• Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:22 PM
    ...Or how about we just stop supporting Socialism, period?
    37 replies | 500 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:39 PM
    That video needs to be posted in the "Top News" portion of the forums, just to remind all of the Trump supporters here that we already have a Socialist in the White House.
    37 replies | 500 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:33 PM
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:55 PM
    Where did I say anything about giving up? Choosing not to be involved with the Republican Party doesn't equate to surrendering. There are other parties out there, after all, with better platforms and more principled members, looking for support. That's also not to mention that there are local, county, and state elections which are more important than just federal ones. But you're the one out here trying to rape a political party that doesn't want your ideas inside her. What's even worse is that you're compromising little by little on your own principles, all in the name of "trying to save the party," by settling for less. You keep bringing up this defeatist notion about "someone coming in to take over what's yours," and yet, ironically, that's what you're doing from the perspectives of those in control of the Republican Party. So, by your logic, what should the neoconservatives do to keep people like you from taking over what's now theirs?
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:09 AM
    That still doesn't explain what you're going to do when someone wants to come help themselves to what you've created. If Ron Paul was the father of the modern tea party, we are the lousy sons who sold the inherited property. We didn't fight for the tea party. It was ours. We just complained that some folks had infiltrated it and therefore it was no longer cool, so let it go. So I personally don't put one ounce of faith in new parties being the way forward. If we're just gonna give it up whenever someone comes to take it, I really don't see the point. The TP did, however, get Rand into office, so I guess there's that.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-24-2020, 06:11 PM
    In a free market, you stop supporting a product/service whenever the quality or price of that product/service doesn't suit your demand. That's when you find another good product/service that's in competition and meets your demand. That's the beauty of voluntary associations. There comes a point where an organization becomes so far removed from its core principles or promises that it no longer is worthy of patronage. It has become so corrupt that trying to clean up its corruption becomes a waste of time. The Republican Party is just at that state. You can stay and try return them to their principles, values, etc., but it will only be rape. They don't want certain views and ideas to permeate their party, and the infrastructure is such that they fend off any reformation that seeks to usurp their power. That doesn't produce any tangible results, either. The fact that Ron Paul Forums, of all places, is infested with Trump supporters reveals whom has influenced whom in the Republican Party. It's not the neoconservatives who have compromised on their principles; it's those who claim to be Ron Paul supporters. You haven't changed a thing in the Republican Party, but the party has changed you. This isn't Ted Cruz Forums. This isn't Ben Carson Forums. This isn't Mike Huckabee Forums. This is Ron Paul Forums. I'm not going to apologize because we're in a place where there's a high standard of expectation for consistency in the principles of small government, sound money, a noninterventionist foreign policy, and most of all, the protection of human life at all stages of development. You guys have forgotten where you are. Supporting candidates like Donald Trump is not going to change a damn thing on the federal level because people like Donald Trump don't care about libertarian principles. They say what they want to get what they want, plain and simple. Some of you are so desperate to be relevant on the federal level that you're willing to eat the crumbs on the floor of the Republican Party. And in chewing on their scraps, they ignore you to go about business as usual, waiting every 4 years to give you a plate at their table just to remind you of "what a good boy you've been." So, like our Founding Fathers did when they dissembled themselves from England and formed their own independence, there is no retreat; there is simply the reemergence of a better order, founded on sure principles in which the last organization failed to uphold or ended up hating.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-24-2020, 05:36 PM
    No. I can't find any document where any of the Founders attributed their ideas of a free, Constitutional republic to other religious worldviews such as Humanism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other one. They were pretty zealous that they founded the country on the principles of the Christian Faith. I think they feared more of one denomination becoming the dominant sect over the federal government than they were of another faith (like Humanism or Islam) taking over.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-24-2020, 06:33 AM
    Okay, when do we stop retreating? They infiltrated the GOP in the 1960s and Nolan ran off to form the LP. They infiltrated the LP with Bob Barr in 2008 and we ran off to ???. They infiltrated the tea party in 2010 and we shrugged our shoulders and surrendered to the 'teo-cons.' Retreat retreat retreat retreat. They want what we create and we let them have it. So what on God's green earth makes you think that if we just go create something new that they won't just come take it over because lo and behold we don't seem to have the fortitude to hold the line? I've not seen any evidence that just splintering off and creating something new is going to yield any tangible results.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 09:20 PM
    That makes absolutely no sense. Why would a Muslim join a political party with explicit Christian beliefs in its platform? They could just form their own Sharia Party instead. But if you change the language to just "religion," then that opens the door to all sorts of religions, besides Islam. And based on whose religious beliefs become the majority view within that party, all due to the idea that "freedom of religion" is just a blanket statement for the inclusion of all religious beliefs, then it could very well evolve into a party of Sharia law advocates. But our founders didn't define "religion" in the general sense that we understand today. In their time, "religion" was synonymous with "denomination" or "sect," within the context of Christianity. There's simply no way our founders would have interpreted "religion" as giving way to what they would call "Mohammedans," in some general idea of "religion." That's just anachronistic.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 09:08 PM
