Who's this prick?

[Atomic_Piggy]

It isn't about particular issues, it's about who has the power to decide.

Would you be singing the same tune if the federal government enforced viewpoints that you disagreed with?

If it is infringing on peoples rights, then the federal government should change enforce the viewpoints, regardless of what I think.

Centralisation of power is never a good thing. You can always choose not to live in Texas.

I didn't mention Texas :|

I also noticed Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

 

[repiV]

If it is infringing on peoples rights, then the federal government should change enforce the viewpoints, regardless of what I think.

Who defines what is and isn't "infringing on people's rights"? I can think of dozens of ways our rights are infringed on on a daily basis by our, er, apparently benign, "secular" government, and to a greater degree than they are in "religious" America.
Why would a federal government be any better at doing that than a state government?
You're not far off advocating dictatorship. Democracy isn't something that's only valid when it produces results you agree with.

I mean, come on, most of the same people who would be up in arms about this would also be the ones saying that despotic regimes in Africa and the Middle East should be free to do whatever they want, and we shouldn't meddle.
Stoning raped women to death? That's ok - it's part of their culture and we have to respect it.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Who defines what is and isn't "infringing on people's rights"? I can think of dozens of ways our rights are infringed on on a daily basis by our, er, apparently benign, "secular" government, and to a greater degree than they are in "religious" America.

Yes, but at least the state doesn't meddle in what two conesnting individuals do in private.

Why would a federal government be any better at doing that than a state government?

You'll have to explain the difference D:

You're not far off advocating dictatorship. Democracy isn't something that's only valid when it produces results you agree with.

Of course its not, but people should be allowed to do whatever they want in private and nobody else has any right to tell them that it is wrong - epecially if they can't help it.

I mean, come on, most of the same people who would be up in arms about this would also be the ones saying that despotic regimes in Africa and the Middle East should be free to do whatever they want, and we shouldn't meddle.
Stoning raped women to death? That's ok - it's part of their culture and we have to respect it.

Of course they shoudn't be allowed to that. Those people are barbarians and in a perfect world we'd invade them and sort them out.

But invasions only make things worse, as Iraq demonstrated.

 

[Mr Stabby]

If it is infringing on peoples rights, then the federal government should change enforce the viewpoints, regardless of what I think.

The government should not enforce views of any kind it contradicts freedom. Ron Paul is also a strict constitutionalist, so he wouldn't allow the crazier religious stuff.

I also noticed Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

In the republican debate at which Huckabee said he didn't accept evolution Ron Paul indicated he did.

 

[repiV]

Yes, but at least the state doesn't meddle in what two conesnting individuals do in private.

Yes it does. For a start, paying someone in exchange for sex is a criminal offence. So is a sexual relationship between eg. a teacher and a student.
Since you said "consenting individuals", I'm going to be a bit of an arse and point out that statutory rape is also a crime - yet can most definitely involve two consenting individuals.
And since you didn't narrow your criteria to sex only, euthanasia, heroin amongst many other activities that two consenting individuals can do are also illegal.

You'll have to explain the difference D:

I will? It's a fundamental concept to this whole discussion...

Of course its not, but people should be allowed to do whatever they want in private and nobody else has any right to tell them that it is wrong - epecially if they can't help it.

That's an issue of political philosophy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with state's rights.

 

[Javert]

That kinda depends on how you define power. I would say it is a gross exaggeration. The Roman Empire controlled more land mass and a larger percentage of the global population. And then, the power was more centralized when they had an emperor with absolute authority.

The Romans did not have the power destroy the Earth with a bomb.

 

[ericms]

The Romans did not have the power destroy the Earth with a bomb.

Well, I think Dan meant relative to the empires/people of the era.

- Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Ron Paul is a Christian radical, we don't need another one of those in the White House.

I'm not sure of the extent of his "radicalism," but from what I can recall in the debates he wants: the state out of marriage (which would give no particular party benefits), the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to treat both heterosexual and homosexual disruptive behavior similarly, a neutral position on stem cell research by not allowing the government to either prohibit it or subsiding it, and also to allow for the states to deal with a woman's right to abort a child.

Anyway, ever since I saw him reference Lysander Spooner in an interview and heard that he has a framed picture of Murray Rothbard in his office I have wondered about his anarchist tendencies. I wish someone would ask him, more directly, the extent of which he has conflicting interests with them.

 

[2real]

The outcome of the election effects countries and people all over the world. So yes, I'm going to "tell you that". Even if the election was for a small country whose policies didn't directly effect countries on other continents, I still wouldn't want a non-secular leader in power there, as nothing good would come out of it. And when we're talking about the most powerful nation in history, I certainly think I'm allowed to have an opinion on its leadership.

so he can't be President because he's religous? oh noes

 

[mastapenguin]

so he can't be President because he's religous?

Well... yes, that's the opinion of many of us on these boards. We'd rather a leader of men base his or her decisions on what is needed, as opposed to arbitrary tenets of a several thousand year old document.

 

[No Limit]

And don't forget this guy helped release a convicted rapist only beacause the victim of this rapist was related to Clinton. This rapist went on to rape again and then kill his victim a couple years later. Christian conservative values, you gotta love it.

And for all those not understanding why we have such a huge problem with these religious extremists becoming president:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-IcUumWzue4

 

[K e r b e r o s]

* Huckabee opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions. In an interview with GQ Magazine, Huckabee said, "There?s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."
* Huckabee has voiced his support of creationism. He was quoted in July 2004 on Arkansans Ask, his regular show on the Arkansas Educational Television Network: "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism." Huckabee also stated "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally." In the Third GOP Debate in June 2007, Huckabee was asked by Tom Fahey whether he believed in evolution, and he responded, in part: "I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don?t honestly know, and I don?t think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president." Huckabee's position is that acceptance of evolution is not relevant to being President.
* Huckabee supports the War in Iraq and the troop surge.
* In a 1992 statement, Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general population.
* In 1992, Huckabee said that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." In 2007, his view that homosexuality is sinful and not normal has not changed.

Wow, this guys on my shit list.