Quote:
|
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.
|
Religion can
become a government.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again, I don't even know what the argument you're making here is, you're stating the obvious, just in a way that's harder to understand because your way of phrasing things is incredibly confusing.
Quote:
|
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.
|
So you admit he wants to go backwards instead of coming up with any progressive ideas.
Quote:
|
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."
|
Which btw reminds me, Paul wants to get rid of NASA too.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Try rephrasing this entire post, this time in a way that actually makes some damn sense.
I'm sorry if I believe a government is actually supposed to have a function, one that doesn't just include the protection of peoples rights, but even some forms of community service.
Wanting to disban the FBI and CIA is pretty much the definition of a ridiculously stingy psychopath.