Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's interesting how Rand Paul can "oppose same sex marriage", yet at the same time believe that buggerites marrying is a "states rights matter".
Perhaps Ralphie, who is neutral on all matters, can explain that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
You are soooo dense. First, it is a state's rights issue. Always was. Who issues marriage certificates, alaCarte? States do! Therefore, who should decide who received a state-issued certificate? This is a legal argument.
Actually it's a moral argument Ralphie (and excuse me for surmising, but are you actually taking a side on this issue, the side being "pro homosexual rights"?).
When you say "Always has been"?, are you implying that the respective states always have allowed homosexuals and people other than one man and one woman to marry?
Of course we need to go back to writings of our Founding Fathers and see how they felt on the issue (they found the subject of homosexuality to be "detestable").
Quote:
Second, Rand Paul opposes same sex marriage, personally. This is a matter of personal opinion.
There are two arguments here and you only perceive one.
Ah yes, morals are a "matter of personal opinion". Spoken like a true moral relativist Ralphie.
And I hear that daily from pro sodomite politicians here in WA State:
"While I am personally against two men sodomizing each other and spreading deadly diseases, I don't think there should be legislation against it, in fact, they should be allowed to ruin the institution that is the foundation of a society: marriage!"
You could easily be a spokesperson for the sodomite so-called "community" Ralphie if you ever got off that fence sitting status of yours and took their side.
"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other... Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
April 29th, 2012, 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Actually it's a moral argument Ralphie (and excuse me for surmising, but are you actually taking a side on this issue, the side being "pro homosexual rights"?).
No. I don't think gay marriage should be legal. It is, however, up to each state to decide if they will allow gay marriage or not. - fact
Of course, being that you worship the federal government, you want them to make one all-encompassing law for the entire nation; just like they did when they legalized abortion nationwide.
They have a pretty poor track record yet you worship them anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
When you say "Always has been"?, are you implying that the respective states always have allowed homosexuals and people other than one man and one woman to marry?
As in, marriage has always been a state's issue. Actually read what I wrote next time. I said nothing about homosexuals there.
Quote:
Second, Rand Paul opposes same sex marriage, personally. This is a matter of personal opinion.
There are two arguments here and you only perceive one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ah yes, morals are a "matter of personal opinion". Spoken like a true moral relativist Ralphie.
Spoken like a person with a learning disability.
I never said "morals are a matter of personal opinion". Rand Paul's personal opinion is that he opposes same-sex marriage. I would be willing to bet that a gay couple would have a different (opposite) personal opinion.
You don't think so? What do you think their opinion would be on the topic of gay marriage?
Gays are allowed to have an opinion, aren't they?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
Hands that help are holier than lips that pray.
Reputation:
May 3rd, 2012, 12:51 PM
I think Rand is probably a little too conservative for me. Heck, Ron is a little too conservative for me but I like him better than Obama or Romney. Actually, I like Gary Johnson. The Libertarians will be choosing a candidate this weekend so we'll see if he makes it.
I believe that the Universe is one being, all its parts are different expressions of the same energy,
and they are all in communication with each other, therefore parts of one organic whole.
This whole is in all its parts so beautiful, and is felt by me to be so intensely in earnest, that I am compelled to love it and to think of it as divine
- Robinson Jeffers
Well, when the racists could no longer hate on people of color, and get away with it, they switched to hating on homosexuals. So now that is the civil rights issue. Hard to say who will be next, but they have to hate on someone, so I'm sure there will be a new scapegoat for them to hate, eventually.
Marriage is already a nationally enforced legal contract. If you are legally married in Main you are considered legally married everywhere else in the U.S., and if you are legally divorced in Nevada, you are considered legally divorced in the other states. Just because a state issues the license, doesn't mean it's not a nationally enforceable contract. And this has always been the case.
