Do you have extremely controversial beliefs?

[Sergeant Brother]

We've heard and talked a lot about Ron Paul supporters with extremely controversial beliefs. 9/11 truthers, White Nationalists, Anarchists, etc. I was wondering what percentage of Ron Paul supporters have beliefs like this, those that would probably prohibit them from getting elected if they were open about their beliefs. I hope not to fight about this, just to get some information.

 

[Independent Operator]

anarchist - so therefore i wouldn't even run because the entity of gov't itself should not even exist. mafia writ large you know. zero difference, just cool uniforms.

i used to think very, very differently, but witnessing 40 years of complete bullshit up close and personal has swayed me a tad.

 

[dvictr]

i watched the video "september clues" and im a believer, after ignoring all the other evidence...

 

[Theocrat]

I Believe in Theocracy

As a theocrat, I believe that men should live under the rule of the triune God (as revealed in the Bible) and His laws. Democracy is dangerous (the 51% rule the 49%), and anarchy is atrociously evil (no rules at all). Theocracy is the best form of governing, and it should not be confused with an ecclesiocracy, which is the rule of the Church. That is simply wrong. I believe in a separation between Chruch and State, but only as God defines it in His word, for He has established the three main units of government within a civilized society: church government, family government, and civil government, each with their own jurisdictional domain. This is what a theocracy is about, and therefore, it rightly justifies the legitimacy for men to be governed by the sovereign power and will of Almighty God, from Whom all of our rights and privileges are given to a free and blessed people in the pursuit of peace, prosperity, and charity in order to secure life, liberty, and property for ourselves and our families in this life and the life to come in eternity.

 

[rekced]

I decided not to check a box on this poll. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I think the majority of mainstream politics are kooky. I don't see anything radical or crazy about Ron Paul at all. Nearly everyone I have told about Ron Paul thinks he is awesome, but wonders why I support someone who they think has no chance of winning.

 

[kimosabi]

After spending many hours researching Alternative Health, Medicine, Energy, etc and getting an understanding of the Worlds Fraudulent Monetary and Tax System, there isn't much we haven't been lied to about, so therefore my views are considered extremely controversial by the uninformed masses...

 

[Independent Operator]

As a theocrat, I believe that men should live under the rule of the triune God (as revealed in the Bible) and His laws. Democracy is dangerous (the 51% rule the 49%), and anarchy is atrociously evil (no rules at all). Theocracy is the best form of governing, and it should not be confused with an ecclesiocracy, which is the rule of the Church. That is simply wrong. I believe in a separation between Chruch and State, but only as God defines it in His word, for He has established the three main units of government within a civilized society: church government, family government, and civil government, each with their own jurisdictional domain. This is what a theocracy is about, and therefore, it rightly justifies the legitimacy for men to be governed by the sovereign power and will of Almighty God, from Whom all of our rights and privileges are given to a free and blessed people in the pursuit of peace, prosperity, and charity in order to secure life, liberty, and property for ourselves and our families in this life and the life to come in eternity.

wow! pretty funny stuff. by the way, govt itself is PURE evil. to support it is to support evil murderers. you have been led astray by your serpent master.

but 'nuff said.

 

[Todesherr]

As a theocrat, I believe that men should live under the rule of the triune God (as revealed in the Bible) and His laws. Democracy is dangerous (the 51% rule the 49%), and anarchy is atrociously evil (no rules at all). Theocracy is the best form of governing, and it should not be confused with an ecclesiocracy, which is the rule of the Church. That is simply wrong. I believe in a separation between Chruch and State, but only as God defines it in His word, for He has established the three main units of government within a civilized society: church government, family government, and civil government, each with their own jurisdictional domain. This is what a theocracy is about, and therefore, it rightly justifies the legitimacy for men to be governed by the sovereign power and will of Almighty God, from Whom all of our rights and privileges are given to a free and blessed people in the pursuit of peace, prosperity, and charity in order to secure life, liberty, and property for ourselves and our families in this life and the life to come in eternity.

I find it terrifying that many Americans think as you do. Absolutely terrifying.

 

[JohnCrabtree]

I believe fully in property rights, which may be controversial to some who believe in sacrifice for the greater good.

I believe that the only reason gov't can ever take your property is for immediate defense of an invading army, and even then only temporarily. In times of war we do not have to let soldiers stay at our homes for shelter, Why then in times of peace must we give our property up to a rich neighbor?

