“He who says that religion and politics don’t mix, understands neither one.” – Gandhi
The race between Congresswoman Michelle Bachman and Governor Rick Perry is coming down to an old fashioned, Christian, church-goin, doctrinal dog fight. One that favors Bachman in the short run in Iowa and Rick Perry in the long run across the rest of the South, that is, provided the Texas governor suvives the vetting process of the next few months.
Now you aren’t going to get this play by play anywhere else boys and girls so play close attention. And it may take more than one post to accomplish this. The national media prides itself in its ignorance of religion and both the Bachman and Perry camps have good political reasons to feint in different directions about all of this. But if you stay with me, the journey will be worth it, believe me.
Here’s how it shakes out. Rick Perry is the candidate of what I will call “Classical Evangelicals,” that is, born again Christians who oppose the doctrines of the Charismatics who believe in the so called gifts of the Holy Spirit such as healing and speaking in tongues.
Some Classical Evangelicals trace their lineage back to the Fundamentalist Movement of the 19th century. Jerry Falwell comes to mind. But most resent the comparisons. Gallup shows that only 4% of today’s born againers would identify themselves as “Fundamentalists.” Others have emerged from the Holiness Movement which was big in the 19th century. They are today conservative Methodists and Nazarenes. But most of what I am calling “Classical Evangelicals” are Southern Baptists.
The organizers of the big Rick Perry day of fasting and prayer in Houston, Texas were “Classical Evangelicals.” Paige Patterson is a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the heart and soul of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. James Dobson and his wife are Nazarene. Penny Nance of Concerned Woman of America is a graduate of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. Tom Minnery is a Methodist. Tony Perkins is a Baptist. Don Wildmon, the man who paid for it all and who has the mammoth mailing list to end all mailing lists is Methodist. And the behind the scenes organizer, David Lane, is also a Southern Baptist. Rick Perry, himself, is a Methodist who attends Lake Hills Church in Austin, which dropped “Baptist” from its name to attract a wider crowd.
Now, keep in mind, according to Barna fully 51% of born again Christians are Charismatic. Most of the top ten Christian television preachers are Charismatic. But Rick Perry’s big prayer and fasting rally had just one token Charismatic on its organizing board. And that was Bishop Harry Jackson. Who also happened to be African American and not likely a player in the GOP nominating process.
On the other side of this doctrinal divide are the Charismatics, who believe in the so called gifts (charismata) of the Holy Spirit. These include Pentecostals, such as the Assemblies of God, who as their “Classical Evangelical” Nazarene and Methodist counterparts trace their lineage back to the Holiness Movement and the modern neo-pentcostals which include Catholics and other traditional Protestants, such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians who began embracing charismatic doctrines in the 1960’s. This is where Bachamn hails. She has a Lutheran heritage but ended up at Oral Roberts University, a school founded by a Pentecostal. It was a red flag to the “Classical Evangelicals.”
Okay, so if 51% of born againers are Charismatic, Michelle Bachman wins, right?
Not so fast. Now, this gets really, really complicated. First, many Charismatics are African American. Count them out. they will vote for Obama if unemployment rises to 50%. And keep in mind that generally speaking, “Classical Evangelicals” don’t like Charismatics. Only one generation ago they believed that Pentecostals were demon possessed. They probably thought that the Newsweek cover of Michelle Bachman and the goofy eyes was fully appropriate. But Charismatics have no problem voting or supporting a Classical Evangelical.
The Classical Evangelicals have been frustrated for some time. They have been casting about for a candidate for years. They liked Reagan who irritated them by picking a Charismatic as his religious liasion. Bush, Senior did the same. The younger, George W. Bush read their books and picked a Classical Evangelical to run his shop but he was playing them. After he left office he humiliated them with an interview on ABC’s Nightline where he announced that the Bible was not really true afterall.
By 2010 the Classical Evangelicals were already in a serious hunt for a candidate. They had rejected Sarah Palin as a Charismatic. She had switched to one of their own Bible Churches, but they could see through that. She and her family had been Assemblies of God in Wasilla, time enough to become demon possessed. They begged for Huckabee to come back, even though they had split with him over some past squabble last time. It had been their best chance to have a “Classical Evangelical” in the White House and a former Southern Baptist pastor at that. The Charismatics had helped him pull an upset win for him in Iowa but his own Classical Evangelicals sat on their hands in South Carolina.
At one point they were entertaining the idea of supporting Newt Gingrich. Yes, married four times but at least he didn’t speak in tongues. And then sun rose on Michelle Bachman. And they knew she could win it all and drag all of their churchgoers along with her. And they had to act fast. And that is when David Lane found Rick Perry. And came to him with money and churches and support on a tray.
Stay tuned for the rest….
Doug Wead 
I’m confused. Whats Tongues
Spontaneously talking in other languages you never knew before.
Trying to figure out where this is headed…
Great observations, Doug. I’ll be excited to follow this stream as it develops. As a historian, maybe you could shed some light on an issue that greatly concerns me as an “Evangelical Christian with Charismatic although not quite yet Demon Possessed” leanings.
Where does this prevalent Pro-War mindset come from? It seems that the very thought of taking a Ron Paul stance of simply defending our Country vs. agressive imperialistic expansion (Policing the World) is viewed, not only as un-American but un-Christian.
It seemed obvious to all of us that when the evil Soviet Empire invaded Afganistan that is made sense for us to covertly help the “Freedom Fighters,” but when we are there a few years later killing “Insurgents” it is OK because of our righteous motives?!?!
