other times may be encouraging. You may need the help of other participants to overcome the obstacles. You may fail at some, barely get through some and sail over others that seem easy to you. You may even try to run around a few or take your own path if possible. The point is that even though the course is hot, dirty, painful, challenging and uncertain, it is all for your good and you will look back with some pride at least at some parts if you negotiate it well.

I suggest that the purpose of this life is to live it not avoid it. It is part of why suicide may be a sin. That is quitting. It is not merely about avoiding evil but confronting and overcoming it. Evil and what seems evil is as much a part of life as good. You really cannot have and appreciate one without the other. Your appointed purpose is to take your skills and gifts and negotiate life perfecting your soul/spirit along the way. At the end of the course you will get a review and score, including from yourself. In some theologies you may get to run it again with a new obstacle course. In that context, Epicurus' observation falls short of an even larger picture.

I am not a trained or degreed theologian but I have spent much time in study and contemplation and that is my short answer from my study. I hope it at least offers some mental exercise for you and others.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:12 | 1206785 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

"I suggest to you that Epicurus has a flawed idea of what God, His methods and purposes are for men."

 

That is your whole statement on why he is not correct? Not much and your anology needs a little work.

 

Lets say for the moment, you are correct. (Only for a slight moment) I'll take from my other post.

 

What sect of christianity are you from? Out of them all I assume you believe yours is THE sect?

catholic

anglican

protestant

lutheran

etc..... Starting to see a hint of bullshit yet?

 

Or better yet, that you were born into that religion. You think that was 'god's will'?

 

What about the people who are born into islam, judaism, scientology, buddhism etc.....? Are they just people waiting to 'see the light' as well?

 

All of them are claiming to be THE religion. So which is it?.....

 

They all hinge on the 'you must believe' bullshit that is rammed down everyone's throat. It is all the same shit, just different clothes, shrines etc....

 

Remember the onus is on religion, whichever it may be, to prove it's existence. The atheist claims nothing.

 

Go read some of Hume's work on skepticism, you might find it very insightful.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:19 | 1206797 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I have written papers on Hume, and Locke and others.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:25 | 1206803 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

The fact that you have done means what?

 

Anyways, you seemed to have missed the point in the last post? Care to comment or obfuscate the issue further?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:42 | 1206822 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Like most atheists, you attack, make allegations, and raise questions (most of which are valid, but seem ill-informed).

But have you investigated those questions or just parrot what other atheists have said.

If you would have Christians read Hume, et al (fair enough), I would suggest you reciprocate.

Read CS Lewis.  Read Norm Geisler / Frank Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist".  Both easy and entertaining reads.  Both investigate from a logical (if biased) point of view.  Norm Geisler has much weightier books as well, such as his Systematic Theology series.  But inbetween the two, his "When Skeptics Ask" is helpful as well.  Usually, but admittedly not always, putting to bed many concerns that trouble people.

Better yet, read the Bible and learn the context of some of the things that bother you.  You will find most have an entirely different meaning than what you might have heard.

Seems fair.  Quid pro quo.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:53 | 1206836 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

I have read Aquinas, Clarke, Berkeley, a few others and sections of the bible. At least of what I can handle. From the book truth to the book of intrepretation, it all is just nonsense, not a great story. Also there seems to be many a contradiction.

 

Trouble is we are still dancing around the main issue. Again I ask. Care to comment on my earlier thought or obfuscate the issue further?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:16 | 1206846 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Not sure what "the issue" is.  Apparently it is not Ron Paul, so it's all a bit OT (oooh, there he goes shoving his religion down our throats...).

If "the issue" is your #1 item, the existence of evil, the answer is quite simple.  Free will.  Fre will to do good or not.  Without free will, doing good is meaningless.  But with it, doign good is admirable

I have things to do, so not interested in debate tonight.  Just wanted to say that if suggest Christians read Hume and others, you should read some Geisler.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 05:11 | 1206954 mworden
mworden's picture

and then read Your God is too Small

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:12 | 1206847 superflyguy
superflyguy's picture

You say the atheist claims nothing yet here you are claiming religion is BS.

It takes very little reading to get the answers to your questions but it seems you already have your opinion so you only read what proves it.

You could easily find out the difference between fake religions and Christianity if you really wanted to bother but you don't. It's easier to claim something and have others defend. It makes you feel smarter, superior. But it also makes you clueless in eyes of those that know more.

It's why I never classify myself as atheist, because most atheists are idiots.

 

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:30 | 1206857 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

Alright, lets break this down for the simple minded.

 

"You say the atheist claims nothing yet here you are claiming religion is BS."

 

Think of an atheist as someone being told by a person (the theist) that he just saw a purple elephant fly across the sky. He has no way of proving it and that you have to believe it. The atheist then calls the clear BS. Somehow it is different with religion.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

 

"It takes very little reading to get the answers to your questions but it seems you already have your opinion so you only read what proves it.

You could easily find out the difference between fake religions and Christianity if you really wanted to bother but you don't. It's easier to claim something and have others defend. It makes you feel smarter, superior. But it also makes you clueless in eyes of those that know more."

 

Right, and what would those differences be? (fake religions, I lol'd, you are forgetting one though). This is a trivial issue for me, it is hard to see people so deluded by such archaic belief systems. You are the one claiming something, I am merely questioning what you hold to be truth. And quite frankly it does not hold up. You seem to hold your ignorance in such high regard.

 

You are the who feels superior here, I guess it is because you clearly 'know more'.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 07:37 | 1207143 I Am Ben
I Am Ben's picture

can reason prove the existence of a diety?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 09:12 | 1207378 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Reason cannot prove the existence of anything, and it certainly cannot prove the non-existence of a nothing; that being the case, we have to make do with what our senses tell us about the world and get on the best we can.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:21 | 1207666 RexZeedog
RexZeedog's picture

"The atheist claims nothing"

Not logically accurate, nor true.

