RE: Hey, Republicans.

RE: Hey, Republicans. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/14/2011 12:13:33 PM)
"Read the newsletters, read the sanctity of life act, investigate how many earmarks he requests in budgets he still votes against. Then tell me how the man is what he claims to be. " You know I hate to agree with you period, but this is much worse. Spare the pity party though, I would still vote for Ron Paul above any candidate they would put forth. It's not that he's a tower of virtue, I just think he's quite a bit less nasty than most of the choices we sheeple get. T^T

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/14/2011 1:27:58 PM)
quote: You know I hate to agree with you period, but this is much worse. Spare the pity party though, I would still vote for Ron Paul above any candidate they would put forth. It's not that he's a tower of virtue, I just think he's quite a bit less nasty than most of the choices we sheeple get. Like I said... Not a one of them that don't have some issue. At least the majority of what he says makes sense.

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/14/2011 1:35:32 PM)
quote: sanctity of life act Unless there's some deeper text which betrays his belief, I'm not seeing the problem. I'm personally torn between Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion. In regards to Paul, at first glance Pro-Life might seem to go against freedom of the individual to make a decision but if you look at his beliefs, it's right inline with them. He believes conception is the beginning of life as well as I and if so then why wouldn't the rights to life be attached to a living being by his definition. Don't worry, I'll make certain I check him out completely before I decide anything. If someone else has issues with him and can raise legitimate concerns, I would be glad to hear them and appreciate the sharing.

hot4bondage -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/14/2011 2:50:50 PM)
I strongly disagree with RP on kicking social issues back to the states in general. No level of government owns our bodies. Since he delivered babies for a living, he's probably biased. I think that his, and your, definition would lead to forced pregnancies. That said, across the board he tends to want the federal government to just leave people alone. I can support that 100%.

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 1:09:15 PM)
quote: I strongly disagree with RP on kicking social issues back to the states in general. Curious as to why you think it's a bad idea?

DomKen -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 1:49:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: I strongly disagree with RP on kicking social issues back to the states in general. Curious as to why you think it's a bad idea? What would happen to gays in Texas?

Moonhead -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 1:51:22 PM)
They'd all have to move to New York.

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 2:22:36 PM)
quote: What would happen to gays in Texas? Yeah I'm not too fond of some of the remarks he made about marriage being One Man/One Woman. I think though he could be reached because of his Libertarian background as to why it should be liberty to all. I think if he pushes that back to the states, wouldn't that potentially be a plus in many other states? Could you not conceivably see many states falling in line if enough were on board? How about a flood to a particular state because of ruling for it? Man what a draw for a state that allowed it, right? I don't really think you guys are thinking it through. What's happening to gays in Texas now? Oh that's right, it's banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state#State-by-state_listing

DomKen -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 2:39:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: What would happen to gays in Texas? Yeah I'm not too fond of some of the remarks he made about marriage being One Man/One Woman. I think though he could be reached because of his Libertarian background as to why it should be liberty to all. I think if he pushes that back to the states, wouldn't that potentially be a plus in many other states? Could you not conceivably see many states falling in line if enough were on board? How about a flood to a particular state because of ruling for it? Man what a draw for a state that allowed it, right? I don't really think you guys are thinking it through. What's happening to gays in Texas now? Oh that's right, it's banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state#State-by-state_listing You're clueless. The current Texas GOP platform quote: Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy. So not only do they not want to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere they want to make gay sex a crime, not allow homosexuals to care for their children and decriminalize gay bashing. And you think it would be a good idea to let the states decide social issues?

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 2:57:24 PM)
quote: And you think it would be a good idea to let the states decide social issues? How is it being decided now? So what we have here most likely is someone picking an argument that he thinks he can make a candidate look bad with. Can you list anything you think he'll do good? I know I could about another politician if given a little time to go through them all thoroughly. Have you done that BTW? Have you looked at how your person has voted over history or are you just repeating in your head party chants? Who are you voting for BTW? [:D] I bet it's the same as you've always voted, no? I don't vote party lines and don't feel like someone who does is rational enough to be allowed to vote..but hey this is America and they have that right.

