So Horn quotes Ron Paul and you quote a non-believing Founding Father who wrote his own version of the bible and left out all of the miracles. Neither article makes a biblical case for its politics. I believe Horn's point, however, is that Paul's libertarianism is more compatible than the usual welfare/warfare party. "By lying prostrate before our enemies when they attack?" - do so only if you want to turn the other cheek. If born-again Christians take the radical idea of loving your enemy as a valid idea, and something to practice other than Sunday morning, it doesn't seem incompatible to want a candidate who wishes to avoid foreign conflict. If they actually attack us like 9/11, fine kill them I suppose as governments rightly wield the sword. The welfare/warfare party fooled us all once on overseas weapons of mass destruction, I can't believe we'd want more of the same everywhere else if we're called to radical faith. Let the Germans, Japanese, Koreans and other very wealthy countries defend their own borders and let us defend ours.
It's no wonder everyone is confused on who will starve the big government monster because neither party has a track record of doing it. When all is said and done they are all for the welfare/warfare state. You can't have one without the other. Starve the beast and make it minimal and Constitutional.
I actually agree that it's not collectivism. After reading a bit of Ayn Rand, and a biography about her, I gather she felt even if it was private it is somehow wicked. What I don't agree with is that you nonetheless had a state system under ancient Israel where it was required to give to the poor. While I don't think our present system is communist by any stretch, it certainly has socialistic/collectivist overtones. The overtones of the Old Testament Law, something many "conservative" historians look to as a basis for American law, are socialistic of sorts. They're just not the same flavor Marx gives it. It's interesting to note that the ancient Israelis were judged ultimately for their lack of concern for the "poor" (deserving poor or undeserving is not clarified). It is my opinion that the non-religious conservatives need take a lesson from the Old Testament Law a wee bit and not be too hard-hearted. Bleeding heart is another matter.
I suppose this is partly my point. I can see where it 'worked' in ancient Israel when they were paying attention to the details.
Incorrect. I checked other translations and none say as you stated. The citation is a command, in fact law, just like "do not steal". I suppose the point is that the Law includes mandatory giving to the poor just like it is mandatory not to lie or commit adultery.
Yeah, lets all get in touch with our "feelings" there and be like liberals.
All of the other candidates, other than Paul, are welfare as well as warfare champions. Bring the army home, defend our literal borders perhaps, but bring them home. Enough meddling overseas, and enough paying for rich countries defense like Germany and Japan. I believe him when he alludes to this, and I suppose you do too because it upsets so many readers of Breitbart. If you want the welfare state to shrink, also shrink the Pax Americana. We simply can't continue to pay for a standing army of the present size and an extra-constitutional welfare state.
Does US law specifically prohibit the president from handing it to anyone on a platter?
I have doubt that I'm alone in that judgement. However, I contend the bar is not high enough to obtain a patent. I do object to the senate bill using extra-constitutional means of addressing the problem.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company