I believe that the Kelo decision was one of the worst Supreme Court Decisions ever made. I truly believe the 5 justices who voted for it are guilty of treason against the American people and should be removed because they are no longer in "good behavior"

I believe that trespassing is a willfull act of violence, and should be treated as such. I believe that breaking into someones home should be a capital offense. Castle Laws are necessary to home-owners.

I think that if a government agent enters my premises without a warrant that they are no different that a common burglar and need to be treated as such.


I also believe that our Labor is a property and if someone receives the fruits of your labor before you do, that is a form of slavery. The Income tax says that I work for the country and not for myself. If they can tax us 1% of income they can then tax us 100% I do not believe they should ever have been given the right to tax labor.

I think the drug war exists mainly to take away our 4th ammendment rights. It isnt about drugs its about power. Its ALSO about seizure. The police departments that steal your vehicles, homes, bank accounts and cash, many times without a trial even, get to keep this money. Once more, this is a violation of property rights.

SO if those views are controversial, than yes mine are.

 

[Mortikhi]

.................................

 

[asgardshill]

I would just cut-and-paste Kevin Costner's wonderful "I Believe In ..." speech from Bull Durham here, but I'm trying to keep this thread uncluttered. Google it if you're interested.

 

[Wendi]

I think my signature line reveals enough lol

 

[rockwell]

I don't believe that the races are inherently equal, but I also oppose bombing and torturing and raping and looting them while proclaiming what a freedom loving multiculturalist you are. I think people, all people deserve their own spheres of influence where they can experience and perpetuate their distinct culture, language, history and mores without the violent imposition of "better" political and cultural systems at the point of a bayonet.

I know that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist act commited by 19 arab guys with boxcutters, but I still haven't got a firm take on exactly who was responsible. I don't think George Bush could pull off a weenie roast, never mind that kind of psyops.

I think woman's suffrage was one of the most catastrophic mistakes ever made in this country, but I don't think that turning women into soldiers who get burned and disfigured or blown to pieces driving soda trucks around the desert or objectifying them as sex objects has done anything to improve their condition. Women fare much better as mothers in a loving intact home than they do as bitter, barren cat ladies with power suits and spin classes for distraction. Feminism has ruined women's lives, not improved them.

I think doing drugs is a symptom of a sick society trying to self medicate, but that making that self medication illegal to the point of imprisoning those people is far more diabolical.

 

[Sergeant Brother]

As a theocrat, I believe that men should live under the rule of the triune God (as revealed in the Bible) and His laws. Democracy is dangerous (the 51% rule the 49%), and anarchy is atrociously evil (no rules at all). Theocracy is the best form of governing, and it should not be confused with an ecclesiocracy, which is the rule of the Church. That is simply wrong. I believe in a separation between Chruch and State, but only as God defines it in His word, for He has established the three main units of government within a civilized society: church government, family government, and civil government, each with their own jurisdictional domain. This is what a theocracy is about, and therefore, it rightly justifies the legitimacy for men to be governed by the sovereign power and will of Almighty God, from Whom all of our rights and privileges are given to a free and blessed people in the pursuit of peace, prosperity, and charity in order to secure life, liberty, and property for ourselves and our families in this life and the life to come in eternity.

How is what you define as a theorcracy different from an ecclesiocracy unless God himself comes down from heaven and actively runs the government? And if God personally runs the government why would you even need a government?

It seems like a system you describe would have to be run by people who interpret the Bible or God's will in some way - and if the people aren't involved in electing or appointing this person, then you effectively have some form of oligarchy or absolutist system where a Pope-like figure or group of theologians/priests/"prophets" run the country.

How can you be sure that God runs such a country and not the people claiming to represent God?

 

[Theocrat]

Theocracy vs. Ecclesiocracy

How is what you define as a theorcracy different from an ecclesiocracy unless God himself comes down from heaven and actively runs the government? And if God personally runs the government why would you even need a government?

It seems like a system you describe would have to be run by people who interpret the Bible or God's will in some way - and if the people aren't involved in electing or appointing this person, then you effectively have some form of oligarchy or absolutist system where a Pope-like figure or group of theologians/priests/"prophets" run the country.

How can you be sure that God runs such a country and not the people claiming to represent God?

The difference between a theocracy and an ecclesiocracy has to do with the source of authority and law. In a theocracy, God has supreme authority as Creator of the universe, and therefore, His laws set the standard of right and wrong/good or evil. Since God is the final authority, all of our rights and privileges come from Him.

