New Ron Paul "Money Bomb" is today: DONATE!

[luckydevil]

Just to add, once upon a time in this country, some of the greatest opponents of the creation of the federal reserve were *gasp* progressives.

[Mad Mike]

If everyone lived by that quote our collective moral bar will have been raised.

That may be the dumbest thing you have ever said.

A) You are asking people to give their hard earned money to Ron Paul when he has zero chance of winning.

If everyone believed that quote, where would you find a fireman to run into a burning building and save a life?

C) As a christian, you have just denounced the life of Christ.

But on the bright side of all this Ron Paul for president garbage, I can break out this puppy again....

[doctorshockalu]

So still no reason yet as to why he is crazy besides a few outright lies. So why does he get the crazy tag? I can see people calling Obama crazy since almost everything he campaignEd on was the exact opposite of what he actually followed through with. I just don't get it?

[The Evil Genius]

Wait, how does wanting to abolish the federal reserve count as a conspiracy theory? You may think it's crazy, but conspiracy?

Depends I guess on the the reasons behind the (and his) movement to abolish it.

From what I have heard - the conspiracies revolve around constitutionality, public/private ownership, who crafted the original 1913 Fed Reserve act, etc.

Does Paul buy into that? Who knows really. Does his disciples? Meh.

But it's hard not to lump those who want to see it abolished (perhaps for legit reasons - although those are few and far between in my opinion) with the nuts who think it should be abolished because they buy into the conspiracies about it.

[SnyderShrugged]

That may be the dumbest thing you have ever said.

A) You are asking people to give their hard earned money to Ron Paul when he has zero chance of winning.

If everyone believed that quote, where would you find a fireman to run into a burning building and save a life?

C) As a christian, you have just denounced the life of Christ.

But on the bright side of all this Ron Paul for president garbage, I can break out this puppy again....

Thats cool Mike, I'm surprised you havent come in to rant in this thread long before now. Its certainly your MO and I fully expect it and even respect your opinion despite numerous inaccuracies. But all is good.

Your list is very weird though?

lets explore it some...

A) You are asking people to give their hard earned money to Ron Paul when he has zero chance of winning. Yes, I am doing that and assume that those who like him will donate and those who dont, wont. Not sure how that qualifies as out of bounds in your mind.

If everyone believed that quote, where would you find a fireman to run into a burning building and save a life? Because that fireman makes the personal choice to do so?

C) As a christian, you have just denounced the life of Christ. Huh???? LOL this is a funny one, please explain!

Yes, you will follow the same format in your fun bashing and sig pics and ad hominem attacks. The difference is that this time around, I'll try my best to simply discuss our differences and not sink to the level of childishness that you did last campaign. I look forward to hearing your ideas and thoughts on improving from the rough position that our country is in and whom you will ultimately support to reach those goals along with how they will do so in detail.

Its going to be a really fun and educational campaign and I hope we all learn a lot of details about all the candidates and how they match up in ideas.

[luckydevil]

Depends I guess on the the reasons behind the movement to abolish it.

From what I have heard - the conspiracies revolve around constutionality, public/private ownership, who crafted the original 1913 Fed Reserve act, etc. Does Paul buy into that? Who knows - but its hard not to lump those who want to see it abolished (perhaps for legit reasons - altough those are few and far between in my opinion) with the nuts who think it should be abolished because they buy into the consiracies about it.

In the age of tarp and the great recession ( we live in a time where wall street can get away with murder and banking interests trump all), some of those crazy conspiracy theories don't sound all that crazy.

[The Evil Genius]

In the age of tarp and the great recession ( we live in a time when wall street can get away with murder and banking interests trump all), some of those crazy conspiracy theories don't sound all that crazy.

Of course, it doesn't make them anything other than conspiracy theories either.

[luckydevil]

I view politics as largely a waste of time, but Paul doesn't have too win to make an impact or have influence. He already has made an impact ( the call for transparency when it comes to the fed is no longer a one man agenda, but now shares large bipartisan support)

[Mad Mike]

Yes, you can and should make the choice. Again, that is not at odds at all with my quote. Does God say anywhere that you should be forced to give at the point of anothers gun or does God actually say simply to give from your heart?