If ANY other Country were sending their troups to our shores and occupying our land to help with a “Regiem Change,” even if I don’t like our current administration, I’d go Insurgent all over them! That old “Do unto others” concept is somethimes as inconvenient as the Constitution is when it comes to trying to justify our actions!
Doug,
I think you’re over playing the “religious card.”
glenn,
We’re not “occupying” any country. We go in, clean up the mess, and get out. UNLESS the other country wants us to stay. Take Germany and Japan as examples. Do you think our troops are “occupying” these countries? Do you have a clue the USA is better than most other countries? Barry doesn’t, and neither does Ron Paul.
If it is not occupation then what would you call it? A vacation?
Protection.
Besides, Germany and Japan don’t call it occupation, why should we?
So we can’t occupy to protect?
I am curious if you would still refuse to call it an occupation if China decided to move in its troops onto our soil. Even if it was by permission of our politicians.
Occupation is what the USSR was trying to with Afghanistan in the 1980s, and what they did with eastern Europe during the Iron Curtain/Cold War days from the 1940s-1980s. Protecting and occupying are as different as helping your neighbor fight off a rapist then leaving their home and being the rapist.
Why do you insist that China has the same moral standing as the USA? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong and do a search for the word “million” and notice how many of his own people he killed to maintain control. China allows only a single child for each couple. I could go on and on, but to compare China to the USA is TOTALLY without merit.
To answer your question, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ron Paul gave permission for the Chinese troops to come here in order to not make them mad. Chinese troops on U.S. soil, unless it was a goodwill visit, would be occupation.
Ron Paul has brainwashed you into believing all countries are equal. They aren’t. Never have been, never will be. That’s another reason why he won’t be elected president.
I think building the largest U.S. Embassy in Iraq can be considered occupation.
I think building one of the largest military bases in Iraq can be considered occupation.
I think maintaining standing armies in Korea for 50 years can be considered occupation.
I think using our “protection” to implement McDonalds and other corporations in these areas can be considered occupation.
Under your philosophy, nothing would qualify as occupation until we put up an American flag and declare it a new territory.
Oops, I guess my territorial residency established through USPS (yes, a U.S. federal territory) while I was deployed overseas doesn’t qualify as occupation either.
Any U.S. Embassy in Iraq would be the largest, because there is only one! LOL
I think winding down the military base in Iraq cannot be considered occupation. LOL
I think South Korea is happy we are there, so how can that be considered occupation?
Implement McDonalds? LOL
Under your philosophy, anything would qualify as occupation, such as any military person in uniform. LOL
Oops! I think you forgot your brain! LOL
The #1 reason given for 50+ years by “terrorists” for their attacks against us (Bin Ladden included) is our “occupation” of their lands. Just because WE don’t call it that and we view ourselves as “better than most other countries” (i.e. – less deserving of being treated with equal respect for their rights) doesn’t mean that they share our perspective.
We have PERMANENT bases in 60+ Countries. I have business interests in 34 of them and MOST of them don’t like us and don’t want us there (Germany and Japan included). We went into Iraq and Afganistan building PERMANENT facilities and have no intention of “cleaning up” and leaving. We’ve killed approximately 1 million “insurgents” in the process (we only do body counts of OUR side). I don’t think they share your perspective about us being “better” than them.
I’ve talked with Ron Paul and he is NOT an isolationist… he is FOR a STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE. He just make a big distinction between Defense spending and Military spending and insists that we follow the Constitution regarding our war efforts. NO President by executive order should be able to take our Nation to war.
Terrorists want to be left alone so they can plot additional 9/11 style attacks. That’s what they mean by “occupation” of their lands. Who cares what people who want to kill us think?
Of course there is a minority of people who don’t want us in Germany and Japan. You can find people on both sides of virtually ANY issue. But why aren’t the German and Japanese governments making news every day to remove us from their countries?
You have to be willing to USE a strong national defense or it’s a waste of money. If you don’t think we have benefited from the war against terrorism in multiple countries, go live in one of them and see how long you last. Presidents have consistently pushed the envelope with the War Powers act. Get over it.
“But why aren’t the German and Japanese governments making news every day to remove us from their countries? ”
Perhaps it could be that our soldiers spending their paychecks over there helps their economy at the expense of our own?
Jared,
There is seldom a single reason for the answer to questions like this, unless you’re a Ron Paul groupie, that is. I’m sure that’s part of the answer. I don’t know if you realize it, but the Japanese and European economies are not doing well. Perhaps we should send more troops over to help their economies even more. Don’t let Barry see this, he may DO it. LOL
Another part is if we spend our money on the military, they can spend it on social programs. Another part is value their alliance with us against other countries and don’t believe we are occupying their country.
I’m sure Ron’s supporters can identify many more reasons than just one.
The very word alliance, does it not inherently imply that you are choosing sides in a war?
Why add more ingredients for global conflict?
We should have a military no doubt about it, but I think their focus should be on defending our borders, not someone else’s.
Alliances are used primarily to show a united front to PREVENT war.
Yes, why don’t we just “mind our own business” while the terrorists organize a Jihad that would make 9/11 look like a party?
There are no longer borders that can be guarded to ensure safety. It isn’t 1776, it is 2011.