    I do my work on the city and county levels because that's where true civic change starts. Our republic holds to the view that the States and the people of the States have more power than the federal government, after all.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 08:58 PM
    Yeah, and keep on supporting a party that hasn't worked to stop the slaughter of the unborn, hasn't brought our troops home from unconstitutional occupations, continues to devalue our currency (which is called an abomination in Scripture, by the way), increases subsidies to corporations all the while criticizing Democrats for increasing welfare spending, supports more intrusions into our privacy, has no interest in balancing our federal budget nor auditing the Federal Reserve, and has increased the size and scope of government that it's hard to tell if they're run by Democrats or not. Your work is in vain.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 08:39 PM
    The reason why the CP is so small is because so many conservatives think that a vote for the CP is a vote for the Democrats. That mentality is the whip which the GOP uses to keep conservatives in check and loyal to their party, which does not have their principles in mind, especially as it relates to the sanctity of life. The GOP doesn't need to change its position on anything because it understands that as long as it does "the dog & pony show" for conservatives and "whisper sweet nothings into their ears" during Presidential campaigns, they'll never leave for parties like the CP. Like I've told you before, you're being played by the Republican Party, and you refuse to see it because you've compromised your ethics, Swordsmyth.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 08:27 PM
    No, you migrate to places where your ideas can flourish and grow with likeminded people, such as you suggested in supporting the Constitution Party.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 08:21 PM
    You're not hijacking anything. They don't want true liberty-conscious people inside their party. Just look at how they turned against Dr. Ron Paul twice when he ran, and they used the mainstream media to do it in epic proportions. Case in point:
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 02:19 PM
    I think it's generally a bad strategy to further partition ourselves into smaller and smaller politically impotent factions. I think we should hijack a party.
    75 replies | 1383 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 01:13 AM
    I'm trying really hard to picture a liberty candidate sitting on air force one with a president Sanders. Now maybe you say it means nothing and doesn't change anything, but it's far closer to having ANY influence on policy than any libertarian-minded person has EVER gotten since David Nolan retreated from the Republican Party in 1971. It just perplexes me that people would think the democratic party would be easier to work with. Maybe if the Blue Dogs from the 1990s were still in existence, but these aren't the same donkeys.
    18 replies | 393 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 01:02 AM
    Leftist influence on GOP politics goes back way farther than Bush. I blame the Rockefellers.
    32 replies | 483 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-23-2020, 12:59 AM
    Of course they'll go after the elected ones. I'm sure the liberals in Virginia legislature would love for deputies to get discouraged, quit and go work for the state troopers.
    6 replies | 174 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-22-2020, 09:46 AM
    Don't even wait to see how the Stockton test goes eh? As much as liberals claim to have the market cornered on science, most scientists will tell you that if something doesn't work on a small scale, it probably won't work on a huge one.
    2 replies | 99 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-22-2020, 09:38 AM
    I guess as far as being treated like dirt during the nomination convention, that's a kinship. Not really a coalition you could form policy changes with.
    5 replies | 202 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-21-2020, 09:37 PM
    Where are all the Trump supporters to defend him on this issue? :confused:
    12 replies | 333 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 06:22 PM
    He's not getting us out because if that was his intention, then he could've done it by now. I don't want to hear your excuses why he didn't, either, because at this point, you're nothing more than a Trump apologist. If Trump does get us out of Afghanistan, then that's a step in the right direction, but it's only a fraction of a start. I don't need new reasons to hate Trump because I don't hate Trump. There are plenty of reasons to show that he's not as conservative as people like you try to paint him out to be, from his approval to continue funding Planned Parenthood to his asinine appointments, such as John Bolton.
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 06:08 PM
    If you believe the man who said the following truly has plans to get us our of Afghanistan, then I have a church to sell you in Saudi Arabia:
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:57 PM
    Trump is evil because he doesn't honor his oaths, which makes him a liar. When he makes decisions, he doesn't consult the Constitution, and furthermore, he doesn't listen to the wisdom from God's word (you know, that Book that Trump claims is his favorite book in the world). If a man can't keep his word, then he's not worthy of high praise and regard. Period. And Donald Trump has not upheld his oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, especially in matters of foreign affairs. So, I'll say again that Donald J. Trump is evil, and if you can't see that, then you've compromised on your ethics. No one is saying that Christians shouldn't work with Republicans and sinners, but there needs to be an objective standard by which any policy initiative is justified by a Biblical standard of limited government, protection of privacy and property, and especially, the preservation of life.
