PDA

View Full Version : Another Republican Runs For The Presidency.....



MMC
07-03-2011, 08:53 AM
Michigan 5 term Congressman Thad McCotter announced friday that he was running for the Presidency.The Congressman also wrote the book Seize Freedom. In which he is surrounding himself with his campaign under 5 Core prinicples.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Thaddeus_McCotter%2C_official_portrait%2C_112th_Co ngress.jpg/220px-Thaddeus_McCotter%2C_official_portrait%2C_112th_Co ngress.jpg

"Our liberty is from God not the government"
"Our sovereignty is in our souls not the soul"
"Our security is from strength not surrender"
"Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector"
"Our truths are self-evident not relative"

Although McCotter previously stated that "if I run, I would be in to win", he received only two votes in a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll two weeks ago, and lacks the name recognition of his fellow challengers for the nomination. Charlie Cook of the The Cook Political Report rated it "virtually impossible" for McCotter to be nominated.

Congressman Thad McCotter to run for U.S. President - Wikinews, the free news source

An adviser said McCotter is dissatisfied with the current candidates and "has something to say and has some ideas and some policies to put out there that nobody else is discussing right now...his presence in the race is going to force these issues and force this discussion that the country has to have right now."

Maybe he is right and he can force them to talk about some real issues. I don't know much about him. Anyone else? Thoughts?

Conley
07-03-2011, 09:42 AM
He won't get them to talk about anything of substance in my opinion. None of the real contenders will engage him in any kind of interaction and he'll be shut out from the debates because of a lack of popularity. With no name recognition comes no donors, so he'll never stand a chance of doing anything. Some line about snowballs and hell is coming to mind, ;)

spunkloaf
07-04-2011, 12:11 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?

Mister D
07-04-2011, 12:19 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?


Our liberty is from God means that liberty is omnipresent and inherent in human beings. It cannot be bestowed by man.

spunkloaf
07-04-2011, 12:38 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?


Our liberty is from God means that liberty is omnipresent and inherent in human beings. It cannot be bestowed by man.


So why not just say it the way it is? Why do we have to get all cryptic and insert God into this? I'm not bitching about it, it's an honest question.

Mister D
07-04-2011, 12:41 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?


Our liberty is from God means that liberty is omnipresent and inherent in human beings. It cannot be bestowed by man.


So why not just say it the way it is? Why do we have to get all cryptic and insert God into this? I'm not bitching about it, it's an honest question.


It's cryptic to leave God out of it. If human dignity and liberty does not come from God or from man where does it come from?

spunkloaf
07-04-2011, 07:33 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?


Our liberty is from God means that liberty is omnipresent and inherent in human beings. It cannot be bestowed by man.


So why not just say it the way it is? Why do we have to get all cryptic and insert God into this? I'm not bitching about it, it's an honest question.


It's cryptic to leave God out of it. If human dignity and liberty does not come from God or from man where does it come from?

I guess that's a good question which deserves more scrutiny. If you choose to have man and God as the only players in this entire realm, then it's easy to pick one by process of elimination.

But I think your view on the world is just a bit egocentric if you believe that everything has to be created. What if everything is simply interpreted?

Mister D
07-04-2011, 07:44 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?


Our liberty is from God means that liberty is omnipresent and inherent in human beings. It cannot be bestowed by man.


So why not just say it the way it is? Why do we have to get all cryptic and insert God into this? I'm not bitching about it, it's an honest question.


It's cryptic to leave God out of it. If human dignity and liberty does not come from God or from man where does it come from?

I guess that's a good question which deserves more scrutiny. If you choose to have man and God as the only players in this entire realm, then it's easy to pick one by process of elimination.

But I think your view on the world is just a bit egocentric if you believe that everything has to be created. What if everything is simply interpreted?


I'm not sure what you mean by interpret and how is my view egocentric? I'd say it's exactly the opposite. I acknowledge my creatureliness. That hardly strikes me as egocentric.

What other players are there?

spunkloaf
07-04-2011, 08:14 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?


Our liberty is from God means that liberty is omnipresent and inherent in human beings. It cannot be bestowed by man.


So why not just say it the way it is? Why do we have to get all cryptic and insert God into this? I'm not bitching about it, it's an honest question.


It's cryptic to leave God out of it. If human dignity and liberty does not come from God or from man where does it come from?

I guess that's a good question which deserves more scrutiny. If you choose to have man and God as the only players in this entire realm, then it's easy to pick one by process of elimination.

But I think your view on the world is just a bit egocentric if you believe that everything has to be created. What if everything is simply interpreted?


I'm not sure what you mean by interpret and how is my view egocentric? I'd say it's exactly the opposite. I acknowledge my creatureliness. That hardly strikes me as egocentric.

What other players are there?