The Atheist claims there is no God.

That is an assertion of logical certainty, one which you back up only with the Logical Fallacy of the appeal to authority. You can read about the flaws in your logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_authority...

Your logic can not be rebutted because it is flawed logic.

Furthermore, if you allow Appeals to Authority as a basis for argument, then none of your historical quotes are valid as a referrence owing to the fact that Napoleon said the following: "History is a set of lies agreed upon"

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/napoleonbo161968.html

Now if it's true (in and of itself), that history is a set of lies agreed upon, then how do we know Napoleon said it? The answer is we don't and if the premise of that quote is true, we can't know it.

The point here is that people have to choose what they believe and most beliefs can't be proved.

- Can you prove that you love pizza?

- Can you prove that your wife loves you?

- Can you prove that Vanilla is better than Chocolate?

People can take polls of opinion and they can measure some facts (only those facts which lead back to measurable substances and forces can be measured), but everything else is conjecure, calculation or extrapolation.

Knowledge is not quite as easy to know as you make it sound and your flippant dimsissals of those who disagree with you betray an inability or unwillingness to dialog with others.

Frankly, I am puzzled by your eforts here and fail to see what you hope to accomplish by taunting others.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:19 | 1208105 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:18 | 1208111 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Theists claim there exists a god, Atheists do not claim there exists a god, this is very different from the positive assertion "there is no god."

This is the key to your lack of understanding of the atheist position.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 21:20 | 1209797 RexZeedog
RexZeedog's picture

No, you are mistaken. The term "Atheist" means exactly what I said it does. I refer you to the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

[ey-thee-ist]

–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

[ey-thee-iz-uhm]

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

Suffice it to say, your response to me is indicative of why no rational discussion is possible with most Atheists: The bulk of them (like yourself) do not even know what the word Atheist means.

Wed, 04/27/2011 - 06:55 | 1210604 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

What does 'disbelief' mean?  Perhaps you should study the language child.

Further does it really matter?  Occham's razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.  Atheists choose to eliminate one unecessary entity.

Thu, 04/28/2011 - 01:00 | 1214884 RexZeedog
RexZeedog's picture

Typical of an Atheist, when you've been proved incorrect about something, you insult the other person - in this case, calling me a "child".

The facts are crystal clear and can be found in any dictionary; Atheists actively deny that God exists "a person who denies..".

I showed you the actual definition from the dictionary plain as day, and yet you refuse to concede.

Suffice it to say, I have won this round and you know it.

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 13:48 | 1224177 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

You are describing agniostics, not atheists.

Do you allow that there can be a god?  I'm not asking if you are saying there is, just whether it is possible.

If yes, but you don't think so, that is an agnostic position.  You are saying you don't know, even if you suspect there isn't one.

If no, then that is an atheist position.  And it is a claim that there is no god.  That claim is made without proof. 

But to make an assertion and then claim it is not an assertion is intellectually dishonest.  And it would require proof every bit as much as a theist's claim that there is a god.  Because it is an assertion of fact.

Granted you may not be able to prove that a god does not exist, just as a theist may not be able to prove that a god does exist.  But it does require that you be willing to provide some sort of argument (logical or factual) for your stance.

Now if you want to avoid a requirement of proof, you should claim to be an agnostic, not an atheist. And of course, if you truly are agnostic, you should as well.

But of course in doing so, you are making an implicit claim that there can be a god.  And if you allow there can be, you should refrain from calling it non-sense unless you are willing to make the argument as to why (while there might be a god, you do not believe it).

The point is that this is not pure semantics.  It is that the definitions matter, particularly when someone is trying to get the benefits of agnosticism (avoiding the argument) while simultaneously claiming the benefits of atheism (reserving the right to ridicule theists of any flavor).

You are being intellectually dishonest and logically inconsistent.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:30 | 1206813 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

I see that you have invested some time into the study of theology which is a damn shame. A more productive direction of a functional and diligent human brain would have been much better. I know that my response might not discourage you now but hopefully you can look past the confrontational approach here and note that we are both looking for truth. It was the dialectic approach of compromise that thwarted the first human inquiry into atheism so maybe its spirit can work the other way around.

Great intellect exists in many religions.

Aquinas used faulty logic. I haven't read the other guys but let me just point out that religion has done the most to stunt human scientific progress than any other force. Maybe you don't like science, but it does more to make your life better than praying.

Constitution and ultimately the relative prosperity we enjoy are built upon a culture that is built upon a theology

Nope. The constitution is the product of the bold step to separate church and state. You do realize that monarchy was based on theology. The whole divine mandate was a religious thing. It was because of our abandonment of that idea that we were able to prosper as a democratic society.

The last half of your post just illustrates the framing of life that religion imposes on the people that subscribe to it: strife, obstacles and teams. First of all I would like to point out that those last three paragraphs have no mention of God or religion. Your sentence,

I suggest that the purpose of this life is to live it not avoid it.

and the following paragraph are refuting a straw-man argument. I would proffer a different analogy than the obstacle course. Imagine you are listening to the greatest song you have ever heard. You simply can't trace the source of this song. There are explanations and evidence showing that the song is just a product of the world around you. Others propose that the song has a purpose, that it is made by someone and that this person wants you to do things in a certain may. they tell you that they represent this person. You can dedicate your life to the song, the people that purport to represent its creator, the people who define good and evil for you... or you can just dance.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:33 | 1206817 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

+1

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:45 | 1206826 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

To not study any theology is to dismiss all of human history. Most atheists start with dismissal (but not all). That's why they get so much of the other stuff wrong and end up with authoritarian states.