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:44 PM
    He's not "draining the swamp" by hiring "Swamp Things." If anything, he's creating a precedent that his administration acknowledges the legitimacy of there being a "swamp." This is how I know that Trump isn't going to drain anything in Washington D.C.: right now, as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to bring home all American troops overseas, which as a result, will get the U.S. out of all the foreign entanglements and unconstitutional wars that Trump claimed he was against. Yes, I understand that transitions would need to take place, for he couldn't do it all in one day; however, he definitely can plan it out within, say, a five-year period. If Trump were to plan such a feat, the "swamp" would be draining like a vortex, because that initiative would quickly get all of the neoconservatives (from both parties) in D.C. to rally against him. And if Trump is as big and bad as he thinks he is, and if he's serious about maintaining his foreign policy commitments that our wars have been mistakes, then the entire "swamp" coming against him shouldn't be something he can't handle, especially as a Commander-in-Chief. But, instead, he has us occupying the same foreign lands that we've always had, even extorting a nation who passed a resolution to have us leave their lands because of his actions to shed blood on their soil. So, no, Trump isn't going to do any "real deals" to get us out of positions where we get caught up in the civil affairs of other nations who are not under our Constitution, and therefore, have no direct relation to our country's national defense. He's playing people like you, dannno, because you're a pawn on his alleged "3D Chessboard."
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:28 PM
    Neither the account of Nebuchadnezzar ruling over Israel nor the Genesis 14 passage address the command or precept that God's chosen people ought to select evil (of any degree) as a resort to civil polity. To the contrary, God reveals in passages such as Exodus 18:21 that: And other passages, such Joshua 24:15, stating: Note that in neither of those passages, when it comes to a decision that deals with righteous delegations in the civic health of a nation, God nowhere leaves the option of settling for a "lesser evil." Why is that? Because a "lesser evil" is still evil. The fact that, due to the sinfulness of men and God's works of providence to work out His own sovereign decrees, wicked men have ruled over the righteous doesn't give the imperative that righteous people ought to vote for evil. If you believe that's the case, once again, show me where such an imperative is taught in Scripture, Swordsmyth. Indicatives aren't imperatives, either.
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:16 PM
    I disagree with you about Dr. Paul not being perfect. He was a perfect statesman, in the sense that he understood, promoted, and sought to legislate in matters that consisted with private citizens keeping their lives, their liberties, and their properties without intrusions by the central government. He even maintained a perfect score with all of his votes being 100% in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. I really don't care if Dr. Paul gave Trump a "C-" grade, though I understand his reasons why. There's no way Trump is going to deal with the root causes of the problems in our foreign and domestic policies; all he's going to do is post Twitter messages, gloat about how he has "kept promises," and continue to surround himself with neoconservatives from "the swamp." Trump is not a Constitutionalist, and that's what we need, at the very least, to begin reforming all of these bad policies we have accumulated in D.C.
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    02-19-2020, 03:08 AM
    What are we doing to make our choices better? You can't be active during election years, get stomped, and then go hide in the exclusive libertarian treehouse club until it's election year again. It doesn't seem to be an effective strategy.
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 11:26 PM
    First of all, Donald Trump is nowhere near the same type of man as Samson. I'm not going to lay out my theological arguments as to why that's the case, here, because I want to get to a more important point. Last of all, your post didn't answer my question at all. I asked for Scriptural basis to support the idea that it's righteous (or moral) to vote for the lesser of two evils (or least of possible goods). You're a man of God, and I know you know the Scriptures, Swordsmyth. So please explain to me where in God's holy, inspired word He teaches that it's okay to have a voting ethic of choosing the lesser of two evils. I'm not looking for Biblical comparisons of Donald Trump to judges, prophets, nor apostles, which even to do so is insulting to those great men of the Faith, anyway.
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 11:05 PM
    In light of the quote in your signature from Alexis de Tocqueville, "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith," can you explain to me where in the Scriptures is the method of "voting for the lesser of two evils (or least of possible goods)" supported as a righteous thing to do? :confused:
    138 replies | 4568 view(s)
More Activity

3 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Don't give up!!! The revolution starts with education even in the face of denial. Facts will prevail.
  2. check back
  3. View Conversation
    Nice profile pic!
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 3 of 3
About nobody's_hero

Basic Information

Signature


Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
This is getting silly.
Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
It started silly.
T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
8,870
Posts Per Day
2.01
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
3
Most Recent Message
07-07-2011 07:49 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 02:03 PM
Join Date
01-23-2008
Referrals
0

5 Friends

  1. CaptainAmerica CaptainAmerica is offline

    Member

    CaptainAmerica
  2. georgiapeach georgiapeach is offline

    Member

    georgiapeach
  3. HarrySeaward HarrySeaward is offline

    Member

    HarrySeaward
  4. RCA RCA is offline

    Member

    RCA
  5. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


No results to display...
Page 1 of 46 12311 ... LastLast

02-26-2020


02-24-2020


02-23-2020


02-19-2020


02-18-2020


02-17-2020



Page 1 of 46 12311 ... LastLast