|
Mikademus
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2012, 05:17:31 PM » |
|
I think this firmly cements antymattar's position as a troll.
Or a really really really really really dum kid who will look back on these posts in two years and say "why" kid? And no. Im not a troll. Just the next gen of philosopher. In a world where the economy has turned into recession, a new person enters that will devalue philosophy into intellectual dearth. This is the story of self-delusion and inflated ego in a time where everyone can say his piece, and where the biggest claims mask the simplest minds. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"There\\\'s a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,\\\" says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex. --IGN<br />My compilation of game engines for indies
|
|
|
|
Inanimate
|
|
« Reply #41 on: January 08, 2012, 05:42:07 PM » |
|
Antybaner, no offense, but you're still a kid.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rob
|
|
« Reply #42 on: January 08, 2012, 06:12:09 PM » |
|
Santorum will never be president. He won't win any primaries either. All the news attention he's getting is bullshit and ridiculous.
He lost the Iowa caucus by eight votes. It's either Romney or him. If you think Gingrich, Paul or Perry has any semblance of a chance I wish I knew as little about politics as you, because seriously, why do I care about politics? EDIT: And antybaner, you're only slightly more of a philosopher than Ayn Rand. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2012, 06:39:10 PM » |
|
IMO government shouldn't recognize ANY marriage, call it a civil union for everyone, problem solved. Feel free to call yourself married if you want to.
this is actually RP's position. i don't know what people are getting the idea that he believes marriage should be left up to the states. that is not his position: his position is what glaiel said, that the gov should not be involved in marriage at all, either the fed or the state, and that it should be up to a person and his religion anyway, i'm happy RP is doing better this time around than in 2008, but like allen said he still has no chance. but i do like that he brings up issues that both parties want to ignore, as described by glen greenwald here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/ |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 06:47:54 PM by Paul Eres »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BlueSweatshirt
|
|
« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2012, 06:40:38 PM » |
|
I think some sources would be nice here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nix
Guest
|
|
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2012, 06:40:46 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 07:12:13 PM by Nix »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2012, 06:50:20 PM » |
|
I think some sources would be nice here.
if you mean the marriage thing, it's easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislationSexual orientation legislation
Unwed parents adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[195] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[196][197][198][199]
Same-sex unions
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[200] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[200][201]
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[202] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[203] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[204] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[205][206] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[205]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[150] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
Same-sex marriage
In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.
Don't ask, don't tell
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:
I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.[206]
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge openly gay troops if their behavior was not disruptive.[205]
Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[207] He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.
Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws, but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Ron Paul said:
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[208] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2012, 07:08:53 PM » |
|
i also agree with nix that santorum won't win the nomination. the nomination is either going to newt or romney, 100%. santorum has no money, no organization, and isn't even on the ballot in virginia (neither is newt, but newt has money and some organization). santorum may win one or two more states, such as south carolina, but that's it
and regardless of who wins the R nomination, obama will likely win re-election, unless the unemployment rate starts going down again (which is a big unless). if RP runs third candidate, or if the RP machine supports the libertarian nominee (which will probably be either bob barr or gary johnson) obama's chances will be even higher
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Capntastic
|
|
« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2012, 07:35:17 PM » |
|
Or a really really really really really dum kid who will look back on these posts in two years and say "why"
He's pretty much like this on the Bay12 Forums, too. To clarify, he's been banned from the Bay12 forums for equating homosexuality to terrorism, murder, et al, and generally being an incoherent mess.As for Ron Paul, it's easy to write him off as a senile old man, but his situation is infinitely more complex. First, I think he's the one candidate on the Republican Right that truly believes in their own stated ideals. This is, in of itself, a good trait. Of course, many points of his ideology are removed from the real world. Abolishing the FDA, EPA, etc, would be nothing but an invitation for corporations to do harm to both people and the environment. Many support him solely for his stances on ending the drug war, withdrawing from the Middle East, and that's fine. But Ron Paul's pros are far outweighed by his cons. I mean, him being an anti-semitic racist should be enough to convince anyone he's not to be trusted with running a country. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bandages
Guest
|
|
« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2012, 07:45:13 PM » |
|
I only read the title and first two posts of this thread (couldn't agree more mr. hill) so forgive me if I don't engage in source-citing and pointless political arguments
I like libertarians because individual liberty is the whole foundation of the American democracy.