However, let me say that it is nice that you at least took a little time to address some ideas. Better than most. I have a fundamental belief that truth always stands up to challenge and critique. It is it's own proof over time.

I believe it was Locke who essentially said that men may not know all truth but they can recognize it when presented with it. I hold this as a core belief.

 

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:12 | 1206842 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

"That's why they get so much of the other stuff wrong and end up with authoritarian states."

 

Right, and somehow some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed in the name of religion. The list is long....

 

Oh, and what truth would that be? Care to elaborate and also, please keep in mind my ealier comments that have yet to still be addressed.

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 14:03 | 1224203 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Funny, I thought the worst atrocities were

- Chinese slaughter under Mao

- Russian slaughter under Stalin

- German slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and poles under Hitler

- Khmer Rouge slaughter of Cambodians under Pol Pot

 

Which atrocities were in the name of religion and worse than these?  Very few if any.  And with the exception of killing of Indians under Manifest Destiny (which really was an economic move claiming a Christian basis), most that occurred were done by European countries in conjunction with the Catholics.  And while wrong, the numbers are far fewer, and were a long time ago.  But the atheist genocides are larger in number and more recent.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 06:56 | 1207075 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

Yes the study of theology is important, but for me, and I hope for other people it should come secondary to the study of science, logic, math and language. History should also be studied from an objective point of view so it is better to not view it through the lenses of religion.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:47 | 1206834 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

One comment only.  You are incredibly ill-informed about the Judeo-Christian heritage of western civilization.  The foundation of western law was the Mosaic law.  The concepts of freedom, inherent rights, ownership of self are derived from a biblical standpoint.  The founding fathers and the philosophers that shaped their views were quite explicit about that.  Some were deists, yes, but even they recognized the value of those concepts and their source.  That doesn't prove the Bible, nor is it meant to.  It doesn't make this a theocracy, either.  But to ignore that is to attempt to significantly alter history.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 04:36 | 1206918 Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

"Judeo-Christianity" is a XXth Century political expedient created in the US to justify/enable Zionist domination within Western nations, and abroad, on the bloody edges of the Zionist colonial state.

Whoever bothered to read the New Testament knows how radically Jesus and his followers rejected the Pharisees and their "oral tradition". Btw, paraphrasing George Orwell, if you want to understand anti-jewism througout the centuries, all it takes is to read the Bible.

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 12:46 | 1224076 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Absolute rot.  Look at the writings of the founding fathers and the philosophers who influenced them.  The vast majority were Christian (and not just the expedient type who assume the mantle of faith for the sake of their careers).  They in turn, were influenced by other Christians.  The Bible is the foundation of western thought, western economics, and western law.  It is not the only source, but it is the primary source.

Anyone who reads the New Testament and sees an anti-Jewish bias, clearly has not understood the New Testament or their own professed faith.  Yes, Jesus rejected oral tradition.  Because it was not Biblical.  And that was particularly true in his time when the chief priests and his cohorts were put in place by the Romans.  They interpreted scripture for their political benefit.  That's what Jesus railed against.  He went even further in not just going to the letter of the law but the spirit of the law.  The Pharisees were not the whole of the Jews.  They were a subset who believed in strict adherence to the law, but while they followed the letter of the law, they ignored the purpose.  Jesus was not rejecting the Jews.  He was rejecting hypocrisy.

And yes, I know there are some (and have been many) in history who were anti-Semitic based on their flawed reading of the Bible.  That's why you don't use oral tradition as equal or superior to the Bible (that's the mistake the Catholics made).

As a side note, I find it sadly amusing that so many ZHers (including some I respect for their political and economic insight) claim that they are not anti-Semitic (or anti-Jewish for the purists), they are simply against Zionism.  But so many (and more and more all the time it seems) comments are blaming "the Jews" for GFC and any other number of ills.  Names like "Shylockracy" tend to give them away.

Thu, 05/05/2011 - 06:06 | 1242260 Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

You obviousely never read the OT or the New Testament, which is typical of the shabat goyim heresy called Judeo-Christianity.

Have fun slaving, fighting and dying for Israel.

Finally, Israel is but a festered carbuncle in the buttocks of Western civilization, not the founding pillar your narcisism and delusions of grandeur lead you to propagandize.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 06:55 | 1207070 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

Mosaic law contributed to the Constitution but it is not a fundamental pillar of western law. The origins of western law would be the roman twelve tables the code of hummurabi and other such codes. Mosaic law borrowed a lot from earlier codes and constitutions.

Also, Mosaic law helped shape some aspects of law and civilization, but the logical application of law codes was the main driving factor. Without the development of tort and contract laws by the Romans we would have no meaningful western law. The romans had much more to do with the shaping of western civilization than the book of deutremony.

My point here is that logic, not religion was the foundation of law and civilization. It simply made more sense not kill each other steal each others things and then codify this as law. The fact that there is a section of bible about that doesn't make it a religious idea. It is simply logical.

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 12:53 | 1224090 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

That's right this is a world ruled by logic.  That's how we get where we are.  That's why laws are consistent from nation to nation.  Logic will always get you to the same place, so the law in the world are homogeneous.

It is logical to have socialism.  It is logical to kill millions of your own citizens to amass power.  It is logical to increase the money supply to bail out the rich and punish savers.  It is logical to risk hyperinflation in doing so.  It was logical 235 years ago to declare that every man is free, just as it is logical to declare that he is free only to the extent that it does not conflict with the current desires of the state.

It is logical to have rules that ensure the smooth functioning of the economy by outlawing stealing.  That's why all laws that are written serve only to protect freedom and private property and do so completely unbiased.