Tex your fear-mongering does not work on me. 🙂
Jared,
You should be thankful others are doing their homework so my “fear-mongering” never becomes a reality. As one example, it would be relatively easy to launch a nuclear missile over the USA and cause severe damage to anything electronic as well as our electric grid, which may not be recoverable for several months:
Click to access A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf
You have absolutely no idea what we’re up against, please leave it to the adults to take care of you and Ron Paul.
You know what Tex, I think if you had that capability to launch something yourself, you would probably explode it right over my house just to prove a point.
You know what Jared, I think if you had a brain cell you would probably use it, just to prove a point.
Tex I have got plenty of brain cells. I scored a 99 on my ASVAB and was offered any job I wanted in the Army back in 2003. After using my brain cells and realizing that I had many more than our commander and chief at that time had it was wiser not to trust my life to someone who would send me to war in a careless fashion. If we had a commander in chief at the time like Ron Paul I would have accepted the offer let me tell you.
My name is Jared Thrasher from Pawhuska Oklahoma, Tex I am willing to place my true identity on the line in defense of this man.
Now who are you to try and attack Ron Paul? Hiding behind your anonymous handles?
Likewise, you reveal your own ignorance.
I was 1 of 4 primary missile defense operators for 108th Airborne. Arguably, one of the best and most trusted air defense units the Army has. My Commander was the first operator ever to knock a SCUD out of the sky with PAC-3 and one of my mentors. I carried a secret clearance for the entirety of my service. I spent years training against both Iranian and N. Korean air threats. I DEPLOYED to Korea and was slated to deploy “around” Iran.
If you think ANY missile is ever coming close to the USA, Israel, or any of our assets.. you are a typical fear-induced American slave to war propaganda.
It is a mathematical impossibility for any missile to enter anywhere near our airspace, because it’s designed to be that way.
I was training daily in intense WWIII air battles deciphering every trick in the book, while you were sitting around on your couch talking about how scary Islam is with your beer-induced friends.
Why don’t you just shut up and trot along before I make you look like more of a fool.
Go pick up the book “The Grand Chessboard”. I’m sure it’s right up your alley, you damn war-monger. You are far more a bigger threat to American freedom with your psychotic ignorance.
Thanks for sending my friends to die in vain. If you’d like I can bring you pictures of them to your door so you can think about the impact of your foolishness.
P.S. Oh and by the way, 90% of everything you see and hear in the public sector about “threats” or “capabilities” is fabricated bullshit, just so you and our enemies never understand what our true abilities are.
Brett,
All your fancy missiles did a great job on 9/11, didn’t they? LOL
Are you saying the people who issued that report are lying or stupid? Perhaps your secret clearance didn’t allow you to see the Top Secret information.
That’s wonderful, Jared. Now if you could only USE those brain cells. You aren’t privy to the intelligence reports that Bush had, nor the expert advice from a variety of others. You’re so stupid you think you’re smart. I doubt the USA would exist today if Ron Paul were president in the first decade of this century.
There are many people who don’t use their real names on blogs, I happen to be one of them. It doesn’t change the facts, just like know your name doesn’t change the facts, either.
Who am I? I have REAL military experience, not someone who was too afraid to do their job and never joined.
Typo: It doesn’t change the facts, just like knowing your name doesn’t change the facts, either.
Blindly trusting intelligence reports may have been what got us further into this mess. Thats just my opinion so call me names if you want to Tex if thats what makes you feel like an adult.
So, you suggest we ignore intelligence reports? Especially if our intelligence reports agrees with reports from other countries, as was the case in the Iraq WMD? And let’s not forget Saddam had already used WMD in the form of chemical weapons on his very own people, and had to be thrown out of Kuwait after invading that country (and he did a REAL occupation, by taking over the government, with widespread murder and raping of civilians). What’s your suggestion, flip a coin? Or hunker down like a Ron Paul turtle, and hope the terrorists were happy with their 9/11 results in the USA, and were planning to attack other countries in their known training camps? Do you even have a clue of a clue, Jared?
I suggest that they should be analyzed with more scrutiny thats all.
And if all these other intelligence reports from other countries were from our so-called allies does that not strongly suggest that our entagling alliances overseas have something to gain from us overextending ourselves?
Intelligence reports, by definition, are heavily scrutinized. Bush was criticized for not anticipating 9/11, now you want to have more scrutiny? Do you realize these are all life and death decisions, there is no guarantee they will be right 100% of the time, and doing nothing by “more scrutiny” has potential negative implications as well? Are you NUTS???
It’s not a question of “if” the other countries’ intelligence reports agreed with our assessment, that is a settled FACT. Are you calling the UK a “so-called ally?” The world is tangled. As I said above, this is 2011, not 1776. Allies expect to have mutual benefit from their partnerships. Is this bad in your mind? Or would you rather hunker down and wait for the next 9/11?
We should have free trade partnerships with ALL nations, not running around the world picking fights.
Look Tex there’s probably some things we could agree on but your so busy calling calling me NUTS that it makes it hard to reason with you.
Jared,
Is that your view of America? We are “…running around the world picking fights?”
Of course we SHOULD have free trade partnerships with ALL nations, and it’s easy to make it come true – just click your red ruby slippers three times, and keep repeating, “There’s no guy like Ron, there’s no guy like Ron….” LOL
I know, we should trade all of our computer technology to Iran and North Korea, then they can send it back to us installed in a finished product, a nuclear ICBM. Brilliant!
And then you think I shouldn’t call it as I see it, and say you’re nuts?
At least Ron wants to make the attempt at free trade with all nations. You seem to want to start another Cold War. Do you think that would help the economy?