I think it's almost easier to ask what players aren't there, and let the question fester for awhile.

Then ask, "What is human dignity and liberty?"

Then realize why it's not called God dignity and liberty. It doesn't necessarily have to be in that order.

About "interpret vs. create" ... scientific principles have clearly demonstrated that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There's no law about interpretation though. The only law that comes close is the law of relativity.

Conley
07-04-2011, 08:20 PM
interesting...for people who need a quick refresher course, like me...

"The law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that mass is a form of energy (see rest mass energy) so they can transform one into another. So the distinction between "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) and energy particles (say photons of light) is not wide - they can turn one into other (see annihilation and matter creation). However, this conversion does not affect the total energy of closed systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

spunkloaf
07-04-2011, 08:22 PM
I should write and submit a paper about my theories on the Liberation of Energy.

Mister D
07-04-2011, 08:29 PM
"Our liberty is from God, not the government."

What's the difference? Both instances force you to rely on some kind of outside source to supply you with liberty.

What about embracing the idea that liberty is simply omnipresent and inherent by default? What about embracing the idea that it takes effort for somebody else to get greedy and infringe upon your liberty in order to improve their status?


Our liberty is from God means that liberty is omnipresent and inherent in human beings. It cannot be bestowed by man.


So why not just say it the way it is? Why do we have to get all cryptic and insert God into this? I'm not bitching about it, it's an honest question.


It's cryptic to leave God out of it. If human dignity and liberty does not come from God or from man where does it come from?

I guess that's a good question which deserves more scrutiny. If you choose to have man and God as the only players in this entire realm, then it's easy to pick one by process of elimination.

But I think your view on the world is just a bit egocentric if you believe that everything has to be created. What if everything is simply interpreted?


I'm not sure what you mean by interpret and how is my view egocentric? I'd say it's exactly the opposite. I acknowledge my creatureliness. That hardly strikes me as egocentric.

What other players are there?


I think it's almost easier to ask what players aren't there, and let the question fester for awhile.

Then ask, "What is human dignity and liberty?"

Then realize why it's not called God dignity and liberty. It doesn't necessarily have to be in that order.

About "interpret vs. create" ... scientific principles have clearly demonstrated that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There's no law about interpretation though. The only law that comes close is the law of relativity.


Other than God (if you are a believer) or Man I don't understand who all these other possible player s might be. Please elaborate.

Simple. Do individual human beings have inviolable rights and value.

It's not "God dignity and liberty". We're talking about human beings. God given perhaps.

spunkloaf
07-04-2011, 08:53 PM
Then I think it's more important to focus on the interpretation rather than the symbol. In that case, I have no beef with God. But if the word is used to advertise a belief system--which I also have no beef with--then people should clearly understand the difference, and also try to understand their own interpretation.

Mister D
07-04-2011, 09:02 PM
Then I think it's more important to focus on the interpretation rather than the symbol. In that case, I have no beef with God. But if the word is used to advertise a belief system--which I also have no beef with--then people should clearly understand the difference, and also try to understand their own interpretation.


What is the symbol? God? I don't see God as the symbol here but the ultimate source of human dignity and liberty.

spunkloaf
07-04-2011, 09:20 PM
Then I think it's more important to focus on the interpretation rather than the symbol. In that case, I have no beef with God. But if the word is used to advertise a belief system--which I also have no beef with--then people should clearly understand the difference, and also try to understand their own interpretation.


What is the symbol? God? I don't see God as the symbol here but the ultimate source of human dignity and liberty.




FIIIIIIINNNNNNE. ::)

If you truly don't see the word God as an advertisement for a particular system of religious beliefs and think that the author actually put thought and meaning into what it means, who am I to judge you?

Yes, the symbol I referred to was God. God to me is a symbol, since the word is just that....a word....which is a form of a symbol.

http://www.witchcraftmusic.com/cymbal.jpeg

No, not that cymbal.

Mister D
07-05-2011, 12:05 PM
Then I think it's more important to focus on the interpretation rather than the symbol. In that case, I have no beef with God. But if the word is used to advertise a belief system--which I also have no beef with--then people should clearly understand the difference, and also try to understand their own interpretation.


What is the symbol? God? I don't see God as the symbol here but the ultimate source of human dignity and liberty.




FIIIIIIINNNNNNE. ::)

If you truly don't see the word God as an advertisement for a particular system of religious beliefs and think that the author actually put thought and meaning into what it means, who am I to judge you?

Yes, the symbol I referred to was God. God to me is a symbol, since the word is just that....a word....which is a form of a symbol.

http://www.witchcraftmusic.com/cymbal.jpeg

No, not that cymbal.


Huh? ???

Mister D
07-05-2011, 12:18 PM
How about this? Explain what you're position is on these questions. That will help move the conversation forward.