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 3:02:47 PM)
quote: So not only do they not want to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere they want to make gay sex a crime, not allow homosexuals to care for their children and decriminalize gay bashing. The problem here is, he's not your typical Republican and has all but been ostracized by them. I think with his much more open mind he'll approach problems with rational head. I also think that he'll listen to the people and if the majority of them want something passed, I believe there's a better chance that it'll happen with someone like him than any other member of either side. Is he the perfect candidate, absolutely not but I think he is better than what's offered in the rest. You vote your way and I'll vote mine. Just think it out clearly. I don't hold out much hope for that....but there is a spark.

Moonhead -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 3:04:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: So not only do they not want to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere they want to make gay sex a crime, not allow homosexuals to care for their children and decriminalize gay bashing. The problem here is, he's not your typical Republican and has all but been ostracized by them. I think with his much more open mind he'll approach problems with rational head. I also think that he'll listen to the people and if the majority of them want something passed, I believe there's a better chance that it'll happen with someone like him than any other member of either side. So he's been ostracised by the Republicans for having an open mind, then?

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 3:18:16 PM)
quote: So he's been ostracised by the Republicans for having an open mind, then? Try not to be a dumbass, I know it'll be hard but it'll be rewarding too. Sure he's open on a lot of things that they aren't. He's going against the war machine (He wants to bring home the troops (save lives) and cost Halliburton big bucks and save the American tax payer a few dollars in the process..That's smart fiscal responsibility..Not like he's getting any support from either side), Fed Reserve (I believe he's tied up right now with trying to get them to an audit) and pass a good bit of the control to the states. Cut back on spending in general. Smart man in my book. I know it's hard for some of you to see past your party fences but the kid down the street has some great toys, if only you weren't such asses, you might get to play with them. I'd love to hash this out for endless hours but I have to run to the store, I'll probably read this later.

DomKen -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 4:47:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: So not only do they not want to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere they want to make gay sex a crime, not allow homosexuals to care for their children and decriminalize gay bashing. The problem here is, he's not your typical Republican and has all but been ostracized by them. I think with his much more open mind he'll approach problems with rational head. I also think that he'll listen to the people and if the majority of them want something passed, I believe there's a better chance that it'll happen with someone like him than any other member of either side. Is he the perfect candidate, absolutely not but I think he is better than what's offered in the rest. You vote your way and I'll vote mine. Just think it out clearly. I don't hold out much hope for that....but there is a spark. Your confusion seems to be getting worse. I'm not saying RP is in favor of that stuff. What I'm saying is that in Texas the GOP is in complete control of the government and the above is their stated desire in regards to treatment of homosexuals. Which is a direct argument against your support of RP's desire to devolve decisions on social issues to the states.

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 5:05:51 PM)
quote: Your confusion seems to be getting worse. It's not mine you should be worried about, yours is clouding your judgement. quote: What I'm saying is that in Texas the GOP is in complete control of the government and the above is their stated desire in regards to treatment of homosexuals. Which is a direct argument against your support of RP's desire to devolve decisions on social issues to the states. What you seem to be confused about is the States right to make a decision on what happens in it. I'm not sure if things go the way, maybe, you'd like to see them go, that you'll get Texas, anytime soon, changing it's mind. Regardless of which way you vote. Do you really think the Feds will step in and make it mandatory? Whether you think it would be a good thing or not..should they? Following the rule of Law I say no despite my feeling that the law should be changed..just not at all cost. Feds don't need their noses in our lives every minute of the day. So part of my point was, you'll at least have a guy who, whether he believes in it on a personal level or not, will be more apt to follow the letter of the law constitutionally in situations like this. He may choose to pass it onto the States. He may not. This is nothing more than a straw-man approach. You argue as if him passing more power to the states is going to change something. They are already doing what they want to a great degree. Do you have anything else you don't like about his policy or is this it?

Theon38 -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 5:37:35 PM)
Something to consider. A government that is powerful enough to tell you to allow gay marriage is also powerful enough to tell you you must purchase something, like medical insurance. A government powerful enough to command that of you is also powerful enough to outlaw abortion, ownership of property, shoot, the ability to come onto collarme type websites. This is why some people wish to throw it back to the States, rather than allow an all powerful Federal Government. You might believe, for the moment, that all is well and good and the laws coming down federally are good ones. But what happens when the Tea Party gets the majority? One shouldn't base their jurisprudence off of hope. A consistent belief, enforced at the Federal level, is what Ron Paul has and its one area where I find agreement with him. It's too bad he is so weak on defense.

slvemike4u -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 5:42:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perry will have a hard time getting votes nationally because most people, not raving lunatic cons, do not think highly of people whose indifference to their responsibilities resulted in the death of an innocent man. As far as I'm concerned he can turn water into wine.....but he can never wipe this stain from his record.