One of the reasons this matters so much more these days is that people move around a lot more, now, than they used to. And this is why the uniformity of legal rights and responsibilities has become a bigger issue than it once was. It's also why, by necessity, states will have to become more inter-compliant regarding government policies, especially policies effecting individual rights.
These old "precedents" are becoming unworkable, now. And many of them should never have been state rights to begin with, as they involve our fundamental rights as citizens of the nation. Like it or not, as we mature as a nation, we are going to have to let go of our old prejudices and our old ways, and begin to learn to respect our differences.
After all, this country was created for the expressed purpose of establishing equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all. Just because we have not fully achieved this stated purpose in the past doesn't mean we are relieved of our responsibility to continue to try.
The point is to differentiate what is a federal mandate as opposed to what should be state rights. It's not fair to force people in Alabama to observe same sex marriage any more than it is fair to make people in California not observe it. When you begin to understand that legislating social issues on the federal level won't work in a two party system, you will begin to see what a dangerous game it is to play.
It's far better to let the individual states legislate legality of social issues. If the country continues on a path where federal government has complete power, then who is to say that social conservatives don't get in power and make same sex marriage illegal nationwide? Then it's not legal in any state. Is it fair to say PureX, that you are under the impression that liberals do and will always control the government?
If it is not legislated on a federal level than some states can have it be legal, some have it be illegal. That is better than one political party dictating to every state how it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M
Here is the problem. He says he is prof life, but if California wants to murder children in the womb, that is ok with him. Therefore, he is pro choice, he will let them do what they want. That is afterall, what choice means.
The problem with that is that if you set up the federal government as supreme arbiter of all issues, including social issues, Roe vs Wade happens. Then you are left with abortion being legal across the whole territory. The only way to change that is overturning the court order and there is no guarantee there will ever be enough conservatives in power to accomplish that. Obama is going to win another term, most likely and then it will be a LONG time before any change can happen.
Now if Rand were elected, he would work to get abortion to be a states right issue. So, if say Mississippi wants it outlawed, it will be outlawed and there will be many lives saved in that state, and all the other state that outlaws it. The clinics will be gone from those states and that will be a great thing. As it stands and for any foreseeable future, the best they can do is make it hard on them.
It would be so much easier to cut the amount of abortions down if the federal government was out of the way. Get the feds out of the way, people won't be subjected to having Washington dictate legality of social issues when the majority of them might be liberal or conservative.
Contributing to the fall of ideas, one post at a time
Slogan/motto:
Who needs doctrines of demons, when religion will suffice?
Reputation:
June 8th, 2012, 09:16 AM
Ron Paul does oppose abortion on a federal level, introducing several times the Sanctity of Life Act that would define life (or legal person hood) on a federal level and remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In combination with the 14'th amendment, no state would be allowed to legalize it. (any law making it legal would be unconstitutional) What he doesn't want are federal penalties or a federal abortion police, but enforced on a state level along with all other acts of violence.
As far as marriage, he doesn't even believe it's the jurisdiction of the government at all. Which it's not.
Rand Paul does worry me, especially with his recent endorsement of Mitt Romney. They do not agree on anything substantial, and Rand should know Romney's poor attitude towards the constitution (endorsing many of Obama's violations, namely the NDAA). I predict that Romney will win and the current thinking that you couldn't get worse than president Obama will be dis-proven, for 8 whole years, and several more wars.
As for those who thing both of them are to "conservative" and not libertarian enough...wow, no happy until anarchy, no? Take the abortion issue. In Ron's own words "if we can't protect life, we can't protect liberty." That is, libertarianism has it's limits. You can't do just anything.
Nice post iH8. I think Rand endorsing anyone right now is really a statement of objecting to Obama's campaign. You have to look at it realistically and it's clear that Romney, for what it's worth, is more conservative fiscally than Obama. So of the two he is the better choice from Rand's pov, I would think but I don't believe he is really happy deep down with Romney. As for him being too conservative, he does have the most conservative voting record. He's not in the game of imparting conservative social values on everyone however, he is in the game of upholding the constitution which in the end gives the states more freedom to govern conservatively if they want.