In an ecclesiocracy, the Church has supreme authority, and therefore, they can set the standards of what's right or wrong/good or evil. Rights, then, would come from whatever the Church says, apart from the authority of God Himself. The problem with an ecclesiocracy is that even the Church itself receives its rights from somebody else (God), and therefore, cannot distribute rights to the people. Also, since the Church does not always possess perfect wisdom and understanding (due to its incorporation of sinners) to rightly handle human affairs, then it could have occasions where its decisions could gravely impact a society in a negative way. Thus, it would fail as an authority to rightly govern its people.

One thing you're missing is the transcendental nature of God by His Holy Spirit. God does still govern people by means of His Spirit, Whom changes the hearts of men as He wills. This is how a theocracy works. Sinful men are changed by the Holy Ghost, and given new hearts to understand and obey God's commandments, which influences their decisions on civil governing, morality, just laws, etc. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, which means He reigns over everything and possesses wisdom and ability to govern anything He pleases, according to His will.

America was founded on these principles of theocratic ruling, beginning in the 1600s with the Puritans. Sadly, we have lost our knowledge of what our founding fathers understood about the nature, authority, and legitimacy of governments (due to humanistic teachings in our public schools and Biblical ignorance in our churches). As a political scientist, I have to say that most people would be surprised at what our early engineers of American jurisprudence believed in relationship between God and government, because America was not started as a secular nation. Unfortunately, we are moving in that direction today, and that's why our nation has gone down the tubes.

 

[Theocrat]

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid, Todesherr

I find it terrifying that many Americans think as you do. Absolutely terrifying.

Humanism is going to get its ugly, defiled head chopped off by the sword of Christian theocratic thought. Humanism is a disease, and Christianity is the cure. Soli deo gloria!

 

[real_native70]

Native Freedom

I want to do what ever the hell I want on my land. If i want to grow weed and sell that should be my right!!!

 

[Thomas Paine]

Yes, I believe God exists.

 

[Sergeant Brother]

The difference between a theocracy and an ecclesiocracy has to do with the source of authority and law. In a theocracy, God has supreme authority as Creator of the universe, and therefore, His laws set the standard of right and wrong/good or evil. Since God is the final authority, all of our rights and privileges come from Him.

In an ecclesiocracy, the Church has supreme authority, and therefore, they can set the standards of what's right or wrong/good or evil. Rights, then, would come from whatever the Church says, apart from the authority of God Himself. The problem with an ecclesiocracy is that even the Church itself receives its rights from somebody else (God), and therefore, cannot distribute rights to the people. Also, since the Church does not always possess perfect wisdom and understanding (due to its incorporation of sinners) to rightly handle human affairs, then it could have occasions where its decisions could gravely impact a society in a negative way. Thus, it would fail as an authority to rightly govern its people.

One thing you're missing is the transcendental nature of God by His Holy Spirit. God does still govern people by means of His Spirit, Whom changes the hearts of men as He wills. This is how a theocracy works. Sinful men are changed by the Holy Ghost, and given new hearts to understand and obey God's commandments, which influences their decisions on civil governing, morality, just laws, etc. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, which means He reigns over everything and possesses wisdom and ability to govern anything He pleases, according to His will.

America was founded on these principles of theocratic ruling, beginning in the 1600s with the Puritans. Sadly, we have lost our knowledge of what our founding fathers understood about the nature, authority, and legitimacy of governments (due to humanistic teachings in our public schools and Biblical ignorance in our churches). As a political scientist, I have to say that most people would be surprised at what our early engineers of American jurisprudence believed in relationship between God and government, because America was not started as a secular nation. Unfortunately, we are moving in that direction today, and that's why our nation has gone down the tubes.

But you haven't said how this theocracy actually works as a political idea. If God is going to rule the country, can't God do it using any sort of political system? If God wants something to be a certain way, it will be that way right?

Seems to me that for your theocracy idea to be implemented it would require some sort of mortal human figure deciding what the will of God is and then forcing his interpretation on everybody else. If it doesn't work that way then by all means, enlighten me, but I really want to know what laws this theocracy would have and who it is who determines these laws or enforces them.

 

[Malakai0]

Well I consider real freedom a controversial belief. Tell people you want to boot the federal reserve one day and for the time being legalize floating gold and silver as legal tender, they usually give you a :wtf: look. There can be no real freedom without this.


So I said yes. I don't care too much about 9/11, tho official story has been fishy since day 1.
I hate the war as well. Can be very controversial with certain crowds.