TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Your Favorites for the Primary
Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Where the hell do you get this stuff? The Council on Foreign Relations is not some shadow organization trying to bring about the downfall of anything. It's main purpose is to publish Foreign Affairs, which is probably the most highly-regarded publication on foreign policy on this side of the Atlantic. Furthermore, it's highly regarded because it's very even-handed in how it addresses issues. The conspiracy theorists who claim that the CFR is out to get them include the likes of Phylis Schafly and other neo-con extremists who get their britches in a bunch precisely because the Council rarely takes their side. And Ron Paul's complaint with the CFR is probably that they deem his foreign policy credentials so insignificant that they would never even think about giving him an invitation to join.

Have you ever really done any research on it other than what you've read in their online journals? Have you read any of what former CFR archivist Prof. Carroll Quigley had to say about their goals? Have you studied the people who layed it's foundations, beginning with Col. Edward Mandell House?

Apparently not.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...175#post8206175

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Have you ever really done any research on it other than what you've read in their online journals? Have you read any of what former CFR archivist Prof. Carroll Quigley had to say about their goals?

So I'm supposed to take the word of a Georgetown professor at it's word, but not the word of anyone else who's ever been a member of the organization? I admit, the only familiarity I have with Quigley is his scholarship that was the foundation for Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" diatribe, a piece of work I find thoroughly flawed and inflammatory. And again, that's another lynchpin of the neo-conservative philosophy. So aside from the neo-cons, who exactly shares your obsession with this so-called CFR global governance conspiracy?

quote:

Apparently not.

I'm sure you're going to give me a lecture on good scholarship.

quote:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...175#post8206175

Thanks for the wikipedia info full of insinuations and no proof! Simply providing a list of powerful people who are members of the CFR does not prove a congealed, coordinated effort to usurp US authority over anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And Ron Paul's complaint with the CFR is probably that they deem his foreign policy credentials so insignificant that they would never even think about giving him an invitation to join.

I'm tired of arguing. Believe what you want.

However, Ron Paul would never want to be a member of that society because it's values are diametrically opposed to his. He's wants to uphold our National Sovereignty, not destroy it.

Oh, and BTW - while we're still on the subject, what foreign policy credentials do you think it was that Angelina Jolie brought to the CFR table?

http://www.people.com/people/articl...0041839,00.html

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Oh, and BTW - while we're still on the subject, what foreign policy credentials do you think it was that Angelina Jolie brought to the CFR table? http://www.people.com/people/articl...0041839,00.html

Exactly. I'm glad you brought it up so I didn't have to. Though to be honest, I was expecting a youtube video interview where she talks about how she wants to take over the world and adopt all its babies or something. You really think an organization that allows Angelina Jolie to be a member is trying to rule the world?

I've spoken with several members of the CFR, and none have ever espoused any ideas about a New World Order. Quite the opposite actually.

Obama.

Damn, Colbert got voted out of the nomination by a commitee.

That says a lot about our system, eh? I thought the whole idea was that anyone could run for president!

I guess we'll toss that on the pile of myths next to freedom, and the seperation of church and state.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Damn, Colbert got voted out of the nomination by a commitee. That says a lot about our system, eh? I thought the whole idea was that anyone could run for president! I guess we'll toss that on the pile of myths next to freedom, and the seperation of church and state.

Colbert wasn't very good about following the rules, that was kind of part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Colbert wasn't very good about following the rules, that was kind of part of the problem.

Yeah, part of their problem, part of our solution.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Yeah, part of their problem, part of our solution.

Well he was breaking campaign finance reform laws, which in my opinion are actually good components of election law.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Exactly. I'm glad you brought it up so I didn't have to. Though to be honest, I was expecting a youtube video interview where she talks about how she wants to take over the world and adopt all its babies or something. You really think an organization that allows Angelina Jolie to be a member is trying to rule the world? I've spoken with several members of the CFR, and none have ever espoused any ideas about a New World Order. Quite the opposite actually.

Well, perhaps they needed a pretty face for a spokesperson (or spokesmodel?)