That would make perfect sense if the quote read "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never BE FORCED to live for the sake of another man, nor FORCE another man to live for mine." But that's not what Rand said.

I dont understand your point in #1 because I know for a fact that our system of Government was never meant to be an empire.

Maybe you should look up the word Empire:

a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, french Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

2.

a government under an emperor or empress.

The poor and needy ultimately have more actual, moral help in a free system.

See, now you are just making **** up. Because in all of human history there isnt a single example to support your claim.

[Predicto]

So still no reason yet as to why he is crazy besides a few outright lies. So why does he get the crazy tag? I can see people calling Obama crazy since almost everything he campaignEd on was the exact opposite of what he actually followed through with. I just don't get it?

That's because you joined the site in 2009. We have discussed Ron Paul until we are all blue in the face. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of him.

He's a nutter, and it's sad, because some libertarian ideas are very good and they are diminshed by their association with Paul. Gary Johnson would be an infinitely better standard bearer for those ideas.

[SnyderShrugged]

I view politics as largely a waste time, but Paul doesn't have too win to make an impact or have influence. He already has made an impact ( the call for transparency when it comes to the fed is no longer a one man agenda, but now shares large bipartisan support)

Honestly, thats about the best most Paul supporters can hope for too. I hold few illusions that he will win, but when I reflect on the issues that were raised in the last 4 years from the basement into public dialog, I feel validated and even a little bit happy.

The conversations need to happen and minus the emotions that often come into play, they are good discussions to have regardless of the winner

[SkinsHokieFan]

Honestly, thats about the best most Paul supporters can hope for too. I hold few illusions that he will win, but when I reflect on the issues that were raised in the last 4 years from the basement into public dialog, I feel validated and even a little bit happy.

The conversations need to happen and minus the emotions that often come into play, they are good discussions to have regardless of the winner

The conversations are too uncomfortable for the unholy political class-big business alliance which this entire country engages in.

It is laughable what our Congress, President and the Federal Resereve have been allowed to get away with since 2007. A complete joke. All we can hope for is that Paul makes enough of a dent to force the conversation to change. We have seen progress already with a bi-partisan group of Representatives in Congress calling for greater transperancey at the Federal Reserve.

That was considered "kooky" and "loony" as little as 4 years ago

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally Posted by SnyderShrugged

Yes, you can and should make the choice. Again, that is not at odds at all with my quote. Does God say anywhere that you should be forced to give at the point of anothers gun or does God actually say simply to give from your heart?

That would make perfect sense if the quote read "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never BE FORCED live for the sake of another man, nor FORCE another man to live for mine." But that's not what Rand said.

What happens when a Federal mandate isnt followed by an individual Mike? The final conclusion, when taken that far, is often armed enforcement and/or imprisonment. That is basically the core of my comments. Please take it for what its meant to be.

I dont understand your point in #1 because I know for a fact that our system of Government was never meant to be an empire.

Maybe you should look up the word Empire:

a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, french Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

2.

a government under an emperor or empress.

While the US might not qualify for the traditional definition of a pure empire, we certainly have facets of one in that our actions in many different foreign nations could well be seen as empire building by the inhabitants of those nations. I see your point though, that maybe empire is too strong of a phrase.

The poor and needy ultimately have more actual, moral help in a free system.

See, now you are just making **** up. Because in all of human history there isnt a single example to support your claim.

Many who believe as I do, or in some variant, feel that our malinvestment and largess approach to large government ultimately ends up doing the opposite of its good intent. Thus the reason why things like the war on poverty and the war on drugs have failed so miserably. I know that many have a different opinion, but to me its simple. If every single individual's rights are protected exactly equal and no special considerations for any one group or individual is made, then that is the most moral position to take. Take it for what its worth in our discussion, but thats my personal belief.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 02:04 PM ----------

That's because you joined the site in 2009. We have discussed Ron Paul until we are all blue in the face. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of him.