You are right.  These things happen because they are logical.  For logic rules the world.  And it always has.

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 14:48 | 1224276 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

After reading your post I am now convinced we do not follow logic.

....

I'm just not sure that following a path that strays away from logic is the remedy to the situation.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 07:56 | 1207183 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

I just wrote a substantial rebuttal but a stray finger on the laptop eliminated it. Makes me want to use bad words.

 

Everything that happens is by god's will.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 08:58 | 1207347 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

You lose this debate because you don't need to believe in an invisible man in the sky to embrace life, obstacles and all.  If you need to believe to prevent suicide, then that is your problem, but don't project that on everyone else.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:04 | 1206780 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

George W Bush and Woodrow Wilson were the two worst presidents to ever grace the office and were both extremely religious.

You asked three questions in that post. Each one showed a progression of the loss of confidence in your original position.

Actually the whole post is just a failure of cosmic proportions in regards to its lack of logic and its divorce from reality.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:28 | 1206804 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Ghandi was religious, too. Y'lu Chutsai was religious. So were Washington and most the rest of his contemporaries. The Soviets, Khmer Rouge and Maoists were atheists. Good refutation and use of the dismissive. Is Ron Paul religious? Would you reject him for that?

 

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:29 | 1206856 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

The point about the founding fathers has been address in my post above. They rejected the religion based divine mandate and made the world a better place.

For every "evil" (and I disagree with your assumption that the societs were evil) regime I can name just as many evil theistic governments. In fact most governments are oppressive and restrictive. The root of government was in religion. The head of government was also the head of church. The recent example of atheist governments has only been a blip on the map of oppressive theist ones.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 05:45 | 1206994 Borrowed Merkin
Borrowed Merkin's picture

Maybe, but those atheistic governments sure made the most with their time. What IS the total death scoreboard? Hitler 6M, Mao 12M, Stalin 10M , throw in another 2-3 M for various and sundry atheistic autocrats. 25 or 30 M people. So, why don't you go grab your calculator and see what the Crusades and whatever else you can come up with total. Methinks you'll be a little short. Oh, and by the way, #1 is b/c free will is meaningless with both good and evil. Really, you may be a nice person, but your first post indicates a rather sophist unimaginative, purposeless combativeness with religion. What happened to you? Hostility toward religion seems, to me at least, to emanate from either a personal vendetta b/c of abuse by clergy or a knowledge that biblical precepts are right and the guilt of not living up to them is too much to bear. The last is particularly interesting as Chrstians, at least in my mind, don't claim to be sin free. Rather, it's the confession and attempted improvement on that condition that is distinguishing. Atheists seem to think themselves sin free or beyond reproach at least. Whatever works for you, but the real hostility seems to come most often from atheists. Oh, and from Muslims who want to blow up Christians AND atheists. And everyone else who's not on board the Allah train.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 06:57 | 1207041 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

Even in notional terms the number can easily surpass 30M, not even mentioning that it goes further than that in proportional terms. Crusades, every single war disputing divine mandate, the Inquisition, every war and purging between various sects of religion, purging of Indians due to their paganism, using Christianity to justify slavery, witch hunts, the implied degradation of the human condition by restricting the development of science from the dark ages until the Renaissance, indulgence.

Believe it or not you can have a proper system of ethics and morality without religion. And believe it or not you can be hostile toward religion without a) being an atheist (I'm agnostic) b) being hostile to religious people c) being abused by clergy d) guilt. The last one is the most important and you seem to sum up my point here without knowing it.

Christianity makes you feel guilty! You don't have to do anything to be guilty! This is akin to the twisting of our law code today. Write so many meaningless laws that you cannot but break some law in one fashion or another. In a proper judicial system you are innocent until proven guilty. In Christianity and perhaps other religions you are guilty first of all, and you must work towards innocence. I reject that idea and think it is instituted less for the embetterment of humanity but more so for control of religious subscribers.

Atheists and agnostics and non-religious people are not saying they are innocent. Rather, they know enough to do the right thing and don't need the idea of religion and guilt to do so.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 08:49 | 1207309 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Believe it or not you can have a proper system of ethics and morality without religion. And believe it or not you can be hostile toward religion without a) being an atheist (I'm agnostic) b) being hostile to religious people c) being abused by clergy d) guilt. The last one is the most important and you seem to sum up my point here without knowing it.

Thats kinda what we do here. Rick Santorum was a U.S senator (R) who lost his seat to Bob Casey (D) in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_United_States_Senate_election,_2006

One of the key parts of the race was social conservatism/liberalism. Santorum was very socially conservative and that was his edge until Casey effectively said "He's a little to harsh on many things, but I stand with him on my opposition to federally funded abortion" Casey won in a landslide.

Believe it or not you can have a proper system of ethics and morality without religion

And with a few years to think about what happened Santorum came up with something pretty powerful recently. (para) "As long as society does not have its own set of morals/ethics -- government -- must nessecarily become larger and more intrusive, untill republicans address this fact, the message of smaller government will not succeed"

Did you ever notice how when a republican has a sex scandal they resign within weeks. But when a Dem has a sex scandal they are deified? Niether set of people is more intrinsically moral than the others, everyone is a sinner, but the parties D,R treat things differently. Theology starts with any system/organization that make those distinctions.

That is why Ben must run the printing presses. That is why we have trillion dollar deficits.  Government effectively pulls fruit off the tree of knowledge and throws it to the masses (via programs,tax code) to keep the people from fighting amongst themselves as to who goes first. The responsible/moral/ethical people are left out in the desert, as our government liquidity (inflation/cronyism) sucks the water out of the world. (the value of our currency/debt)

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:05 | 1207605 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

So do you disagree with the assertion that morality and ethics are possible without religion?