On the same token, I have friends and family who are Freemasons but apparently none of them have much of a real clue in regards to the inner, more secretive workings of the craft. Just like with the Ancient Mystery Schools of Egypt or Babylon, there's an enormous difference in just being a member (or an initiate) and actually being an adept or as it's called in Freemasonry, "enlightened" or "illuminated."

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I have a hard time understanding why people would vote based on those issues when there are so many others which are of such greater importance. (except for immigration because that IS very important)

gay rights not important?
how about i tell YOU that YOU cant get married one day
or that YOU may never be allowed to adopt children because its "politically incorrect".

fuck that. seriously
compared to this.. immigration is nothing

quote:

Originally posted by barbina gay rights not important? how about i tell YOU that YOU cant get married one day or that YOU may never be allowed to adopt children because its "politically incorrect". fuck that. seriously compared to this.. immigration is nothing

And unfortunately it's the one issue that all the candidates leave a lot to be desired. I've never understood this debate. People are people are people. Love is love is love. Who's to judge the "good" from the "bad" in either case?

I think it will become socially acceptable in time whether politicians accept it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au I think it will become socially acceptable in time whether politicians accept it or not.

Yeah, unfortunately politicians are often behind the times.

quote:

Originally posted by barbina gay rights not important? how about i tell YOU that YOU cant get married one day or that YOU may never be allowed to adopt children because its "politically incorrect". fuck that. seriously compared to this.. immigration is nothing

Different people give different relative weights to the problems depending on how they affect them personally.

An illegal immigrant would care less for civil rights of the gay society.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au I think it will become socially acceptable in time whether politicians accept it or not.

I think this is totally incorrect. Politicians are a part of the society. Gay civil rights are not acceptable to many people in the US. Same sex marriages are still not as socially acceptable as straight marriages anywhere in the world. The politicians stand to gain more by opposing these rights than supporting them. How many people will frown on same sex marriages ? You can talk about this all over the internet, but when it comes to real life, society is still not ready to accept these issues. If you see two gay men openly kissing in public what fraction of the watchers will feel a revulsion and what fraction will approve of the behavior ? Now replace the kissing couple by a guy and a girl.

im not saying youre wrong omega, all im saying is its wrong for him to say its not an important issue. i know its not gonna change anytime soon, but its still one of the main deciding factors in my vote. Ill vote for whoever is more for it than against it.

quote:

Originally posted by barbina gay rights not important? how about i tell YOU that YOU cant get married one day or that YOU may never be allowed to adopt children because its "politically incorrect". fuck that. seriously compared to this.. immigration is nothing

Don't get me wrong because I believe that everyone is created equal. I just don't think that at this very moment that gay rights is nearly as important as saving our country from ruin. Most people are eager to proclaim their individual rights but they fail to realize that if our Constitution (and it's Bill of Rights) becomes any further tread upon and/or dismantled then freedom as we've come to know it could be thrown out the window.

i believe denying gay rights will send our country into ruin. its one reason why im moving to canada.

I think I found Latin's favorite candidate:

quote:

Republican presidential candidate Fred D. Thompson has been crisscrossing the country since early this summer on a private jet lent to him by a businessman and close adviser who has a criminal record for drug dealing. [...] Martin entered a plea of guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana in 1979; the court withheld judgment pending completion of his probation. He was charged in 1983 with violating his probation and with multiple counts of felony bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy. He pleaded no contest to the cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy charges, which stemmed from a plan to sell $30,000 worth of the drug, and was continued on probation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

Grandpa Fred continues to surprise me......

I'm surprised Opus. I wouldn't expect you to judge someone based on someone else's past.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au I'm surprised Opus. I wouldn't expect you to judge someone based on someone else's past.

I don't. But I do like to point out blatant hypocrisy by the GOP base instead.

And for someone like Grandpa Fred to be aligned with someone who's colorful past in the drug trade is, well, rather interesting to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by barbina i believe denying gay rights will send our country into ruin. its one reason why im moving to canada.