And you think the USA has NOT tried free trade in the past with terrorist countries like North Korea? Look up North Korea under this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration
Those who don’t learn their history are doomed to repeat it. Ever hear of Neville Chamberlain?
Thank you for finally giving me a civil response Tex. Quite frankly no I am not particularly familiar with Bill Clinton’s foreign policy. I will take the time this weekend to study up on it when I am not spending time with my family. And no I have never heard of Neville Chamberlain. I will read up on him as well. Can I get you to promise that your future responses will be civil and you will not resort to any demagoguery?
You have a lot to learn. I will answer as I see fit. It’s called the First Amendment. Look that one up while you’re at it.
It was merely a request tex.
I fully endorse your right to answer as you see fit.
And yes I do have a lot to learn, learning is a lifelong virtue for me.
One of the things i have learned is that its a lot easier to get someone to accept your views if you are not an egotistical link-posting know-it-all who does not use tact in their responses.
I certainly hope for the sake of your party that you do not represent the majority of the GOP. Your megalomania doesnt do much to attract a new base. Keep spewing your hate and see.
Good, then don’t try to label my posts as “demagoguery” when you don’t even respond to most of my questions, then demonstrate you have no handle on history, let alone the current events.
I also have a lot of knowledge and intend to apply that knowledge. If someone as ignorant as you are doesn’t like it, then you should keep learning and stop spouting off as if you know what you’re talking about. If you don’t like my lack of tact, try visiting a 3rd world country sometime, and you may find yourself literally kissing the ground of the USA when you return. You should be far less concerned about my direct method and much more concerned about your lack of knowledge on very basic history.
I certainly hope for the sake of Ron Paul that you do not represent the majority of his positions. Your ignorance doesn’t do much to attract a new base. Keep spewing your ignorance and see.
Actually, I know your positions are typical of Ron Paul supporters, that’s another reason why he doesn’t have a chance.
Don’t bother asking me any more questions if I am so ignorant then.
Make your hateful statements then leave me and the other supporters alone.
Q:
{
Do you realize these are all life and death decisions, there is no guarantee they will be right 100% of the time, and doing nothing by “more scrutiny” has potential negative implications as well?
}
A:
{
I realize that life and death are at stake and do not think that we should do nothing when we are attacked. Since the CIA can’t guarantee that they will be right 100% of the time don’t you think that their operations should be held much more accountable to Congress?
}
Q:
{
“Are you calling the UK a “so-called ally?”
}
A:
{
I’d much rather the UK be our friend, not an ally. True friends don’t drag you into a fight.
}
Q:
{
“Or would you rather hunker down and wait for the next 9/11?”
}
A:
{
An interventionist foreign policy caused 9/11.
}
Q:
{
“Is that your view of America? We are “…running around the world picking fights?”
}
A
{
That’s not my view of America, thats my view of an interventionist foreign policy that both parties have endorsed for a long time
}
Q:
{
“And you think the USA has NOT tried free trade in the past with terrorist countries like North Korea?”
}
A:
{
Per your link:
The Administration endorsed a doctrine of forceful intervention in world affairs, arguing “that the U.S. has the right to use military force to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources,” and must maintain huge military forces “forward deployed” in Europe and Asia “in order to shape people’s opinions about us” and “to shape events that will affect our livelihood and our security.”
So yes I agree with you tex, forceful intervention does not work.
As for Neville, per wikipedia, he was best known for his appeasment forign policy.
An appeasemnet foreign policy also per wikipedia is the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise. Compromise being the key word here Tex. Ron is no compromiser. He stands on principle. He doesn’t advocate an appeasement foreign policy. He wants us to lead by example. How would we like it if China started throwing its weight around the way we do?
As for labeling the entire country of North Korea terrorist, I think we shouldn’t have a definition so broad and ambiguous for the word terrorist as to include an entire country. Do you consider the poor people in North Korea who have been threatened with their lives for loyalty to their tyrant to be terrorists too?
I think we need to specifically identify the individuals who attack us and target them as individuals.
Is that too humble for you?
}
Tex a person with megalomania may not be interested in self-reflection or personal change. It may do you good to know that as your swollen head gets smaller, as a person you will grow.
If I am ignorant of something, I’m not afraid to let you know that, nor am I afraid to learn something new.
Its really laughable how people like you have to keep reassuring yourself that Ron is unelectable. The more electable he becomes, the louder your shrill cries seem to echo.
I will no longer elevate your hatred by providing you with any further responses.
I ask you questions to permanently display your ignorance on this blog. I haven’t made a single hateful statement, you’re just too wimpy to take it like a real man.
Congress can’t keep a secret. That’s why there are Congressional committees. It’s called national security and need to know.
I would like us all to be friends. But that isn’t reality. Live with it. True friends and allies have each others’ backs.
Religious nut-jobs caused 9/11.
If we don’t intervene, others will. Like China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, etc. That’s reality. We don’t live in Ron Paul’s desired fantasy world, we live in a real world. Deal with it.
Forceful intervention, when necessary is working pretty well for us. The U.S. is the oldest, continuously operating government in the world. Is it perfect? Of course not. But compare it to everything else, and it wins hands down. So no, you don’t agree with me. You only think you do.
Chamberlain “compromised” England right into WWII. When you compromise with evil, you get evil in return, in spades.