Do you agree with Santorum's quote? Are you highlighting this anecdote as a tour de force of stupidity of as an example of clear thinking on Santorum's part?

You can have society with small government and no codes of ethics or morality. You just need a proper judicial system.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:19 | 1207647 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Sure morality and ethics are possible without religion, but without morality and ethics, you need more government. take that to its circular point and you find comunism and fascism are right next to each other.

 

I certainly would not say santorums quote is stupid, or that it is orginal, hence the context around it in my post.

 

What is the correlation between a proper judicial system and the size of government? Solomon's docket would probably get pretty full depending on which district we put him in.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:33 | 1207707 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

You do not need more gov't without morality and ethics. A good property of a judicial system that works is an economically efficient one. In Korea for example, the system is such that while there are few costs associated with enforcement such as police wages, prison maintenance and the likewise, the punishment is severely high. It keeps people honest. Korea is not an overly religious country yet it manages to have a small government.

The judicial system just has to be fair and proper so in that case there will be less competition in government and more in the private sector. It leads to less crime. If there is no favoritism in the judicial system then there will be less temptation on the part of the competitors of a hypothetical favorite to enter the realm of government and expand it. It leads to less government in general.

Morality and ethics are just people adapting to their environment. The law and people's enforcement of it shapes this environment.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:51 | 1207791 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Good points, but for clarification, Are you talking North or South Korea? When you talk about competition/temptation are you talking about control over resources or control over peoples way of life? Including economic (taxation), association (privacy), resources (property rights), familial (parental notification laws/home schooling), or any other thing adjudicated/governed by both religion and government.

If you have a secular/non-soveriegn system of ethics that can take over this role, you should write a book! Just don't try to sell it to Poli-Sci or communications schools. Try selling it to schools of economics where they train PhDs. I would say you could also try secular theology/philopsophy schools, but most of those people are broke and have no way to generate revenue ;-)

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:58 | 1208171 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

I'm talking about the Korea iwth the small government...south. Concerning your second question, I do not consider the two types of control to be too different. One does not control the lifes of others for sport (usually). Thanks for the suggestion to write a book. I'm already on it and it is not going to be a textbook.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 09:16 | 1207413 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Founding fathers gave us freedom from religion and gave us freedom to practice religion, provided it did not interfere with the state-- because they wanted the elected officials to run the country, not the Pope.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 09:36 | 1207494 wisefool
wisefool's picture

agreed. <snarky> The pope would make us all pay federal taxes 'cause incense should be legal,free and rare </snark>

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 13:32 | 1224138 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

The head of government was head of the church (as in England) or came to office only through the agreement of the church (as in Europe in general) was an abuse of religion not a result of religion.

One of the best anti-monarchical (essentially anti-big government) arguments is from the Bible in 1 Samuel Chapter 8

"Samuel’s Warning Against Kings

 10So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11He said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.""

Samuel (a prophet, for those who are unaware) warned that a king (i.e., a powerful government) would abuse people and take away their freedoms.

Clearly the Bible is not advocating a king.  Those European kings who said it did were lying and abusing scripture for their own gain.  This is not a fault of Christianity.  It is the fault of people claiming to be Christian.  The abuses of the Catholic and Anglican churches were not the fault of Christianity, but the abuse of it, aided and abetted by the monarchies they colluded with.

It is unfortunate that people confuse Christianity with corrupt churches and corrupt governments who claim the mantle of Christianity.  Understandable, but unfortunate.  They are very different things.  A little study will make that plain, though you first have to break through a cultural bias that is understandably well-ingrained.

To be clear, this is not a semantic game.  It is not a matter of rejecting Christian history when it is awkward.  My point is that "Christian" activity means adherence to the Bible.  Catholics rely equally on the Bible (as interpreted by the Catholic church), rulings by the Catholic church, and Catholic tradition.  A substantial amount of their beliefs are from non-Biblical sources as they drifted over time.  The Anglican church was founded precisely for the purpose of supporting the monarchy.  It was flawed from the start.

This is not to bash Catholics and Anglicans, or to claim that they are not Christian.  Much of what they have done has been good.  There are many committed Christians in their churches.  What I am saying is that the very structure of those churches are flawed, and do not speak or act on behalf of Christianity.  Acting in concert with the Bible is an act of Christianity.  Acting against those precepts is not an act of Christianity, even if performed by a Christian.

Get the distinction?  I hope that was clear.

The point of the largly misunderstood separation of church and state was in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that their freedom of religion would not be abused by the federal government.  It was to protect the churches from the government.  This was an important issue for many of the states as many were founded on the basis of one denomination or another.  The Baptists were concerned, for example, about Anglican power in Virginia and Catholic power in Maryland and how it might impact them in a federal system.  Clearly, while Jefferson was something between a Deist and a Christian he was not against religious influence in government.  Some of his first official acts were to support teaching the Bible in schools and teaching of Christianity to Indians.  So unless the 20th century courts understood Jefferson's intent better than he did, there have been some errant judgments.

That is not to say the US should be a theocracy.  It should not.  But it need not eliminate every vestige of Christian thought from government either.

By the way, you "disagree with [the] assumption that the societs [sic] were evil"? WTF?

 

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 15:28 | 1224322 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

That line contained a misspelling of soviets. I don't think the Soviet Union was evil.

This is not to bash Catholics and Anglicans, or to claim that they are not Christian.  Much of what they have done has been good.  There are many committed Christians in their churches.  What I am saying is that the very structure of those churches are flawed, and do not speak or act on behalf of Christianity.  Acting in concert with the Bible is an act of Christianity.  Acting against those precepts is not an act of Christianity, even if performed by a Christian.

