Unlike you, I’d march to DC with a AR-15 in one hand and a machete in the other

I’m not sure, first, I’m trying to see if I can get family bonding leave from work, but that’s gotten complicated recently.

That’s certainly what I do at the ballot box.

In the last election I voted for some CP candidates. Usually I did it if they had better publicity than the Lib. and had stands on the issues I could appreciate, or if the LP guy was horrible. On the internet, I just shift into debate mode.

I believe that the state should bear the sword (use coercion) only to punish crime, and that only that which harms the individual should be illegal.

Personally, I would be very happy to live in a country whose laws confromed to the CP platform, but that platform would fail to provide say, drug users and homosexuals with the freedom I feel tthey deserve.

Take your own advice-don’t question men. After all, Perouta and Co do not want women over men.

Sounds like you are not “remaining silent” If this continues, we may have to then presume you were not one of the “predestined before time” folks.

When divergent peoples try to meet-well, look at Tampa and aftermath.

“Even real Constitutionalists would fight such a government as a Theonomy from taking place.”
=ESPECIALLY Constitutionalists! I’d march to Washington gun in hand.

=I think what Matt is trying to say is that there are some scenarios where religion and government do not necessarily go together. And even atheists and humanists agree that murder is unlawful.
Our American Republic is NEVER meant to be a Theocracy, the Founding Fathers strictly intended to keep our Government from becoming a organ for one Church or creed, or from regulating religious liberty.

=Believe it or not, if you have a non-Theocratic/theonomic government- as long as the members of the non-theocratic/theonomic government are devoted to Him in their personal lives and keep their government clean and free of corruption, then God is OK with that.

It depends what you mean by “any attempt to institute them would involve coercion.” If you mean that government should use coercion when enforcing laws such as those against murder, I agree. If you mean that we intend dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God, I disagree.

=A elite minority controlling the majority, enforcing one view of religious laws against a people who have different takes on such laws or beliefs.
That is as tyrannical and anti-American as establishing a Stalinist government in America. Even real Constitutionalists would fight such a government as a Theonomy from taking place.

=I think I understand now, you wanted to make the CP advocate for these goals in government and society, yet you failed to take over and now you’re upset that you couldn’t gain power through the largest third party in terms of voter reg.
Well, too bad, good luck in the AHP or where ever.

=Joe, how about that offer on those 3-D glasses, your black and white (absolutionist) views are making your arguments look obtuse.

=Joe, just admit you’re not a Constitutionalist, OK. Because it says No Reilgious Tests. Period.

Im actually not catholic…and I know Joe isnt. But it sounded better than “Thats what you’ll have to tell….Billy Graham?”

freakin ridiculous.

my aplologies to everyone who has to read that.