If China started throwing their weight around like we do, they would have rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII and enabled these countries to self govern, they would send their military all around the world for humanitarian purposes, such as the tsunami a few years ago, and Japan after the earthquake earlier this year. They also wouldn’t kill millions of their own citizens or confine families to a single child. You don’t have a clue how great America is or what a powerful force for good it is, do you? I didn’t say perfect, just MUCH better than any other country.
I never claimed every peasant in North Korea was a terrorist, you are a big fat LIAR.
I never made this discussion about me or my ego, that’s what YOU have been trying to do. I merely put out the facts and watch you trip over them.
Its really laughable how people like you have to keep reassuring yourself that Ron is electable. The more unelectable he becomes, the louder your shrill cries seem to echo.
I will continue to expose your ignorance by providing you with further facts. LOL
You did in fact state that North Korea is a “terrorist country”. That generalized statement includes the peasants that live there. That does not make me a liar.
You also continually demagogue me as un-American for questioning an interventionist foreign policy.
You also completely side-stepped the point I made about Ron not being a compromiser, but a person who stands on principle.
Tex would you mind telling me who you think is the best candidate to support in the primary?
If Ron were so unelectable why would you put so much effort into trying to discredit him?
Iran is a terrorist country, so is Syria. Does that mean every single person in both of those countries are terrorists? If you’re not a liar, you’re stupid. Take your pick. LOL
When did I say you were un-American? There are lots of stupid Americans, you have plenty of company. LOL
Like Neville Chamberlain, Ron’s principle is avoid confrontation at virtually all costs. That’s NOT a principle I agree with, and another reason why he’ll never be our president.
I haven’t made up my mind yet, I’m not sure the person I would support has even entered.
This isn’t effort, it’s fun to play with simple, naive minds. LOL
When you label a country terrorist as you now have done so to 3 of them, you are implying that every citizen thereof is a terrorist.
I am not going to pick from the two choices that you that you claim to be the only ones that exsist.
The nature of your questions also expose further your tendancies to place blame on people, not policy. Asking questions like “is that what you think of America?” is a blatant attempt to try and paint me as un-American.
I also believe that a good leader does not shy from confrontation.
Can you try to give me some credit for looking for things we agree on? Ron has been confronting the wrong-headed policies that the majority of the American People have become so dissatisfied with. Even if it means that he is the sole No vote on the issue at hand. Thats because he is not afraid to do his job and go back to his constituents to explain why he voted the way he did. That tells me that avoiding confrontation at all costs is not one of his guiding principles.
Also a good leader would recognize the amazing character in a person like Ron and see that he obviously is the candidate to support in this race, not setting around Doug’s blog TROLLING his supporters for fun because you cant make up your mind about which candidate is the best.
No, I’m not implying every single person from a terrorist country is a terrorist. I’ve traveled in numerous foreign countries, and every single one of them is filled with good people. But it only takes a relatively few nut-jobs, especially at high government levels, to make a country a terrorist country. You need to learn a LOT more before you question my positions. I suggest you ask questions instead of accuse me of bullshit.
Policy doesn’t kill people. People kill people. YOU said we were running around the world picking fights. That’s total bullshit.
Ron Paul is the single votes on issues the majority of American people are dissatisfied with? Can you provide a SINGLE example of this?
You think I’m being hard on you? Ron will have to answer MUCH harder questions if he thinks he has any chance of being elected. He can start with not ducking the Bill O’Reilly show. There are many of us who haven’t made a final decision. But in the “spirit” of things we can agree on, if Ron gets the nomination I’ll vote for him instead of Barry. I would vote for a rock that can’t do anything (much like Ron would be if elected) than Barry.
Suggestion accepted.
Does not the statement “People kill People” seems a little too simplistic ?
Is it not true that people’s actions kill people?
Now by definition isn’t a policy a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.?
Does the idiom “to pick a fight” not mean to start a fight with someone on purpose?
Is this not what we are doing in these Middle-Eastern countries?
Has it not been said by many people on Fox News that our purpose for these fights were to secure American interests overseas?
Are these American interests they speak of not oil?
Why do we think we are entitled to that which belongs to another?
Did I not say that he votes on policies instead of “issues” as you have stated?
Now if by definition a policy is a course of action adopted by a government would you not say that the polls have been indicating that the majority of the American people have been quite dissatisfied by the actions of Congress?
Does he not vote No against the majority of the bills that come his way?
Now to answer your question “do you think I am being hard on you?” may I request that you do an internet search on something called Online Disinhibition Effect?
After performing the search and reading about it, would you say that we have both been afflicted by it through the course of this thread?
Do you really think that he will refuse to go on the Bill O’Reilly show for the rest of his campaign?
Can you consider the notion that he may have had a prior commitment when the invitation was extended?
Can you consider that the suggestion of only asking you questions is a dirty trick to try to make me look ignorant due to the sheer number of question marks that are in my replies?
Do you have some sort of psychological complex where you think you should be considered an Oracle?
🙂
Suggestion accepted. —> Which one?
Does not the statement “People kill People” seems a little too simplistic ? —> The truth is usually simple.
Is it not true that people’s actions kill people? —> Duh.
Now by definition isn’t a policy a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.? —> Of course.
Does the idiom “to pick a fight” not mean to start a fight with someone on purpose? —> Yes.
Is this not what we are doing in these Middle-Eastern countries? —> No.
Has it not been said by many people on Fox News that our purpose for these fights were to secure American interests overseas? —> Among other reasons, yes.