The distinction you make is incredibly convenient. So we should ignore the bad things done in the name of Christianity and focus on the good things. If we do that then we will understand Christianity huh? Do you realize how flawed this argument is?

You can't disown the products and consequences of your actions. Sure you can follow the bible but there is a lot of stuff written in there. You can cut hands of women if they cheat and whatnot. Even if the bible was purely ethical and moral and there was no confusion about it, what you are saying is that good things that people do are "Christian" and bad things that people do are not. Why not just eliminate the bridge here? Why not just say good things are good and bad things are bad? If we have a good guide of ethics and morals before us (and I disagree that the bible serves that purpose) then why have the distinction of christian/not christian and good/bad if they mean the same thing in your mind? There is no reason for that.

When you just look at the good and bad distinction then you see that the good done "acts of Christinanity" aka good acts by people who purport to represent Christianity is far outnumbered by "acting agaisnt those precepts" aka bad acts by people who purport to represent christianity.

Just so we are clear I'm not bashing Christianity nor am I questioning your system of morality. Christianity has indeed mostly been used for bad purposes as a conduit and instrument for the government. It has been hijacked but that doesn't make it innocent. Other religions have been hijacked and that doesn't make them innocent.

It's the same as saying that when the government functions according to the Constitution then it is "an act of the American government" but when it acts outside of the Constitution then it is not "an act of American government." Rules can be twisted, and in my opinion never really exist. Christians break the bible and gov't break the constitution. Sure it really isn't really their fault when they mess up but we both know that it is and we know that when Christians break the bible they stay christians and when the government breaks the constitution it is still the government. ....in summary Christian =/= someone who follows Bible and government =/= something that follows the constitution.

On a personal level though I have mostly met Christians of the highest integrity and moral convictions. Except one..he loved Bush and all the middle east crusades bullshit.

I'm sorry for the rant. I'm drunk. It is 4 in the morning. I agree with your ideologies of justice, small gov't and the like. Religion did play a helping hand in establishing those in times past. This time we will need a more direct approach.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:28 | 1206858 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

dupe

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:38 | 1206655 Ben Fleeced
Ben Fleeced's picture

Ezeikel 23:20

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:29 | 1206729 Andrew G
Andrew G's picture

Celtics - Knicks 101:89

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:43 | 1206749 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

lmao

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:26 | 1206806 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Lol! Even I enjoyed that.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 23:52 | 1206578 hidingfromhelis
hidingfromhelis's picture

Sadly, Forward History was junked for a thoughtful post that is consistent with the examples in their religion's book, the bible.  Even as a non-Christian, I appreciated their post and respect their viewpoint.  Wish I could un-junk.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:11 | 1206601 gabeh73
gabeh73's picture

I agree. I'm pretty atheist, but it is simplistic to blame everything on religion. The corruption of religion is used as a tool by the power elite...but even that is not the source of all our problems. Of course it is sickening to see the hypocrisy in some of the more corrupted christian churches that do support all these wars, but you really cannot paint all these people with a broad brush. There are many battles being fought within these churches even if they look monolithic to some of us here on the outside.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:29 | 1206636 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

men do things to other men. it is silly to blame the Creator of all things for it. Did God tell the japanese to build all of those nuclear reactors in a earthquake zone? 

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:19 | 1206714 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

This seems pertinent here. Maybe you can give this a shot......

 

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? – Epicurus

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:14 | 1206789 DollarMenu
DollarMenu's picture

Good and Evil exist so that man may exercise his free will.

One must choose and in choosing, picks his path.

 

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 03:08 | 1206843 asdasmos
asdasmos's picture

I am not so sure you understand the statement.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 07:58 | 1207189 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

One must choose and in choosing, picks his path.

 

Which path? Chrisitianity has defined  a swaying path. Having slaves is christian. Is it good or evil?

Sat, 04/30/2011 - 14:09 | 1224216 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Having slaves is not Christian.  Some tried to claim it was, but they were abusing it.

Jesus did not denounce slavery.  Nor did he denounce Rome.  He pointed out that both were a fact.  Since people at that time did not have the ability to do anything about it, it would not have mattered.  Instead Jesus taught people to look at themselves and their own actions.  Change yourself first.  That's hard enough.

That is not a swaying path.  That's like saying the Constitution keeps changing its stance on the Freedom of the Press because it has been interpreted differently at different times, and adhered to at some times, stretched in others, and abused in others.

The Constitution did not change.  Neither did Christianity.  In both instances, immoral people took each out of context for their own benefit

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 07:56 | 1207190 Tramp Stamper
Tramp Stamper's picture

Is it really that hard to believe that religion is any different than the illusion

of the frn being real $$.  Almost all people have been conditioned over the

years into believing that.  The problem is all fiat currency dies at some point

due to expansion of supply and devaluation.  Religion does not have that

problem so that fantasy can go on forever.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 07:59 | 1207191 Tramp Stamper
Tramp Stamper's picture

Is it really that hard to believe that religion is any different than the illusion

of the frn being real $$.  Almost all people have been conditioned over the

years into believing that.  The problem is all fiat currency dies at some point

due to expansion of supply and devaluation.  Religion does not have that

problem so that fantasy can go on forever.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 04:45 | 1206926 rich_wicks
rich_wicks's picture

Consider that if maybe more had listened to a certain monkey-tribe religion's core beliefs, there might not have been the greed\envy\sloth debt bubble and the real-estate crash.

Hey, who gives a crap what your beliefs are?

I'm only paying attention to what you do.

