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 barbina I don't see how sarcasm could be fitting for a heated political thread. Especially since your comments had any joking matter behind them. I'd work on that. So if you truly were being sarcastic, then I apologize.

My sarcasm is deep. Sometimes too intellectual for majority of people.

I wouldn't call it intellectual. Sarcasm doesn't really flow through computers, especially somewhere where its not to be expected. [or maybe even needed]

I vote.. save the unidentifiable sarcasm for the COR.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Pretext? The same reason why we had a revolution in the 1770's.

yeah, no.

quote:

Ron Paul would agree with me. With liberty being a guarenteed birth-right, if gays want to be married, then let them get married. They are not violating anyone elses rights. No crime is being committed.

so you think the Preamble of the Constitution provides gays the RIGHT to marriage because ill tell ya, thats the ONLY place the word "liberty" occurs in it...wait a second while i piss myself laughing

you have no idea what your talking about.

quote:

As for state's rights, it would be much easier for individual states to decide the gay rights issue than for the federal government to do so.

now THATS what Ron Paul would say.

as a Constitutionalist, as an Originalist, you should know that gay marriage, ANY marriage, should have nothing to do with Federal Government.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah, no.

Yea, no what? Did you stall on your thoughts?

quote:

so you think the Preamble of the Constitution provides gays the RIGHT to marriage because ill tell ya, thats the ONLY place the word "liberty" occurs in it...wait a second while i piss myself laughing you have no idea what your talking about.

Uh, what? If an activity is not a crime, violates no one elses rights, then under the constitution, it should be legal. I don't think you know what you're talking about... It's called liberty. To think for yourself. Yes, it is in the preamble.

quote:

now THATS what Ron Paul would say. as a Constitutionalist, as an Originalist, you should know that gay marriage, ANY marriage, should have nothing to do with Federal Government.

And I don't want it to be, so yea...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Uh, what? If an activity is not a crime, violates no one elses rights, then under the constitution, it should be legal. I don't think you know what you're talking about... It's called liberty. To think for yourself. Yes, it is in the preamble.

omg dude, the Preamble does not assign ANY power to the Federal Government.

quote:

And I don't want it to be, so yea...

so then you don't agree with Barbina...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so then you don't agree with Barbina...

Yes I do. Did you not understand me when I said the issue should be decided at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Reason? It shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility, and it would be much easier for the gay rights people to get some comprimise in having at least a few states endorse gay marraige.

Would barbina want no marriage rights, or at least some. I think she would want at least some. If a few states endorse it, that's better than none.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yes I do. Did you not understand me when I said the issue should be decided at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Reason? It shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility, and it would be much easier for the gay rights people to get some comprimise in having at least a few states endorse gay marraige. Would barbina want no marriage rights, or at least some. I think she would want at least some. If a few states endorse it, that's better than none.

well maybe he can correct me because i'm bad with ambiguity, but everything he's said so far reflects the intention for "gay rights" (gay marriage) to be Federal mandate. Ron Paul wouldn't touch that with a 10' pole.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If an activity is not a crime, violates no one elses rights, then under the constitution, it should be legal.

that still doesn't mean an activity should enjoy protections under the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo that still doesn't mean an activity should enjoy protections under the Constitution.

Under what law?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yes I do. Did you not understand me when I said the issue should be decided at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Reason? It shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility, and it would be much easier for the gay rights people to get some comprimise in having at least a few states endorse gay marraige. Would barbina want no marriage rights, or at least some. I think she would want at least some. If a few states endorse it, that's better than none.

the more the better. thats all im saying =)

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo omg dude, the Preamble does assign ANY power to the Federal Government.

Precisely. The status quo should be that the federal government allows gay marriage - it is a right that a government can take away, not one that can be bestowed.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I agree, but the reality of the current situation makes the war a more important issue in terms of money, ethics, lives, etc. Realizing this, before we can debate a relatively minor social issue(in terms of people affected), we need to remedy our greatest problem which is the war.

Again, I agree that the War is probably the issue garnering the most attention, but I think it would be a sore mistake to make it the only area of focus in the coming years. There are a lot of other problems in this country that can be addressed as the battle over Iraq policy continues.

quote:

Originally posted by barbina the more the better. thats all im saying =)

well thats a crappy way defend a position you say you feel so passionately about. don't expect anything to get done in your favor. sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Under what law?

Federal law

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well thats a crappy way defend a position you say you feel so passionately about. don't expect anything to get done in your favor. sorry.