Are these American interests they speak of not oil? —> Of course. And if we weren’t there putting these countries back on their feet, China and Russia would be, and with MUCH less noble intent.
Why do we think we are entitled to that which belongs to another? —> Why do you think we are taking the oil? We aren’t.
Did I not say that he votes on policies instead of “issues” as you have stated? —> He votes on a naive understanding of reality.
Now if by definition a policy is a course of action adopted by a government would you not say that the polls have been indicating that the majority of the American people have been quite dissatisfied by the actions of Congress? —> Yes, but that doesn’t mean they want what Ron wants.
Does he not vote No against the majority of the bills that come his way? —> Probably.
Now to answer your question “do you think I am being hard on you?” may I request that you do an internet search on something called Online Disinhibition Effect? —> Done.
After performing the search and reading about it, would you say that we have both been afflicted by it through the course of this thread? —> No, I happen to agree with the Founding Fathers that anonymous free speech opens up communications and is protected by the Constitution.
Do you really think that he will refuse to go on the Bill O’Reilly show for the rest of his campaign? —> I don’t know, Ron is too unpredictable.
Can you consider the notion that he may have had a prior commitment when the invitation was extended? —> Have you considered the notion his campaign could have shown interest and started working on a date to be on the show? Have you considered the notion Ron needs media exposure, and Bill O’Reilly’s show is the leading show in that time slot?
Can you consider that the suggestion of only asking you questions is a dirty trick to try to make me look ignorant due to the sheer number of question marks that are in my replies? —> Not at all, you’ve already done a great job of looking ignorant. Asking questions is usually an indication of wanting more information, but in your case I’ll make an exception.
Do you have some sort of psychological complex where you think you should be considered an Oracle? —> I’m not an Oracle, but I do know and apply very basic historic events and therefore compared to you I’m a raging genius! LOL
Could you not discern that from your previous response that I meant the suggestion “you ask questions instead of accuse me of bullshit.”?
May you consider that the truth is not usually simple for a moment?
How about considering that the truth is often a series of reasons as to what happened, when, how, and why?
And that these reasons all lead up to a conclusion based on a perspective that may be clouded, obstructed, or false?
And in the end it is learned that what is so is so and not otherwise, but that is far from simple and I am far from wise, but I know that nothing about the truth is simple?
If we are not starting a fight on purpose, then what are we doing?
What in addition to securing American Interests are we doing overseas?
If our intent is so Noble then could you please elaborate on what our intent is?
Is it not reasonable to suspect that the intent of a president who had major connections to Big Oil would be tempted to use our armed forces to line the pockets of those connections?
What exactly are we doing in regards to the oil?
Is it not hypocrisy to say that Ron has a naïve understanding of reality when you yourself have admitted your own naïve understanding of reality by falling for the scam of a big corporation?
Do you not think that our nation has grown weary of War, and that Ron wants to end the wars?
Do you not think that Ron takes his oath to uphold the Constitution more seriously than anyone else in modern politics?
Do you not realize that Ron only seems unpredictable to those who do not make an attempt to understand him when he speaks?
Is it not Good to appear unpredictable to our enemies?
Do you not have a tendency to shut him out of your mind like an insolent child does when they say that their teacher is too boring and just drones on and on?
Could you perhaps consider that even though the messenger is not perfect, the message that he delivers is?
Do you realize that you just admitted that Ron is not getting enough media exposure?
Why are you willing to make an exception in my case?
Why always consider history to be basic?
Why not consider history to be complicated and sometimes lost due to the inadvertent distortion of facts that could occur when the government is in charge of public education?
Does that not present a huge moral hazard whereby someone in government can corruptly twist the facts to support a less than noble agenda?
Could you not discern that from your previous response that I meant the suggestion “you ask questions instead of accuse me of bullshit.”? —> I decided not to spend much time/effort trying to figure out how someone as ignorant as you thinks.
May you consider that the truth is not usually simple for a moment? —> I’m willing to consider that, but it puts you at a significant disadvantage.
How about considering that the truth is often a series of reasons as to what happened, when, how, and why? —> Absolutely.
And that these reasons all lead up to a conclusion based on a perspective that may be clouded, obstructed, or false? —> In other words, a point of view that does line up with Ron Paul?
And in the end it is learned that what is so is so and not otherwise, but that is far from simple and I am far from wise, but I know that nothing about the truth is simple? —> Nothing is simple about that sentence structure, either.
If we are not starting a fight on purpose, then what are we doing? —> I’m exposing your ignorance. You’re displaying your ignorance. That’s what we’re doing. And since you are too scared to talk on a telephone, it is on permanent display for others to see. LOL
What in addition to securing American Interests are we doing overseas? —> I don’t pretend to know everything we are doing overseas, nor do I pretend to all of know the complex relationships between the U.S. and other countries. There are differing opinions on what constitutes “American interests,” and I know Ron Paul’s views are extremely naive and dangerous.
If our intent is so Noble then could you please elaborate on what our intent is? —> History tells our intent. Ever hear of the Marshall Plan and Asian aid post WWII? More recently, we put Iraq’s government back into their hands, and are doing so in Afghanistan right now.
Is it not reasonable to suspect that the intent of a president who had major connections to Big Oil would be tempted to use our armed forces to line the pockets of those connections? —> Yes, but it is also reasonable to conclude there is scant evidence of any wrongdoing, and these shrill charges have no merit, and the screeching should stop. Would you prefer the Big Oil companies be put out of business so our energy costs skyrocket? Or prevented from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because of one incident, while other countries keep drilling, with far fewer safety practices?