I don't care what you say you believe.  I can see what you actually believe by your actions alone.  Apparently, it's to kill Muslims on the flimsiest of excuses, to steal resources by having the US government run dictatorships or even overthrow governments, and to defend those Israeli nuts at any and all costs, no matter what the blowback is to the United States.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:12 | 1206192 wang
wang's picture

no, this is America

 

People of Walmart

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:29 | 1206639 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

those are called walmartians....

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 22:24 | 1206387 Creed
Creed's picture

the Christians built America into the greatest nation EVER; jealous much?

 

the progressives and eurotrash type socialists have driven it into the ground

 

Ron Paul rocks because he actually believes the constitution of the USA is worth adhering to

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:43 | 1206747 Judge Holden
Judge Holden's picture

Many of the founders were deists, not Christian.  Also, if you're going to make such a blanket claim to "building America", does that also mean that Christians are responsible for the using of slaves?  Blanket statements about groups of people are always wrong, especially when they make such monumental claims like this. 

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 09:17 | 1207418 monoloco
monoloco's picture

Mention religion and the lemmings come out in force.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 04:47 | 1206933 rich_wicks
rich_wicks's picture

the Christians built America into the greatest nation EVER; jealous much?

Thanks for the genocide of the natives, if you want to take credit.

You might want to do some work actually reading something about the people who did create this nation.  Read the Jeffersonian bible if you like.

Now a prerequiquisite to electing anybody, is having them lie to you about how much they love Jesus.  Times sure have changed.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:34 | 1207724 Matxeu
Matxeu's picture

The Native American curse is coming to fruition- only escape is to tap into earth's conscious.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:01 | 1205915 Twindrives
Twindrives's picture

Yeah, it's a real toss up in the uglyfest between Whoopi and Michelle Obama.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:32 | 1206086 Conrad Murray
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 22:39 | 1206426 Rahm
Rahm's picture

FTW!

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:52 | 1206683 FEDbuster
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:05 | 1205938 Lord Welligton
Lord Welligton's picture

Goldberg?

What? She's Jewish?

I thought she was a Nun.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:42 | 1206111 thames222
thames222's picture

Black and Jewish--keep up with the times, brother.  thoughts on Paul vs. Trump 2012?

 

www.forecastfortomorrow.com

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:13 | 1205968 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

Joy, the most erroneously named human in America.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 23:26 | 1206533 Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

If you look up Bitch you'll find a picture of Joy beside it.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:57 | 1206688 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Funny, her picture was next to "Stupid Cunt" also?

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:22 | 1206799 Blank Reg
Blank Reg's picture

I like Whoopi and Joy. But then again I like rabies, so maybe I'm not a good judge.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 04:05 | 1206884 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

You forgot Scabies.

Rabies and Scabies.

They are a matching set.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 08:45 | 1207296 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Whoppi couldn't grasp the fact that it is not the government's job to "take care" of all the poor, lazy and broke ass people in the world.  By government "taking care" of them, they stay poor, lazy and broke.  With the attitude that "the government better take care of me!".

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 06:58 | 1207077 Badabing
Badabing's picture

With the religion / atheism issue aside what do you think of Ron Paul.

Lets not get duped by divide and conquer …….. Machiavelli 101

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:12 | 1207634 Smiley
Smiley's picture

I don't watch the View but damn Whoopi got HUGE!  Lay off the Bon-Bons woman!

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:12 | 1205947 SparkyvonBellagio
SparkyvonBellagio's picture

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Hope he chooses RICK SANTELLI as his VP.

 

That's the ticket.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:36 | 1206102 Holodomor2012
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:46 | 1206132 lynnybee
lynnybee's picture

More Traficant / great Traficant :     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ8mFbLDnlA

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:30 | 1206811 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Traficant always talked a good game, but that's all it was - talk.  He never stood up for anything when up against the wall.

He has long ties with the Youngstown mob.  We already have enough crooks in DC.  We don't need him back

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:12 | 1206198 SofaPapa
SofaPapa's picture

with William Black at DOJ...

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 22:25 | 1206391 nkktwotwozero
nkktwotwozero's picture

"Blah blah blah....PLeaze beleive me!"

That part of the trial was boring!

--

Idiocracy became a documentary.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:39 | 1206819 JumpinJonnyK
JumpinJonnyK's picture

I could not agree more with Ron Paul.  I HOPE the US people can vote for the good guy once.  This is a man looking out for your interest.  VOTE FOR HIM!!

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 07:54 | 1207180 UnRealized Reality
UnRealized Reality's picture

Yea, That's going to work. He will be President at the time the US collapses. And furthermore the Gold standard will not work, been there,done that. He himself stated that he needs the support of the GOP to go any where. So there it is, same old same old. Hope is a powerful thing. He is not the answer. Collapse and a new currency is the answer, weather you like it or not.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:19 | 1205699 narnia
narnia's picture

Game on... let's hope we have a nation to save in 2012.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:56 | 1205819 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

Paul/Perot 2012.....

*all junks courtesy of the Federal Reserve =P

 

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:01 | 1205927 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Forget the presidency, I will back Ron Paul for Emperor of the United States in 2012.  This two party puppet show is worthless.  Let's give Ron Paul the rest of his life (he's 75) to try and straighten this mess out without congress or the supreme court.  Make Judge Andrew Napolitano his right hand man.  I would trust those two to run the whole show, it's got to be a whole lot better than what we have now.  Dr. Paul stands for sound money, fair and free markets and would shut the FED down on day one.  Plus he would tell the banksters and military industrial complex to fuck off or go to jail or both.

