If so, then the only correct solution is to include everybody, and that inlcudes not only Dr. Paul, but Tancredo and Hunter, too. It’s also the ethical thing to do as well.

Wait, ethics from Fox Noise…what was I thinking????

Dialog between Chusid and Larry:

“Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution! Free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited and Congress (Fed gov’t) shall not establish a religion. The means that Congress shall not establish a national church. States were allowed to support churches.

Prayer and use of Christian symbols such as 10 Commandments is not prohibited by the Constitution. Relgion is not a void. Man is inescapably religious. It is a question of what religion? The Supreme Court declared that Humanism is a religion. Trying to ban all Christian symbols is humanism. If you don’t like Christianity – tough. You live in the most liberated Nation in the world founded by Christianity.

Earl Warren (the liberal Chief Justice) stated America was founded on Christianity. That can not be denied. Actually, Chusid is falling for revisionist history. Conservative historians are rediscovering America’s Christian roots. As for the founding fathers – you need to go back 500 years – not 1750.

Chusid loves to use the term right wing – he is obviously left wing.

Making a statement that blacks are prone to violence is not racist. It is based on fact. It does not make you a racist. Ron Paul is not racist and has black supporters. He has delivered black babies. Just because supposedly racist organizations supports Ron Paul does not make him a racist. He is not anti Semetic as he has Jewish supporters.

What is wrong with Ron Paul believing in conspiracy theories? It is just a theory and there are some truths and evidences without calling it a bona fide conspiracy. The Trilateral, UN and CFR have way too much infuence and were established by a few. Find out the history and who the founders/players were and the tremendous wealth/power of a few.

The argument over pork is moot. Look at the big picture.

A typical straw man argument used by apologists for the Christian right. Nobody says this phrase is in the Constitution. However the Constitution was specifically written as a secular document, and the First Amendment was written to strengthen this. This is noted in the writings of the Founding Fathers and upheld in many court decisions. This includes the legal issues regarding displaying religious symbols.

TJS is distorting history and misquoting Earl Warren. Warren’s statements on the Christian background of many of the founding fathers is quite different from saying that the founding fathers intended to form a Christian nation. Separation of church and state is an idea which many Christians have defended, recognizing its importance in religious freedom. It is only recently that the right wing has been promoting a revisionist history to deny this. Misquoting people like Earl Warren is one of the tactics they use to distort history.

I use the term right wing where it applies to people such as Ron Paul whose writings support the conspiracy theories and revisionist history being promoted by many on the extremist right. The distortions of our history regarding separation of church and state by both Paul and TJS are definitely right wing attitudes. If TJS wants to call a supporter of individual liberty and the free market such as myself left wing that’s his prerogative.

“Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution! Free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited and Congress (Fed gov’t) shall not establish a religion. The means that Congress shall not establish a national church. States were allowed to support churches.

Use of Christain symbols such as 10 Commandments is not prohibited by the

Earl Warren (the liberal Chief Justice) stated America was founded on Christianity. That can not be denied. Actually, Chusid is falling for revisionist history. Conservative historians are rediscovering America’s Christian roots. As for founding fathers – you need to go back 500 years – not 1750.

Chusid loves to use the term right wing – he is obviously left wing.

I have not misquoted Paul with regards to separation of church and state and I am referring to more statements from him than what you quote. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, Paul denies separation of church and state and has supported measures such as prayer in public schools and keeping the ten commandments on a court house lawn.

I’ve also had previous posts refuting other conservatives who have claimed that the Founding Fathers supported specifically a Christian nation as Paul claims in his writings. I never said that we were founded as a godless society as you misrepresent what I have written on this. In reality it was often religious leaders who were the strongest defenders of separation of church and state, realizing its importance to guarantee religious freedom. It is a recent development that the right wing has promoted a revisionist history on this issue which Paul promotes.

On the conspiracy theories, I’m primarily referring to Paul’s writings on the United Nations, Jews, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations. There’s also a strange relationship between Paul and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. On the one hand Paul has tried to distance himself from them, but on the other hand he sure spends a lot of time appearing with such people.

