AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox

AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 4:27:53 AM)
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=038305&From=News "compound the problem" "they" still dont hear Paul. how about i hang out 1 lantern if the attack on the dollar is by land. two is by sea.

meatcleaver -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 4:41:37 AM)
You know what they say, put two economists in a room and you get three opinions. It seems to me that "everyone knows what shouldn't be done but nobody knows what should be done" which was a quote from an economist on TV yesterday and if that is the case, why wasn't there regulation stopping people doing the things that shouldn't be done? Of course we know the answer, while the markets were making money, even though those profits weren't based on anything more substantial than paper, politicians are happy because the economy appears to be growing, even though they know the figures are smoke and mirrors. That is the problem when elections are won by a beauty contest rather than based on hard policies.

housesub4you -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 4:58:25 AM)
When I first read your title I thought you wrote Rue Paul, and I was wondering how she got dragged into this mess

MsRobinSanders -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 5:38:01 AM)
ha ha ha I like Rue Paul better than most politicians.

cjan -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 6:07:54 AM)
hunk, I'm puzzled by your support of Ron Paul in the light of his views on equal rights for homosexuals, i.e., he doesn't support them. Care to comment ?

NeedToUseYou -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 6:57:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan hunk, I'm puzzled by your support of Ron Paul in the light of his views on equal rights for homosexuals, i.e., he doesn't support them. Care to comment ? That's just a lie. The only opinion I've heard come forth, was that he didn't agree with gay marriage as a government contract, but then again, he doesn't think marriage should be a government function at all, and is a religious one. That is probably what you are taking to be anti-gay. You have to read more than headlines. So, of course he'll be against it, his view is it's a religion thing, thus gay people would simply have to find a church that would marry them, in a Ron Paul world, the government would have little to do with it. I'll never understand why when there are so many real issues to disagree about, people bring this stuff up.

kittinSol -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 7:02:47 AM)
Not quite, the man's not that soft on homosexuality. "He supported the Defence of Marriage Act in 2004(passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislation

NeedToUseYou -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 7:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Not quite, the man's not that soft on homosexuality. "He supported the Defence of Marriage Act in 2004(passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislation Yeah, I just read the whole thing, he is against forcing federal change to a religious concept. The overall point your missing when you focus on the emotional aspects of marriage, is whether it should even be a federal matter. In the current context with the government nosing into to religious concepts, I also would vote against gay marriage on the federal level. Why? Because the vast majority of religions don't allow gay marriage and opposed to it. Thus my ultimate solution would be to remove the whole of the government from meddling in such things entirely. It simply is not something the federal government should be in to begin with, it should be up to the individual church to decide who or who they will not marry. The government should simply respect that contract. All that said, I'd fully support removing all government interference in marriage, and return it to the churches where it really belongs. Thus the effect would be all gay people would have to do to get married is find a church to marry them. Directly from your link... He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[196] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[197][198] 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."[197]

kittinSol -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 7:33:14 AM)
There have been many threads on the subject of mariage on the boards, but my argument is this: mariage is a legal contract and a wedding can be performed by a non-religious JoP, outside of a church, and as such it isn't an exclusively religious agreement. Not everyone is religious and many people aren't Christians. I should think the subject of gay marriage is a matter of great importance to homosexual couples, who deserve to have their union recognised by the law if they so wish, just like any other couples.

cjan -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 7:48:01 AM)
quote: Sodomy Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote "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."[199] Ron Paul's position seems to be that states' rights to legislate private, adult sexual conduct supercedes equal protection for all under the U.S. Constitution. This opens the door for local legislation denying fair housing, job protection, adoption rights, etc. based on sexual preference.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 8:36:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan quote: Sodomy Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote "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."[199] Ron Paul's position seems to be that states' rights to legislate private, adult sexual conduct supercedes equal protection for all under the U.S. Constitution. This opens the door for local legislation denying fair housing, job protection, adoption rights, etc. based on sexual preference. Again you are arguing something completely different, this is a states rights versus federal rights issue, it has little to do with sodomy. He even states that sodomy are laws are ridiculous in your quote, its' the question of do they actually have the authority to do what they are doing that is at question. Anyway, you started by saying he's anti-gay.The objections are based on state versus federal authority in such regards. That is what he is talking about, not personal approval or disdain for a law, but the legal framework from an intellectual level, whether it was about sodomy or pig fucking, or whatever, that wouldn't matter, because it is about states rights versus federal rights in that context. The marriage thing was about what is marriage, is it a religious concept or a contractual one, and where is that line drawn, or whether their should be a complete seperation, or an offered alternative. Do you get it now. It's not about gay people it's about the legal framework. You are simply latching on the emotion of it, apparently, and not seeing the bigger picture. The question is do they(federal) have the right, not do I agree with the specific law(sodomy). Anyway, you can believe what you want but everything presented so far, shows zero indications of being "anti-gay" as you said he was.