What exactly are we doing in regards to the oil? —> I don’t know exactly what we are doing, but we have not taken over the oil fields for our own use.
Is it not hypocrisy to say that Ron has a naïve understanding of reality when you yourself have admitted your own naïve understanding of reality by falling for the scam of a big corporation? —> Not any more hypocritical than knocking up your friend’s wife at a vulnerable time. I don’t consider being lied to as naive. I consider it being lied to. There have been literally millions of people who have been scammed by Amway. I’m wasn’t the first, nor was I the last.
Do you not think that our nation has grown weary of War, and that Ron wants to end the wars? —> Of course we’re weary of war. That doesn’t mean you leave a job half done and run away scared. We did that in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 1980s, as well as with Iraq with the Gulf War I. We should learn from these lessons, not repeat them.
Do you not think that Ron takes his oath to uphold the Constitution more seriously than anyone else in modern politics? —> For clarity, I will answer that double negative question assuming the word “not” is removed. No.
Do you not realize that Ron only seems unpredictable to those who do not make an attempt to understand him when he speaks? —> I understand him. He’s a Libertarian, and a very naive, and therefore dangerous man.
Is it not Good to appear unpredictable to our enemies? —> No, it isn’t good. Our enemies should know we will defend our interests. That’s how the USSR went down. If we are unpredictable, they may misinterpret our intents and do things assuming we won’t act.
Do you not have a tendency to shut him out of your mind like an insolent child does when they say that their teacher is too boring and just drones on and on? —> No, I reject his naive points of view.
Could you perhaps consider that even though the messenger is not perfect, the message that he delivers is? —> No, see above.
Do you realize that you just admitted that Ron is not getting enough media exposure? —> I would love for Ron to get more media exposure, that way we could reject him and decide which of the serious contenders to consider. But if he refuses to go on shows like Bill O’Reilly, he can also die a long, lingering campaign death. Either way is okay with me.
Why are you willing to make an exception in my case? —> Because your questions are meant to lecture, not to learn. Also, you could have easily looked up Neville Chamberlain online and at least pretended to be informed, but you simply admitted you were clueless. Not exactly sparkling intellect.
Why always consider history to be basic? —> I didn’t say history was always basic, I said I know and apply basic history. Like Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy with HItler, which Ron Paul reminds me of.
Why not consider history to be complicated and sometimes lost due to the inadvertent distortion of facts that could occur when the government is in charge of public education? —> I’m aware the victor writes history. But why do you automatically reject it and follow Ron Paul’s drumbeat?
Does that not present a huge moral hazard whereby someone in government can corruptly twist the facts to support a less than noble agenda? —> Of course it does. In fact, Ron Paul twists the facts all the time.
Now lets go back to where you so disrespectfully assumed that I declined the Army’s offer back in 2003 because I was too afraid to do my job. You sir have repeatedly shown your lack of class and respect for the thoughts and beliefs of others. Tex I have an extreme amount of respect for someone who is courageous enough to put their life on the line for their country regardless of who the leader is. I also respect you enough to not pander to you or patronize you because you are a veteran. I had the choice of fighting in the same war that destroyed the soul of a soldier so completely, that he abandoned his wife and 1 year old son because he couldn’t cope with the demons that followed him home. I chose another path Tex. My path was to step up and become the Man of that destroyed family. And yes I was ignorant of some important things in life at the time. When that ex-wife of the tortured soldier became pregnant with my daughter 2 years later, had the tests for Trisomy 21 come back positive during the pregnancy I would have seriously considered abortion. However the tests came back negative, my firm belief is now that the hand of God works in very mysterious ways because she was in fact born with Down Syndrome. I now have a different view on the issue that happens to align with Dr. Paul’s view. Let me tell you as well, that we didn’t have much time to dwell on this new fact, because she was also born with a congenital heart defect which a wise and compassionate Doctor quickly noticed. She was immediately life-flighted to St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa Oklahoma where more wise and compassionate doctors proceeded to save her life. She has been through 1 closed-heart surgery and 2 Open heart surgeries already at her young age of 6 years old. She is up for her 3rd open heart surgery in the middle of next month, and the Dr. who skillfilly executed a cardiac catheterization on her told me that he liked my Restore America Now hat, after he delivered the news that she has an aneurism that will need the careful hands of a surgeon to repair. He said that we could get him elected if the people could get over this whole business being spouted around that he is unelectable. My little girl’s spirit for Liberty will serve her well as she grows up and contends with people who will call her a Retard and her father a Paultard. This only re-enforced my conviction that we are all libertarians at birth but as time goes by we are indoctrinated by the state controlled means to believe we need the government to take care of us and not the charity and good-will of others.
I extend my apologies for anything I have written that may have offended you. Now whether or not you are man enough to apologize as well, for your classless behavior remains to be seen.
Please have the heart to share with me your story, I promise that I will respect and understand it.
You can find my story on my blog, look for stories starting in April 2010 with the “one year ago” as part of the headline.
I have nothing to apologize for, I have merely told the truth.