Contributing to the fall of ideas, one post at a time
While there are some similarities between Flip Flop Mitt and "Daddy the Libertarian" (both support sodomy and abortion: "At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion" http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ ), there are differences as well.
"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other... Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
That's some bull plain and simple. He has to pick Romney to stand a chance to get Obama out of office.
He doesn't support those things either. Just because he doesn't want to use to federal government to produce even more overreach doesn't mean he wants those things to exist. By removing federal overreach states are then free to legislate social issues. You're an idiot who thinks too macro acw and really not even worth this reply.
Contributing to the fall of ideas, one post at a time
Slogan/motto:
Who needs doctrines of demons, when religion will suffice?
Reputation:
June 8th, 2012, 10:07 AM
I am just surprised that after a simple conversation Rand Paul endorsed him. Surprising, because Romney is an expert at saying what wants to be heard (and Rand should know that), and in addition really does not have anything close to descent standing muscles (I dare say the strongest ones are on his face). And when you're endorsing the better, sorry, less evil (and less spending) candidate, you still endorse an evil and a spending candidate. (I can support wasting 5 million because wasting 7 million would be much worse.)
For that matter, we should endorse Obama if he was running against Satan. BTW, if Satan ever runs for president, I'm fairly certain he'll choose to run as a fiscally conservative Republican. (Hmm...it remains to be seen if He's done this already).
Ron Paul does oppose abortion on a federal level, introducing several times the Sanctity of Life Act that would define life (or legal person hood) on a federal level and remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In combination with the 14'th amendment, no state would be allowed to legalize it. (any law making it legal would be unconstitutional) What he doesn't want are federal penalties or a federal abortion police, but enforced on a state level along with all other acts of violence.
While this thread is about Rand Paul, his mentor and first pick as President of course is his Libertarian daddy, Ron Paul.
It appears thus far that Rand isn't as loony as his father, let's hope that lunacy isn't genetic and that it doesn't eventually creep up on Rand Paul.
As far as Ron Paul being pro life and a supposed moderate on issues like homosexuality, it's time to set you Libertarians straight (again).
Ron Paul Joins Democrats in Defeating Sex Selection Abortion Ban, Allowing Genocide to Continue UPDATED
"It seems there really is a war on women being waged by the democrat party. A vile, wicked war of death. Ron Paul and six other Republican have joined democrats in supporting this mass murder." http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wor...e-to-continue/
Of course Congressman Ron Paul has his excuses for voting against the ban, acouple of them being that federal murder laws are "unconstitutional" and that banning abortion should be left up to the states. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...ent-on-hr-3541
Regarding Ron Paul's stance on homosexuality. First of all, we're dealing with a supposed Christian that doesn't even think it is a sin. http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/88600/
Again, let's just hope that lunacy doesn't run in the Paul family and that Senator Rand Paul isn't afflicted with it.
"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other... Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
Slogan/motto:
Who needs doctrines of demons, when religion will suffice?
Reputation:
June 9th, 2012, 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As far as Ron Paul being pro life and a supposed moderate on issues like homosexuality, it's time to set you Libertarians straight (again).
With you this is my first interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"It seems there really is a war on women being waged by the democrat party. A vile, wicked war of death. Ron Paul and six other Republican have joined democrats in supporting this mass murder."
Phenomenal logic: What you don't vote against...
1. in absolutely every way possible (even if illegal)
2. in compliance with every related agenda and organizational effort
...you logically support and are a Baby hater. Wow.
Upholding the Constitution is not an option, it's an oath. Give me one section that empowers the federal government to make those type of laws (that is not also an interpretation to say the federal Government may pass any law it wants).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Of course Congressman Ron Paul has his excuses for voting against the ban, acouple of them being that federal murder laws are "unconstitutional" and that banning abortion should be left up to the states.