UNFORTUNATELY he hates gays and the like, so
fuck 'em
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Painting
|
|
« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2012, 07:45:32 PM » |
|
Antymattar, why do you keep coming back here? You do realize we've had threads devoted to writing about every regular poster having graphic homoerotic sex? You're preaching to the veritable Indie Sodom, man.
I honestly don't get your thought process. What does this forum hold to you? There are thousands of forums that would be more friendly to your views.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2012, 07:52:52 PM » |
|
@captntastic - that article you linked to was (ghost-)written by lew rockwell, not RP. besides, obama is associated with racism too -- remember that crazy racist preacher whose church obama and his wife attended for so long, and who obama called a hero/mentor/friend and so on in his books? does that disqualify obama?
also, as it stands right now, corporations control the EPA and FDA; they are largely used to maintain monopolies and to destroy small businesses, and are largely run by the same people who once ran the corporations they regulate. theoretically the EPA and the FDA would do good if they were not corporate-owned and corporate-run, but *as they are now* they do more harm than good, we are already in a situation where the medical industry tells the FDA what to do rather than vice versa. as an illustration, the FDA has repeatedly tried to ban vitamins (or at least to require a prescription for them), because the medical industry doesn't want people treating diseases with non-patentable substances (and it's people like RP who defend the right of people to buy vitamins without a prescription)
but again as allen said, RP isn't going to win so i don't really see any pressing reason to discuss him. i think maybe in like 8 or 12 years if his base has time to grow, and if the economy continues to collapse, then maybe rand paul will have a chance of being president (he's a much better speaker than his father), but by then it'd be too late anyway. and i think RP knows this too -- they aren't really trying to win, they're just trying to spread a message
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 08:03:57 PM by Paul Eres »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rob
|
|
« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2012, 07:57:27 PM » |
|
Santorum will never be president. He won't win any primaries either. All the news attention he's getting is bullshit and ridiculous.
He lost the Iowa caucus by eight votes. It's either Romney or him. If you think Gingrich, Paul or Perry has any semblance of a chance I wish I knew as little about politics as you, because seriously, why do I care about politics? Have you paid the slightest attention to what Santorum is actually saying? His beliefs are consistently putrid and manage to alienate nearly everybody but a small radical conservative few. I know exactly what Santorum believes. And I know Mid-America well enough to be afraid. I hope he doesn't get nominated, and I think it will be Romney, but he's second place. That was my point. Ron Paul is Ron fucking Paul, Rick Perry is a Democrat's wet dream and Newt Gingrich has had too many missteps in his history to gain any real support from conservatives who aren't in high school and recognize him. Santorum hates gays and 5-year-olds with cancer. I know plenty of Republicans who do as well. Again, I'm not supporting him. He's basically called me and those like me broken human beings (and I'm not even gay, he did it casually to prove gay people shouldn't raise children). For all I care, any of his supporters can die in house fires. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nix
Guest
|
|
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2012, 08:05:09 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Capntastic
|
|
« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2012, 08:06:33 PM » |
|
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-newsletter-iowa-caucus-republicanRP supported the newsletters back in 1996, and gradually changed his stance and eventually disavowed all connection with them. (Edit: Apparently the furthest he's gone is "I didn't write them" and he has yet to castigate the absolutely abhorrent things written in them.) Beyond even nodding support for them in the vaguest way, not checking out and being aware of what you're letting someone ghostwrite for you is pretty shady- especially when you have clung to them as your own for near on a decade. Obama also quit his church and pretty much cut ties with his pastor as soon as he started up with the racially motivated stuff. Even then, I would argue that being namedropped by and having past ties with a racist is far less damning than either actually being one, or not disagreeing with accusations of being one, while putting out hate filled screeds written in one's name. I would also argue that if you have an issue with corporations controlling government sectors, then the answer lay in controlling what power corporations can have over government (the answer should be none), rather than deregulating corporations and letting them do as they please with no oversight. Patent law is a whole problem in its own right, and that too stems from corporations changing laws to suit themselves. I believe the famous example is that every time Mickey Mouse is about to go public domain, Disney lawyers up and gets extensions, which extend to all IP everywhere. But you are correct, RP just isn't really worth talking about. And, really, I didn't join the forum to have a straight up political discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rob
|
|
« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2012, 08:09:41 PM » |