Ron Paul for Emperor 2012

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:18 | 1206012 VegasBD
VegasBD's picture

Sounds awesome, but RP is so diciplined and unwaivering in his beliefs that even he would not take that job, or do anything that violates the constitution in any way. End doesnt justify the means. =\

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:24 | 1206628 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

A guy can still dream of a better world.  Who is John Galt?

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:24 | 1206028 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

We are about due for our 4th dictator (in the Ancient Roman sense of the term). We don't need anymore panderers, or strong men. It is the rare person that can take absolute power to return it to the people, the walk away from it all. Washington was such a dictator. Lincoln and FDR...not so much.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:46 | 1206130 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Don't forget to give some respect to Dwight D. Esienhower.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:58 | 1206317 avonaltendorf
avonaltendorf's picture

I just sent an email to Tyler, saying that the only way to deny Soetoro a second term is for the Republicans to nominate an Army general like Franks or McCrystal.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 22:41 | 1206424 magis00
magis00's picture

Or Lt. Colonel Allan West:

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4657115/obamas-third-world-dictator-like-arro...

 

 

This guy is has serious leadership qualities, and his head on straight.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 22:51 | 1206456 nevadan
nevadan's picture

I second the motion.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 00:43 | 1206667 Bolweevil
Bolweevil's picture

Petraeus' wife started campaigning today on NPR. red white and blue leaking out all over my dashboard.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:29 | 1206230 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

....we are down to our last of nine lives....one more mistake and Mexico will see folks coming the other way over the border...might be time as U.S. citizens we reconsider adding to the fence...many senior citizens will have a problem with it.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:48 | 1206289 monoloco
monoloco's picture

Some of us have already come the other way over the border.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 23:07 | 1206490 cxl9
cxl9's picture

Indeed. I moved to Mexico full-time about 1.5 years ago and I am never going back. Nice weather, great food, abundant and friendly señoritas, low cost of living, and a slower, easier pace of life. The government is not on your ass all the time. In Philadelphia, there are garbage inspectors issuing $50 tickets for putting your recycling in the wrong bin. In Mexico, the government is barely functional, which suits me just fine: the streets are more or less paved, and I am told that if you call the police they eventually show up. The American way of life is a rip-off. Debt slavery, high taxes, shallow and vapid materialism, and an obnoxious, intrusive government. You can keep it.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:06 | 1206702 Ben Fleeced
Ben Fleeced's picture

+1772

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:20 | 1205705 Smiley
Smiley's picture

I hope he gets his message out for all to see.  Sadly, I don't think he'll be allowed to have a real shot.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:31 | 1205749 MarketTruth
MarketTruth's picture

Just as Ron Paul was really gaining steam in the previous election, the major media outlets were instructed to not cover him. Furthermore, during various debates they tended to ignore him, thus not giving his 'face time'. Expect the same from major media during the next and all future elections. For it is major media that are the ones who greatly aid at moving America's voting to the way media owner's wants.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:41 | 1205821 Smiley
Smiley's picture

A certain edited audience booing clip on Fox News springs to mind...

 

Personally I think the Campaign for Liberty should have focused on getting its own television station up and running to give itself a non Fox News outlet, but what do I know?  Who knows, maybe enough peolpe will listen this time around; I'll send em a couple bucks just in case.

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 02:30 | 1206814 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

You know, I have wondered if there is enough of a "market" for some type of libertarian channel. I would love to watch the likes of Walter E. Williams, Tom Sowell, elucidations of Hayek, Mises, Harry Browne, etc. I'd pay for that.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:53 | 1205883 1fortheroad
1fortheroad's picture

Yep, the rotschildren bought reuters in the 1800s for that very reason. This has been

going on for a long time folks.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:58 | 1206316 -Michelle-
-Michelle-'s picture

And it continues.  I had hopes for YouTube until it was snatched up by Google. 

Tue, 04/26/2011 - 01:11 | 1206706 Ben Fleeced
Ben Fleeced's picture

"the rotschildren" have elders. Me thinks it's time for a pants down spanking.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:27 | 1206045 thedrickster
thedrickster's picture

Ignored until the eve of the NH primary and then the "newsletter story" was resurrected once again.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:44 | 1206114 thames222
thames222's picture

Same with Kucinich...it's really sick the way the media influences voting opinions, and really influences everything in our nation.  People need to hear the truth, maybe enough will get the hint this time and stop watching Fox News and CNN.

 

www.forecastfortomorrow.com

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:46 | 1206124 thames222
thames222's picture

Same with Kucinich...it's really sick the way the media influences voting opinions and practically everything in our nation.

 

www.forecastfortomorrow.com

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:10 | 1206188 Clancy
Clancy's picture

In 2008 no one had heard of him.  That's just not true anymore.

If my mom has heard of him, everyone has heard of him.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:44 | 1205822 FrankIvy
FrankIvy's picture

If he even gets close enough to get a sniff of the White House, he'll get a real shot, alright - I love the guy, but I want him to lose big, because there is no way they'd let him live if his message started spreading.

Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:56 | 1206137 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

I cast a protection spell on him.

If it works, the CIA's attempts to kill him will be a comedy of errors, like their 638 attempts to kill Castro.  He will then be seen as the Chosen One going into 2012.  The elites will resort to false flag terrorism to tar him and his supporters, but this will backfire.  Ultimately they will have no choice but to openly steal the election for Obama and declare martial law.  Then Texas will secede, followed by most other states, and epic lynch mobs will descend on NY and DC while our brave veterans duke it out with Blackwater, CIA assassins, Pentagon loyalists and other assorted Rothschild minions.   

Less than two years now.  Hyperinflation, food riots, FEMA camps, unpaid cops as the most brutal gangs around.  After the sheeple have their civics lessons beaten into them by billy clubs and hunger, they will awaken and give us Paul/Paul 2012!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!