He's a nutter, and it's sad, because some libertarian ideas are very good and they are diminshed by their association with Paul. Gary Johnson would be an infinitely better standard bearer for those ideas.

It is tough when someone you dislike gains popularity and gets more and more time in media to explain their core beliefs, especially when those core beliefs are contrary to your own. For the record, I really like Johnson too. I'm curious though in what is the differentiator between them in your eyes if you hate Paul but like Johnson?

[doctorshockalu]

That's because you joined the site in 2009. We have discussed Ron Paul until we are all blue in the face. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of him.

He's a nutter, and it's sad, because some libertarian ideas are very good and they are diminshed by their association with Paul. Gary Johnson would be an infinitely better standard bearer for those ideas.

Cliffs then. I still have not seen why is a "nutter". Extremely libertarian yes.

[Mad Mike]

B ) Because that fireman makes the personal choice to do so? Then he has rejected the quote. again Rand did not say "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never BE FORCED to live for the sake of another man, nor FORCE another man to live for mine." She said that she simply would not do it. PERIOD.

C) Huh???? LOL this is a funny one, please explain! Funny huh? What if Christ believed as Ayn Rand? You know. The guy who gave up his life by being nailed to a cross for mankind? How about this?...

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 “Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up. 24 Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person.

[SnyderShrugged]

riginally Posted by SnyderShrugged

B ) Because that fireman makes the personal choice to do so? Then he has rejected the quote. again Rand did not say "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never BE FORCED to live for the sake of another man, nor FORCE another man to live for mine." She said that she simply would not do it. PERIOD.

Your errant assumption is that the fireman LIVES for another, he chooses to help another. You are also missing the fact that it is a quote from a fictional book from a fictional character, a chachter who is time and again done wrong by being forced to live for another. You are misunderstanding the quote, but thats OK. I get it

C) Huh???? LOL this is a funny one, please explain! Funny huh? What if Christ believed as Ayn Rand? You know. The guy who gave up his life by being nailed to a cross for mankind? How about this?...

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 “Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up. 24 Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person.

again, I have some trouble understanding your point on this. But Christ never once said in anywhere that I am aware of that any one person should have to live for the sake of another. But Christ certainly said that one should choose to help others from the heart and for no other reason that its rightfulness. Christ wouldnt support harming one person on purpose so another can feel better.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 02:12 PM ----------

The conversations are too uncomfortable for the unholy political class-big business alliance which this entire country engages in.

It is laughable what our Congress, President and the Federal Resereve have been allowed to get away with since 2007. A complete joke. All we can hope for is that Paul makes enough of a dent to force the conversation to change. We have seen progress already with a bi-partisan group of Representatives in Congress calling for greater transperancey at the Federal Reserve.

That was considered "kooky" and "loony" as little as 4 years ago

and sadly, it appears that some still feel that way too. But every day a baby step toward opening another persons eyes will help and I'm encouraged overall.

[AsburySkinsFan]

again, I have some trouble understanding your point on this. But Christ never once said in anywhere that I am aware of that any one person should have to live for the sake of another. But Christ certainly said that one should choose to help others from the heart and for no other reason that its rightfulness. Christ wouldn't support harming one person on purpose so another can feel better.

Come on now Snyder that's just dishonest, the commandments of God are compulsory for ALL humanity, and the Command was that we ARE to love our neighbors as ourselves, not "should you choose" to love your neighbor as yourself. And it was God's commandments to the farmers that they (as you put it) be harmed by not harvesting all of their crops so the poor could be fed. These commands were not suggestions as you want them to be they are quite literally command-ments. I seriously don't understand how you can go to the scriptures and find Jesus saying "Hey if you want to give then do what your heart says", when the texts are so clear that giving of ourselves is commanded of us, and living for the other is commanded of us. This is honestly what I find so repulsive about Ayn Rand's selfish objectivism and I'm sorry but I absolutely deplore the fact that this thinking has made its way into the church.