|
Cool. That was one point I made. The only point you've addressed. Do you think anyone besides Romney or Santorum has a chance? If not, we agree completely. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2012, 08:20:54 PM » |
|
@nix - another big issue is that all the candidates besides RP and romney come in "waves", they rise and fall. the pattern was:
trump into bachmann into perry into cain into newt into santorum
those candidates always rise to the top or near the top, then are "vetted" by the media and get attacks thrown at them, and go back down to oblivion
santorum was just lucky that his peak coincided with the iowa election. he's on his way down now, just like all the others, because he's starting to get vetted by the media
i actually expect that jon huntsman has more of a chance than santorum, despite current poll numebers, because huntsman hasn't had his peak yet. but huntsman probably won't even have a peak because he believes in evolution and global warming, which are abhorrent to most republicans
@capntastic - i'm familiar with what you wrote there, but i don't think it's true that he "has yet to castigate the absolutely abhorrent things written in them" -- he's repeatedly said that he finds what was written in those newsletters terrible, and is the only candidate exposing the racism of the justice system and nation's drug laws. i'm not sure how much stronger he could be about it. i do wish he'd actually name names though -- he knows lew wrote them, he just doesn't want to reveal it because of their friendship
also corporations *are* roughly speaking the government, the idea that you can separate corporations from controlling the government makes no sense to me. they're the same people. an ex-banker ceo is the secretary of treasury, for instance. i don't really see any way to control what power corporations have over government because i see them as two branches of the same thing (the wealthy and powerful class, what the OWS people call the 1%). there is no government on earth which isn't run by its wealthy and powerful class, including "communist" countries like china. seeing government and corporations as separate things is basically what is wrong with politics; the tea party sees gov as the enemy and corporations as the good guys, the OWS protesters see corporations as the enemy and gov as the only way to restrain them, but the private-public power distinction is only meant to confuse people into supporting one half of their enemy, hoping that half would limit the power of the other half
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Capntastic
|
|
« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2012, 08:29:46 PM » |
|
@capntastic - i'm familiar with what you wrote there, but i don't think it's true that he "has yet to castigate the absolutely abhorrent things written in them" -- he's repeatedly said that he finds what was written in those newsletters terrible, and is the only candidate exposing the racism of the justice system and nation's drug laws.
I'm not familiar with this, so if you've got a source I'd appreciate it. As for "Government and Corporations being in bed", that's a sort of discussion that would only end with me having a Matt Taibbi-styled meltdown about how money ruins everything. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rob
|
|
« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2012, 08:41:52 PM » |
|
I was really surprised when Paul rallied against the War on Drugs during the debate last night. Good on him.
He's still hilarious though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #59 on: January 08, 2012, 09:45:07 PM » |
|
@capntastic - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57354591-503544/ron-paul-says-he-is-not-racist-slams-drug-laws-as-unfair-to-blacks/Paul said that Martin Luther King is one his heroes for practicing "the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience," and highlighted his understanding that the drug laws in the United States unfairly penalize African Americans.
"True racism in this country is in the judicial system," Paul said, "the percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately."
"They're prosecuted and imprisoned way disproportionately," he continued, "they get the death penalty way disproportionately. How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution?"
"If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws, which are being so unfairly enforced," said Paul, who is known for his libertarian views on U.S. drug policy. if you want some videos: (this one's a bit long but they get into it at some point) this video's also interesting, it's a selection of clips of people who are black defending ron paul against the racism charge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MAhaven't heard of matt taibbi so i'm not sure what that's a reference to. but i meant more than them being in bed, i meant that they are two faces of the same thing from different angles, like how a spoken word and a written word are both words, even though one of them is made of ink and the other is made of sound, or like how broccoli and cauliflower are actually the same species, just different varieties that trick people into think they're different foods so i don't see government as being manipulated by large corporations, i see it as an extension of them, as the tool that allows them to exist. if big government didn't exist, neither would big corporations, they only can reach that size when they use the power of the government to arrange regulations in their favor. so i see the EPA, FDA, and even social security and welfare as tools corporations are using against the public, rather than things which protect us from them |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Player