Thanks for sharing Tex,
Wow I’m not sure what to make of it all (certanly is a lot of information to digest) but it looks like you are going through some sort of tribulation with a corporation and it appears there’s probably some contract issues involved. Thats gotta really wear a man down and can make you very bitter. Just because I support Dr. Paul doesnt mean that I cant sympathise with the pain that you must be going through. No matter what happens in this election, and how your struggles play out just know that I hold no ill will against you. I believe in trying to understand individuals and the underlying causes of their actions no matter how malicious they may seem. That in turn helps to successfuly defend yourself with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent bystanders. Keep telling the truth as you see it Tex. I admire that sort of conviction even though my view of the truth doesnt exactly match up with yours. Perhaps when you make it through this mess you’re in, you will find some inner peace.
You’re right, you don’t know what to make of it. I’m not worn down one bit, nor am I bitter. I’m also not in pain. I couldn’t care less whether you sympathize with me, I’m not looking for sympathy, nor do I care whether you “like” me or not. You have done a miserable job in trying to understand me, you don’t have a clue. I’m also not malicious, but at least you’re consistent…consistently WRONG! I have no idea what you mean by, “That in turn helps to successfuly defend yourself with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent bystanders.” I tell the truth as the facts demonstrate is the truth. There is only one truth, you may or may not figure that out eventually. I already have inner peace, I don’t need to “make it through this mess” to have inner peace. It IS amazing how one individual can be as clueless as you are, however. Simply AMAZING.
What I mean by that is if you actually listen to the people that attack you and and also try to apply some praxiology (the study of human action), you may be able make yourself safer while at the same time gain some insight into the weaknesses of those who attack you.
Tex you seem to have an exhibitionist streak about you, perhaps I could entertain that streak by asking you some questions in an attempt to better understand you?
Would you be willing to partake in a simple public interview on this thread, consisting of not less than 10 questions but not more than 40? Or are you too afraid?
People like you who don’t know basic history cannot attack me. All they are doing is flailing around, and continued posting here demonstrates this with every letter they type of their keyboard. I am not concerned about my “safety” for similar reasons. Your weakness is obvious, it’s called ignorance, and I don’t need any touchy-feely new age method to expose it, you did it yourself.
Exhibitionist? Are you HIGH? Better question: What are you high on?
Afraid of you? That’s funny. Ask away, this should be fun! LOL
Easy there Tex, I’m not trying to attack you. You are a fellow American, not my enemy. My intent is to try and gain some insight into your political views while cutting through all of them venom that you barf out. When I spoke of my belief in praxeology I was referring to its application in foreign policy, not with any intent to try and intimidate you into thinking i want to attack you. Which is apparently what I have done, and for that I do apologize.
Now for question 1:
What are your views on Speech, Assembly, Press, Internet, and Property Rights?
You have no idea how little concerned I am about your “attacks.” About the same amount that an aircraft carrier is concerned about a mosquito crossing its path. LOL
You want my political views? Think Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh.
What are your views on Speech, Assembly, Press, Internet, and Property Rights? —> I’m for them. In fact, I’m willing to spend a good chunk of my retirement fund to defend myself against a multi-billion dollar/year company that thinks I have no significant rights in this area, in order to fix a scam. I also gladly put my butt on the line in the U.S. Navy to protect, among other rights, these First Amendment rights for you, whether you like me or agree with me on any issue or not. In other words, it’s not just words to me, I live it.
I’m glad you dont feel like I’m attacking you, this is Good, I’m learning some things about you thats my sole intent. And yes this is fun. Our rapport is in the process of improving 🙂
Now for question 2:
Do you agree with these statements below?
Government should not restrict speech, press, media or Internet. The rights of free citizens who don’t violate other people’s rights must be respected and protected at all times. Exercise of eminent domain should be extremely limited and its use avoided whenever possible. Private property and privacy rights should be protected at all times.
You misunderstand. You are incapable of “attacking” me. Unable. Impotent. Inept. Don’t get too excited over our rapport. I also find smiley faces juvenile.
The ACLU agrees with those statements. The devil is in the details.
Question 3:
Do you agree with these statements?
Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free except when it comes to protecting against terrorism and other threats to public safety. Free speech zones can be established to protect the right of free speech while insuring security at public events. Eminent domain should be maintained in practice, but it should not be available merely as a means to enrich private developers via enforced land transfers.
Again, even the ACLU (since you didn’t respond the first time, the ACLU is a very left leaning organization, making your questions virtually meaningless) agrees with these Ron Paul talking point statements, and again, the devil is in the details. For example, what qualifies as “terrorism” and “other threats to public safety?” These aren’t questions, these are campaign talking points. I thought this was where you were going after question 1, and now there is a clear pattern.
I dont see how the values of someone who leans on the left can be can just be dismissed. I do not support disregarding anyone’s values as meaningless. That is why I am putting forth the effort to learn your values.
Terrorism as it is defined in the Patriot Act and likewise “threats to public safety.”
Now do you still want to continue with this interview by answering Question 3?
I’m not dismissing the left’s values, I’m pointing out your questions are virtually meaningless, because the left, middle, and right largely agree with your statements. As I said, the devil is in the details. In other words, you’re not learning much about my values, because virtually every American has these values.
Okay, I’ll accept your definition of terrorism and other threats to public safety. However, there is significant subjectivity to the Patriot Act.
I did answer Question 3, but for the simple minded, the answer is, with the above qualifications, yes.
Alright Tex I’ve got my fill, I’ve learned all I need to know about you.
I thought you said it would be between 10 and 40 question? Not that I’m surprised, Ron Paul probably wouldn’t keep his word, either. In fact, I’ve got my fill of Ron, I’ve learned all I need to know about him and his followers, thanks to you and Nicky. LOL