[SnyderShrugged]

Come on now Snyder that's just dishonest, the commandments of God are compulsory for ALL humanity, and the Command was that we ARE to love our neighbors as ourselves, not "should you choose" to love your neighbor as yourself. And it was God's commandments to the farmers that they (as you put it) be harmed by not harvesting all of their crops so the poor could be fed. These commands were not suggestions as you want them to be they are quite literally command-ments. I seriously don't understand how you can go to the scriptures and find Jesus saying "Hey if you want to give then do what your heart says", when the texts are so clear that giving of ourselves is commanded of us, and living for the other is commanded of us. This is honestly what I find so repulsive about Ayn Rand's selfish objectivism and I'm sorry but I absolutely deplore the fact that this thinking has made its way into the church.

Nothing you say here that indicates that the quote is not accurate nor against Christian beliefs. In fact, you hit it on the head when you mention "love our neighbors as ourselves" That doesnt mean love your neighbor more than yourself does it?

I dislike much of objectivism as well, I feel much of Rands beliefs on Christianity are off and I have never professed otherwise. Where she got it right is in the desire to see every man left the free will to decide how and when they will help others in their lives and that one should never be forced to do good works as it belittles the work itslf when done for those reasons.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 02:38 PM ----------

On another note.....donations for the day just passed $500k

[PokerPacker]

can we get beyond this whole bible thing? Our government is not a theocracy. If people choose to donate their money to the needy, so be it. But keep your religion out of the government.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nothing you say here that indicates that the quote is not accurate nor against Christian beliefs. In fact, you hit it on the head when you mention "love our neighbors as ourselves" That doesnt mean love your neighbor more than yourself does it?

Self first dies right here.

Philippians 2:3-4 "3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others."

I dislike much of objectivism as well, I feel much of Rands beliefs on Christianity are off and I have never professed otherwise. Where she got it right is in the desire to see every man left the free will to decide how and when they will help others in their lives and that one should never be forced to do good works as it belittles the work itslf when done for those reasons.

And her Objectivist Utopian dream fails the instant it is confronted with the sinfulness of humanity, humanity left to itself will not look to others but instead to self.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 02:45 PM ----------

can we get beyond this whole bible thing? Our government is not a theocracy. If people choose to donate their money to the needy, so be it. But keep your religion out of the government.

No.

[SkinsHokieFan]

can we get beyond this whole bible thing? Our government is not a theocracy. If people choose to donate their money to the needy, so be it. But keep your religion out of the government.

Agree. I am failing to see why this has turned into a Christian government thread :whoknows:

[SnyderShrugged]

Self first dies right here.

Philippians 2:3-4 "3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others."

And her Objectivist Utopian dream fails the instant it is confronted with the sinfulness of humanity, humanity left to itself will not look to others but instead to self.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 02:45 PM ----------

No.

again, I agree on objecivtism, we dont really need to debate it as we feel roughly the same.

I disagree though that your quote indicates that you should have to live for the sake of others. It clearly says that selfish AMBITION and Vain Conceit are the no-no's.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 02:53 PM ----------

Agree. I am failing to see why this has turned into a Christian government thread :whoknows:

Mad Mike brought it up around my atlas shrugged quote when he chimed in on a few hour old brief conversation.

I too wish it would stay in scope of the thread title. In fact, Asbury, if you wish to discuss the Rand vs Religion topic, I'll gladly take it to PM if you like.

---------- Post added May-5th-2011 at 03:43 PM ----------

up to $550k now, Might see a Million, I doubt the 2 that I had hoped, but maybe after the debates are done some more interest might be sparked.

[Hubbs]

I wonder if Pawlenty hit the $12k target he was aiming for with his moneybomb.

[SnyderShrugged]

I wonder if Pawlenty hit the $12k target he was aiming for with his moneybomb.

edit: I tried to find it and I am starting to think that the Pawlenty one is an older item.

[FanboyOf91]

Donated some.