You may not choose to defend Paul’s racist writings but denying it doesn’t change what he has written. His newsletter contains several racist articles so your claim that this is a charge that deserves no attention doesn’t hold up. These include clams that blacks are prone to violence and lack sense about political issues. Why do you think so many racist as well as anti-Semitic organizations and individuals are backing Paul?

You may rationalize his pork spending, but in doing so you demonstrate that Paul operates as other Congressmen do and not out of higher principles as many of his supporters claim.

Dr. Ron Paul states the following, and being personally agnostic in regards to religion in general, this makes perfect sense.

“The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”

In the same article I think I found your foundation for this misquote you wrote that he said “Founding Fathers intended this to be a Christian nation”. I highly doubt he is alone in the findings of his historical interpretations on the subject of the importance of religion to the country’s Founders. This would seem to be a common knowledge inaccuracy on your part. We were not founded by a godless society, this is fact. Here is Dr. Ron Paul’s words below in quotes.

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

As for the conspiracy theory’s. I am gonna have to guess for the sake of argument, you are referring to his beliefs about the Federal Reserve. If not, you will have to elaborate with specifics, not generalizations which you offer no example of. Some may interpret his ideas on the federal reserve and the monetary system as belonging to the level of conspiracy, but again, this just reflects on the depth of knowledge this man possesses on how our economy works. I hope you witnessed his questioning of fed chairman Bernanke on Friday. The “conspiracy” of our fiat money system is becoming more mainstream and apparent. Inflation and later stagflation are the only results that can occur from Government spending that is out of control on these levels. If you can not see or understand this, that is ok. Trust his words.

The racism portion of your argument I choose to not bring myself to defend, they do not require it. To the people (of all race) who know this man and know for what he stands, it is a disgusting charge that deserves no attention. It further proves the lack of substantial philosophical argument to his theories.

To the pork spending. Yes, indeed, it is a shame that Representatives must resort to such measures to ensure that the over taxed people of his district receive a portion of their taxed income back for local jobs and development. He wants this changed.

Your take is weak indeed.

Just read Paul’s newsletter. I have also discussed some of his ridiculous ideas in other posts.

These include his denial of the Founding Father’s views on separation of church and state, his claims that the Founding Fathers intended this to be a Christian nation, his belief in various conspiracy theories, along with a number of racist comments in his newsletter. I’ve also quoted from a letter he sends to contributors in a previous post which also shows the same type of support for conspiracy theories which are demonstrated in his newsletter.

As for his principles, like other members of Congress at times he is quick to abandon them such as in all the pork he supported for his own district. He also violated both libertarian principles and his own views on keeping the federal government out of state matters in supporting a federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions. Of course if you realize he is far more a social conservative than a libertarian such apparent violations of principle are more easily explained.

I do agree that Paul’s presence makes for a more interesting debate.

So please choose your argument in the case of “rediculous”.

The straw poll is not a true poll and many of the candidates did not participate inflating Paul’s results.

They also are unlikely to use on line polls and other polls which are easily manipulated.

“I would ask Ron Chusid, How many times have you been polled?”

Irrelevant. Polling is based upon a sample of the voters.

Howard Dean supporters made the exact same claims about cell phones versus land line polls, believing he would do even better in Iowa than the polls showed. We saw how that worked out. The claims about the inaccuracy of the polls are just excuses but don’t change the fact that Paul’s support is limited to a small number. The four million he brought in is a reflection of a small number of dedicates supporters, not of wide spread support.

I do agree that this isn’t a First Amendment issue and Fox has the right to exclude Pau but that they should not do so.

It is quite common for supporters of candidates who are doing poorly in the polls to come up with such excuses to claim the polls are flawed. This doesn’t change the fact that such candidates go no where.

Rich,

The problem isn’t that Paul’s message is intellectual, but that the closer you look at his writings and record the more ridiculous it becomes.

A majority of voters will not back the social conservativism he supports, and those who agree with his right wing views disagree with him too much over Iraq to consider voting for him. Those who agree with him on Iraq won’t go along with his conspiracy theories and support for other right wing extremist ideas.