Then why hasn't that ever happened in all recorded history? I've never read this empire or that state collapsed because they didn't give homosexuals marriage rights, etc. No offense, I believe people should do what they want, as long as they don't violate anyone elses rights (I'm on your side), but I don't think the issue is nearly as grave as endless wars, rumors of wars, and power-mongering, both inside and outside of the government. If these issues aren't taken care of, you will never get your gay rights. So I say focus on the most important issues first, then you'll have a chance to be recognized under the law, but right now, our law (legislators) are totally focused on the very serious issues of our failed foreign policy.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Then why hasn't that ever happened in all recorded history? I've never read this empire or that state collapsed because they didn't give homosexuals marriage rights, etc.

The same is true for a lot of things that you worry about. You proclaim that American sovereignty is under siege by all kinds of things that have never brought down the American state before, nor likely ever will (Fed. Reserve, Trilateral Commission, evil bankers, etc.).

quote:

No offense, I believe people should do what they want, as long as they don't violate anyone elses rights (I'm on your side), but I don't think the issue is nearly as grave as endless wars, rumors of wars, and power-mongering, both inside and outside of the government. If these issues aren't taken care of, you will never get your gay rights.

Protecting civil liberties are a fundamental component of the state's responsibilities - as a libertarian, I would expect you to argue that first and foremost. For those affected by potential attempts to ban gay marriage or civil unions outright, this is their civil rights movement. In the 1960's in many states, it was still illegal to marry inter-racially. This struggle is a continuation of the reclamation of the right to govern our own personal lives once again. It's interesting to see our roles reverse here - I believe in a strong federal government, but don't see its role in governing morality in one's personal life. You believe in small government, but don't seem to notice or care that this right is being infringed upon.

quote:

So I say focus on the most important issues first, then you'll have a chance to be recognized under the law, but right now, our law (legislators) are totally focused on the very serious issues of our failed foreign policy.

I'm really surprised by how people in this forum assume that all Congress deals with is foreign policy. I agree, it's important. But they don't spend nearly as much time on Iraq/Iran as you might think. When it comes down to it, legislators are elected to represent their constituents on issues that matter most at home, not over-arching foreign policy ideals.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The same is true for a lot of things that you worry about. You proclaim that American sovereignty is under siege by all kinds of things that have never brought down the American state before, nor likely ever will (Fed. Reserve, Trilateral Commission, evil bankers, etc.).

I've never talked about the trilateral commission here. I don't ever say "evil" bankers. I call them criminal bankers in terms of the law. I don't want the Federal Reserve to be taken down. I want the markets to decide interest rates and money supply. A precious metal backed currency should be circulated alongside the dollar. The competition will force the dollar to have to compete. Inflation would plummet, and the value of the dollar would rise once again. As for bringing down the state. The past doesn't guarantee the future...

quote:

Protecting civil liberties are a fundamental component of the state's responsibilities - as a libertarian, I would expect you to argue that first and foremost. For those affected by potential attempts to ban gay marriage or civil unions outright, this is their civil rights movement. In the 1960's in many states, it was still illegal to marry inter-racially. This struggle is a continuation of the reclamation of the right to govern our own personal lives once again. It's interesting to see our roles reverse here - I believe in a strong federal government, but don't see its role in governing morality in one's personal life. You believe in small government, but don't seem to notice or care that this right is being infringed upon.

Listen, right now, we're in a mess. Now, before we talk about new civil liberties, we have to worry about losing BASIC civil liberties. This country is in a mess. You want to start talking about gay rights, while troops and Iraqis are dying everyday. Sorry, but gays aren't getting killed everyday in an occupation. Stop the killing, then worry about new civil liberties. Secure the basic liberties, which right now, are in peril.

quote:

I'm really surprised by how people in this forum assume that all Congress deals with is foreign policy. I agree, it's important. But they don't spend nearly as much time on Iraq/Iran as you might think. When it comes down to it, legislators are elected to represent their constituents on issues that matter most at home, not over-arching foreign policy ideals.

Their constituents are the ones who bring up issues to their legislator to go to Congress to lobby for. Well, right now, constituents are too engulfed in Iraq, Iran, and the "war on terror" to care enough to even want to consider why gay couples deserve equal status as married couples have under the law. That issue is barely covered in the mainstream media. Little has been mentioned in the current primaries about it. Do you know why that is? It's because the bigger issue of our foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, etc.) has everyone's full attention. All I'm saying is fix the situation, then focus on new civil rights.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.