Icarys -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 6:04:17 PM)
quote: It's too bad he is so weak on defense. What do you personally mean he's weak on defense? The Iran thing? Bringing troops home and pulling out of all of the countries we are in? I happen to agree with both of those. We can't stay in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan and all of the rest that are coming down the pipe. Not only can't we afford it monetarily, we can't afford it in human lives. I realize we have to sacrifice sometimes but when they begin to lie to make it happen in one and go against congress in another.. one might wanna thing most are too gungho for the best interest of this country. As in most cases, these wars are for money....which isn't an honorable reason to send and keep soldiers in a place they will most likely die. If we spent 1% of what we saved by bringing everyone home into shoring up OUR country instead of someone Else's, we might be ahead of the game. So no, I don't think for a second he's soft on defense..I just think he realizes that spending money that you don't have to keep the war machine going is the wrong thing to do. Iran getting a nuke? Not a whole lot you can do if someone wants to come here with a nuke. Shore your borders up, use some of that money we spend on out vast wars and maybe buy better detection equipment but in the end, foreign policy leaning towards treating other countries with respect instead of killing off their leaders and replacing them with someone we can control/that will trade for oil, might go a whole lot further. I'd be pissed off too if some other country came to US soil and said.. "This is how your gonna do it".. How might you act? I'd wanna pick up a gun and get them out.

DomKen -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 8:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: Your confusion seems to be getting worse. It's not mine you should be worried about, yours is clouding your judgement. quote: What I'm saying is that in Texas the GOP is in complete control of the government and the above is their stated desire in regards to treatment of homosexuals. Which is a direct argument against your support of RP's desire to devolve decisions on social issues to the states. What you seem to be confused about is the States right to make a decision on what happens in it. I'm not sure if things go the way, maybe, you'd like to see them go, that you'll get Texas, anytime soon, changing it's mind. Regardless of which way you vote. Do you really think the Feds will step in and make it mandatory? Whether you think it would be a good thing or not..should they? Following the rule of Law I say no despite my feeling that the law should be changed..just not at all cost. Feds don't need their noses in our lives every minute of the day. So part of my point was, you'll at least have a guy who, whether he believes in it on a personal level or not, will be more apt to follow the letter of the law constitutionally in situations like this. He may choose to pass it onto the States. He may not. This is nothing more than a straw-man approach. You argue as if him passing more power to the states is going to change something. They are already doing what they want to a great degree. Do you have anything else you don't like about his policy or is this it? I'm responding to the point you raised. You claimed you thought devolving social issues to the states was a good idea. I've presented facts that indicate it would be a very bad idea. You have yet to respond in a meaningful manner. You have responded with non sequiturs and now by claiming presenting facts was somehow a strawman. When you are ready to either defend your position or admit your error I'll move on to other subjects if you want, RP is wrong on dozens, but you need to try and actually read what I write and respond on subject.

LanceHughes -> RE: Hey, Republicans. (8/15/2011 8:41:05 PM)
Lance reminds y'all that this thread is supposed to be about voting in Republican Primary today. Here's MY choice: A very, very left-ist REPUBLICAN former Govenor - and a woman to boot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Todd_Whitman Mrs. Whitman's chances? HMMmmmm....... over coats anyone? I thought not. (See, her chances are equal to hell freezing over. We got it, Lance. We GOT it!) BUT! Maybe, just maybe there's a stealth money-raising campaign and a surprise entry in Iowa, etc. LOL! I crack me up! ETA: In early 2005, Whitman released a book entitled It's My Party, Too: Taking Back the Republican Party... And Bringing the Country Together Again in which she criticizes the policies of the George W. Bush administration and its electoral strategy, which she views as divisive. [Here's a quote from the book] “The defining feature of the conservative viewpoint is a faith in the ability, and a respect for the right, of individuals to make their own decisions - economic, social, and spiritual - about their lives. The true conservative understands that government's track record in respecting individual rights is poor when it dictates individual choices." [36]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875