Or in other words, the supreme law of the land forbids Congress to pass such laws. Absolutely true. Take part in a Constitutional convention if you believe the federal government needs virtually unlimited power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And of course since it isn't a sin in Ron Paul's moral relativist eyes, he would have no problem voting to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
May I point out, if you are pursuing this from the standpoint of we shouldn't allow people who openly sin on that level to be in the military, the Bible itself puts homosexuality on a par with covetousness. Interesting, considering the partiality the evangelical community shows with condemning specific areas. His point was similar...if you only want moral people in the military, you have to count out a good many "sinners" of numerous other lifestyles, including those that divorce and re-marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, let's just hope that lunacy doesn't run in the Paul family and that Senator Rand Paul isn't afflicted with it.
Oh, Senator Paul is very affiliated with following the Constitution. Sorry to disappoint you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"It seems there really is a war on women being waged by the democrat party. A vile, wicked war of death. Ron Paul and six other Republican have joined democrats in supporting this mass murder."
Quote:
Originally Posted by iH82BdatHERETIC...
Phenomenal logic: What you don't vote against...
1. in absolutely every way possible (even if illegal)
2. in compliance with every related agenda and organizational effort
...you logically support and are a Baby hater. Wow.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Ron Paul. You showed in an earlier post that he doesn't have any problem with the federal government intervening in abortion matters:
"Ron Paul does oppose abortion on a federal level, introducing several times the Sanctity of Life Act that would define life (or legal person hood) on a federal level and remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court."
So why the change of heart on HR-3541?
Quote:
Upholding the Constitution is not an option, it's an oath. Give me one section that empowers the federal government to make those type of laws (that is not also an interpretation to say the federal Government may pass any law it wants).
It's all about "original intent". The Founding Fathers never intended for the states to have the right to sin, especially with things like the murdering of the innocent unborn and the destestable behavior known as homosexuality.
The charter to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, clearly addresses the right to life issue:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain [and] inalienable rights; that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”
In the 1836 SCOTUS decision New Orleans v. United States, sovereignty was given to the federal government for certain crimes committed on federal property. My point here is that just because the Constitution doesn't clearly talk about federal laws against murder, doesn't mean that the federal government doesn't have a right to prosecute certain types of murder cases (Assassination of the President, murder on federal property, etc.).http://www.ehow.com/about_6692665_de...ification.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Of course Congressman Ron Paul has his excuses for voting against the ban, acouple of them being that federal murder laws are "unconstitutional" and that banning abortion should be left up to the states.
Quote:
Or in other words, the supreme law of the land forbids Congress to pass such laws. Absolutely true. Take part in a Constitutional convention if you believe the federal government needs virtually unlimited power.
Protecting the life of the innocent unborn is giving the federal government "unlimited power"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And of course since it isn't a sin in Ron Paul's moral relativist eyes, he would have no problem voting to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Quote:
May I point out, if you are pursuing this from the standpoint of we shouldn't allow people who openly sin on that level to be in the military, the Bible itself puts homosexuality on a par with covetousness. Interesting, considering the partiality the evangelical community shows with condemning specific areas. His point was similar...if you only want moral people in the military, you have to count out a good many "sinners" of numerous other lifestyles, including those that divorce and re-marry.
Ah yes, the old "all sins are equal" ploy. Since we are talking about the Constitution and the men who wrote it, here's their thoughts on the subject of "buggery":
"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished." http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com...sexuality.html
Needless to say, the Founding Fathers weren't sitting around discussing if homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military or if they had the so-called "right" to marry, they were discussing whether castration was a proper punishment for that destestable act.
Ron Paul would be a much wiser man if he dropped his affiliation with the anti-God Libertarian movement and actually read what the Founding Father's intended for this nation.
"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other... Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
Slogan/motto:
The kingdom is within, and comes without observation.
