Quake3World

Memphis wrote:And have you looked into this yourself at all? Just youtubing RP Christianity answers this multiple times from multiple periods in history and he says the exact same thing everytime - consititution, constitution, constitution. Small government that keeps out of people's lives as much as possible. But hey, why look yourself when you can take some moron TV-chugging spacker's opinion and call it a day?

Memphis wrote: I missed out 'Fox'TV. And no, my opinions aren't based soley on youtube uploads, i'm just stressing how easy it is to actually get a more informed opinion than what cranky Pete down the pub said. Kracus' angle was some folks say this about him, some folks say that. Why not actually listen to the fucker himself?

EtUL wrote:... sean hannity's radio show. It only took me about a year of talk radio to realize that it was bullshit.

Memphis wrote:K, so you find me where he ever said government should be theocratic and in return, I shall violently hammer a live conga-eel up my jap's eye with a potato masher and post it up on youtube.

Ron Paul wrote:
Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.[91][92] He rejects the notion of "separation of Church and state", instead seeing the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". Importantly he views the latter as specific government endorsement of one particular religion, and does not see it as a mandate to ban all policies that would benefit religion in general. He argues that churches give people a moral base that government cannot provide. He views churches as more effective and more established providers of social welfare than the government. He also argues this leads to a more orderly people who have less need for the government to actively seek to control them. He opposes efforts to force religion out of the public sphere.[93]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[94] If made law, this provision would purportedly permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery, but would not interfere with the application of relevant federal law.[citation needed]
Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools

Memphis wrote:Oh and I used to be pro-gun control. Now i'm honestly not so sure. I think people have bigger problems than crazy Jake down at the bar thinking they owe him a 10 bag. It's again twisting of outlooks. Sure if noone had guns, noone would get shot right? But you tell me none of those police, army and government branch folks that have firearms are all nice people and will never be a threat to their people, when the very point of the gun law, is to have a populace capable of protecting itself from them. Crazy Jake can be bargained with at least, to the others you're a faceless name that won't be missed. I dunno, i'm on the fence at the moment.

Memphis wrote:I don't think you understand it fully to be honest. Unless you want government sponsored atheism or the eradication of religion, and let me tell you now squire, that's a long, loooong way off. If ever.

Memphis wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:well for one thing, he says he doesn't want the government in people's lives but he does want it to stop a woman from having an abortion.

No he does not. He doesn't want the government to have to have a say in it at all. Leave it to the States. Which is FAR better, because if one State says no and the people disagree, they could actually make some noise, or move to another State. What you're wanting is one authoritarian answer that happens to fit your outlook. It's good in some cases, but it's easily abused in others and once it's the norm, it can get turned both ways. One minute it's abortions for all, the next it's a criminal offence to have multiple sprogs. Why do you need the government to make the judgement in the first place? And unless you're having a kid, you shouldn't give a fuck, neither should the government. But somehow this is worth argument as the do as we say government goes about bombing cities, wasting cash, and passing laws that makes it A-OK to detain and torture it's own citizens. Yay government.

Memphis wrote:Probably because I don't believe many, if any states will have the sack to make the change back for one. Government won't be saying no abortions, just that it's not their call. Which I agree isn't. Why would you think that as soon as they opt-out of being the final say in the matter, that most of the country would plunge back 40 years?