You're so ornery lately. I don't think she's defending anything, she's just stating that some progress is better than nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Federal law

No, under what constitutional amendment are gays prohibited from marriage? Or what amendment would support your case for refusing them marriage rights?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No, under what constitutional amendment are gays prohibited from marriage?

there are none. marriage in general in the U.S. is not an institution of the state but it's allowances are recognised at all levels of government begining at the civil juridiction of the county you are married in.

in addition, from a libertarian POV, on what grounds do you support the benefits of ANY marriage being upheld by Government?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo there are none. marriage in general in the U.S. is not an institution of the state but it's allowances are recognised at all levels of government begining at the civil juridiction of the county you are married in.

So why do the Republicans want a constitutional amendment banning it?

quote:

in addition, from a libertarian POV, on what grounds do you support the benefits of ANY marriage being upheld by Government?

Legally, married couples have to deal with issues such as wills, tax status's, next of kin notifications, emergency room access, etc. If no law forbids it, no one is victimized, and it's just equal status for gay couples as straight couples have under the law, what's wrong with it?

My libertarian views clearly support equal legal status of gay married couples to straight married couples. You still haven't, legally, or ethically, provided a competent argument for why it should not be recognized by the legal system...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo there are none. marriage in general in the U.S. is not an institution of the state but it's allowances are recognised at all levels of government begining at the civil juridiction of the county you are married in. in addition, from a libertarian POV, on what grounds do you support the benefits of ANY marriage being upheld by Government?

I agree, it's an antequated fossil, a remnant of religious tradition. Who needs a piece of paper to show love? Anyone can have a ceremony.

Oh, that's right, marriage ensures lots of new state "priveleges" to the married. That doesn't seem very seperationy of church and statey.

Now, as for me, I wonder what the candidates stance on transgender marriage rights are. Anyone can jump on the bandwagon, but let's see who actually gives a fuck about the most neglected members of our society, instead of simply hoping on for a buck or a vote to the next big civil rights circus show that shouldn't even exist in the first place if human beings weren't so ridiculously biased.

Simple way to solve this problem. Take away all the illegal privileges married people enjoy in the first place.

And I'm sorry but I fail to see how an issue that really only deals with a very small minority of people is pertinent when there are many other issues that concern all Americans and if you think about it really the whole world because what we do hurts/helps a lot of other countries.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I am not judging the important issues for voters. I'm telling you what the main issue most voters are focused on. Today, that is Iraq. I really don't know why you won't accept that..

According to the Economist's most recent issue, gay rights is the sixth-most common important issue among respondents. So yeah, it's not the largest, but a substantial number of Americans do care very deeply about the issue.


Also very interesting to note: Huckabee polls better than McCain and nearly as well as Romney... I predicted back in April (after his appearance on The Daily Show) that he would win the primary, and even though I later retracted it, I'm starting to think again that I might be right.

New polling is showing HRC's lead slipping and Paul making fairly substantial gain in New Hampshire. HRC is also slipping in Iowa as well, though Paul is not doing so well as Huckabee is there as of late.

quote:

Marist poll (11/11/07)has Clinton�s lead over Obama falling from 21 percentage points to 11: Dems: Clinton 36 (drops 5), Obama 25 (gains 5), Edwards 14, Richardson 6. GOP: Romney 33 (gains 7), Giuliani 22, McCain 13, Paul 7 (gains 5), Huckabee 7, Thompson 5 (drops 5)

holy crap I'm so wildly inconsistent with either side on that moral maze, I bet both sides would consider me a terrible person.

Ron Paul seems to have the web and all the students here on his side, but he isn't showing up in any serious comparison on any of the sources that aren't full of young people. I can't help but think, this guy is the tool that is being used this year to weaken the power of the young vote. It would be sweet for him to win, but I don't think he will, I think we will all vote for him and fail to make a difference in the election, allowing some other demographic to effectively decide who wins the election. Ron really needs to get himself attention beyond the internet and the universities and become a serious option, Im pretty worried that it is just going to reduce the youth's power to choose if we all jump on his side and then he fails.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA�Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is gaining momentum in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a poll released Tuesday by CBS News and the New York Times. The Texas congressman has garnered an estimated 8 percent in New Hampshire, surpassing former GOP front-runner Fred Thompson, and is now tied with John McCain in Iowa.

Polls released over the weekend by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both confirmed Congressman Paul�s support to be higher than Thompson�s as well.

�The polls confirm what we already know: Congressman Paul is catching on in the early primary states,� said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. �His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we�re rapidly gaining support nationwide.�

The CBS-New York Times poll was conducted November 2-12. On November 5, the Ron Paul campaign brought in a record-breaking $4.2 million online, and an additional $1 million to end the week.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-re...ied-with-mccain

Tied with McCain. He is "showing up serious comparison"

It appears if Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican primary, the Democrats will win the entire presidential election. According to our PDD poll...

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