Reputation:
June 10th, 2012, 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
Rand Paul, son of Ron paul, has been taking the political world for a spin since his election to the United States senate in 2010. As a graduate of the Duke medical program and former practicing ophthalmologist, Rand has garnered a reputation for the being the most conservative voter in the senate. A far right libertarian by nature, Rand has been a poster boy for the Tea Party who was seen as legitimizing a movement that was often ridiculed for some of it's more outlandish supporters. With this post, I hope to make the case for why Rand can accomplish what his father simply can't.
One of the problems with Ron is Ron is seen as too liberal to gather any conservative votes. Rand does not have this problem. His voting record has been the most conservative of any senator in several decades. A libertarian that will have the conservative base in his favor along with the independents/libertarians? Incredible and there is no way a democrat could beat that turnout. Rand battles both the democrats and republicans on many issues. Here is a video that exemplifies what I am stating and thankfully it cuts off Mr. Annoyingly Perfect Hannity at the end.
The amazing detail is that there many liberals that agree with and like Rand. He appears to be infinitely more likeable than his father despite his ultra-conservative voting record. Now let's examine where he stands on the issues, in convenient bullet form. I'll highlight what I consider important and add in things not covered in the article on ONTHEISSUES.org. BTW, don't you hate when someone makes this kind of thread and doesn't put stuff in easy to read bullet form?
On Abortion
Life begins at conception.
Opposes federal abortion funding.
Prohibit federal funding for abortion.
Maintains that it is a state right to legislate its legality
On Budget and Economy
Government not serious about controlling spending.
Larger government is not a solution for economy.
Debt crisis is approaching a point of no return.
Bank bailout was bad policy & helped no banks in KY.
No federal bailouts of private industry.
Demand a Balanced Budget amendment.
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate.
Sponsored bill increasing debt limit to $16.7 trillion.
Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge.
Disapprove of increasing the debt limit.
Liberty Candidate: End the Federal Reserve.
On Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector.
Opposes same-sex marriage.
Opposes affirmative action.
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage on federal level.
Maintains same-sex marriage is a matter or state rights
On Drugs
Tackle drug problem; no one cares where funding comes from.
Community treatment instead of federal anti-drug programs.
Drug abuse isn't a pressing issue; 10-20 years is too harsh.
Favors legalizing medical marijuana.
On Education
Support homeschooling and parental responsibility.
Supports dismantling Department of Education
Supports transferring grants/scholarships/loans for higher education to other departments
Finally and most importantly in my opinion
On Government Reform
Federal contracts should include no-PAC clauses.
FactCheck: No, Kagan never said she'd regulate vegetable eating.
Lobbyists' sole goal is to rip you off.
No Pork Pledge: decrease earmarking; increase transparency.
Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill.
Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them.
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced.
There is more about him on the issues including energy and oil that you can view here Rand Paul.
So as you can see, this version of the Pauls is extremely conservative but still maintains his objectivity to allow for many social issues, or matters of subjective morality to be governed by the state sovereignty. This is an important belief and understanding we need in any president because not only is it constitutional, but it upholds why the whole system of statehood is so important. A union of sovereign states where social issues are left up to the people, not one party's subjective viewpoint. This is why Rand will accomplish what his father simply can't, should he ever run for presidential office. He is conservative beyond any other candidate in recent memory yet he does not seek to create a divisive environment where people are alienated because his subjective morality would not be forced on them. His secret? He is intelligent enough and articulate enough to be able to convey this to the american public in a way his father just bumbles and fumbles through.
If he could return the country back to the original organic consititution that ended in Feb 21 1871, then I would vote for that person! until then its all still based on a corperation no matter who gets elected.
Don't put your hopes in the fox throwing himself out of the chicken coop.
humorous, the lengths people have to go to , the contortionist twisting, in order to equate traditional historically accepted marriage with same sex union.
As in, marriage has always been a state's issue. Actually read what I wrote next time. I said nothing about homosexuals there.
Linear Mode