kittinSol -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 8:48:51 AM)
Where did anyone use the words 'anti-gay' or emotional rhetoric? It's been pretty civilised so far.

bestbabync -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 9:00:05 AM)
Ron Paul & Bob Barr both predicted the problems http://www.lp.org/platform http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/another-federal-bailout-%E2%80%9Ci-told-you-so%E2%80%9D-says-bob-barr

cjan -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 9:01:23 AM)
I never said that Paul was anti-gay. You need to read more carefully and not put words in my mouth. What I'm questioning is his lack of support for unpopular minorities for equal rights proection under the law. Supporting "states' rights" to legislate discriminatory laws over supporting Constitutional rights for all citizens is the issue. In this case,Paul states that he thinks the Supreme Court erred in the Lawrence case. In other words, he thinks that Texas and any other state has the right to outlaw sodomy specifically, and other consentual sexual activity between adults in the privacy of their own homes.I find that position disturbing.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 9:14:05 AM)
quote: hunk, I'm puzzled by your support of Ron Paul in the light of his views on equal rights for homosexuals, i.e., he doesn't support them. Care to comment ? quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Where did anyone use the words 'anti-gay' or emotional rhetoric? It's been pretty civilised so far. "hunk, I'm puzzled by your support of Ron Paul in the light of his views on equal rights for homosexuals, i.e., he doesn't support them. Care to comment ? " He says Ron Paul doesn't support equal rights for homosexuals, that equivalent to saying he's anti-gay. IMO. .

bestbabync -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 9:22:12 AM)
maybe it is time to reset our priorities. do we want the federal government to legislate gay rights and the right to have an abortion OR do we want to have a home, car, job, retirement, health insurance, solid safe investment opportunities etc? less government, less taxes = more money in the business man's pockets so we will have a job to pay for our own health insurance, retirement, home, car etc.

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 9:35:43 AM)
I am pissed this morning and maybe not the right time to comment on our government performance so far,,This is what burns my shorts..Of our total debt at least 70 % of it is owned by china and third world banks etc, country's in which we are still pushing out the aid ..With your money almost not worth the paper upon which its printed what are we going to do..Did your president's short message to 'INVESTORS" assure you,maybe he should have tried to assure the whole of the American people..One good thing so far is that bush didn't get his way on letting SS holders invest their retirement into Money market funds/stock market, they would have been up the Creek without a paddle when their only means of living" the monthly checks" got shorter and shorter every month for the near future..Don't county America short, we shall come back with the new technology out there and the green encomany..With two loses seeking to run our country LORD help us all..BOUNTY"S first rule of living is this..He doesn't spend more then he earns...Sorry folks I click on the wrong threads rolling by but will let it stand..bounty

kittinSol -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 9:56:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou He says Ron Paul doesn't support equal rights for homosexuals, that equivalent to saying he's anti-gay. IMO. . Nope, sorry, one doesn't necessarily derive from the other.

Vendaval -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 10:26:09 AM)
No need to apologize Bounty. We have too many people and too much of the government getting by on credit at hefty percentages and robbing Peter to pay Paul. quote: ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER BOUNTY"S first rule of living is this..He doesn't spend more then he earns...Sorry folks I click on the wrong threads rolling by but will let it stand..bounty

NeedToUseYou -> RE: AIG, Ron Paaul, Fox (9/18/2008 10:41:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou He says Ron Paul doesn't support equal rights for homosexuals, that equivalent to saying he's anti-gay. IMO. . Nope, sorry, one doesn't necessarily derive from the other. LOL, Nope, sorry, you're wrong.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125