I think you put a little too much weight in that foreign influence via aid. It's almost non existent.Macbeth wrote:
Foreign Aid is less than 1% of the U.S. budget. If you want to cut stuff from the budget there are better things than cutting our foreign influence.
I understand the concern, I really do, but that's like saying a amendment to protect people's right to freedom of speech should be blocked because it may set a precedent for a amendment protecting freedom of religion or a freedom of the press. I consider freedom of marriage to be a basic human right along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."
I keep bring up the example of Pakistan and I'm sure people are tired of hearing it but it's a good one. We gave out something around 10 billion from 01-11, right? You don't think that has some sort of effect on whether they decide to raise a fuss or not about all that drone striking we do in northern Pakistan or if they decide to keep Afghan supply lines open?Kmar wrote:
I think you put a little too much weight in that foreign influence via aid. It's almost non existent.Macbeth wrote:
Foreign Aid is less than 1% of the U.S. budget. If you want to cut stuff from the budget there are better things than cutting our foreign influence.
99% of the time I hear someone suggest cutting foreign aid, it's tied to a line about "spending the money here first" usually followed by something about defunding planned parenthood or NPR. You know, charlatan talk.
Marriage has never been an issue for the Fed (a basic Human right). States are and have always been the ones that recognize marriage. The Union of Marriage is not nearly the same thing free speech, which is universally recognized.Macbeth wrote:
That's very nice but it ignores the fact that the federal government tramples on states rights all the time already for a whole host of different reasons and that historically right and necessary social changes has been rammed down the states throats.
That's nice that he has a strong of a conviction against federal power expansion but I think protecting people's basic human rights supersedes states rights completely.I understand the concern, I really do, but that's like saying a amendment to protect people's right to freedom of speech should be blocked because it may set a precedent for a amendment protecting freedom of religion or a freedom of the press. I consider freedom of marriage to be a basic human right along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."
I think the idea of us occupying their country, and doing the fighting on our own is the real influence. Our position on the UN security council is also more influential. We can propose sanctions that can cripple economies and make life miserable. If we really did wield any kind of meaningful influence in Pakistan we wouldn't feel the need to chopper special forces in under the cover of darkness without notice to execute military ops. If we did have meaningful influence OBL wouldn't be camped out just blocks away from Pakistan's largest military complex. You don't think that's by chance do you?Macbeth wrote:
I keep bring up the example of Pakistan and I'm sure people are tired of hearing it but it's a good one. We gave out something around 10 billion from 01-11, right? You don't think that has some sort of effect on whether they decide to raise a fuss or not about all that drone striking we do in northern Pakistan or if they decide to keep Afghan supply lines open?Kmar wrote:
I think you put a little too much weight in that foreign influence via aid. It's almost non existent.Macbeth wrote:
Foreign Aid is less than 1% of the U.S. budget. If you want to cut stuff from the budget there are better things than cutting our foreign influence.
But even if it doesn't have a great amazing effect on American influence you can at least agree that this line was true right?99% of the time I hear someone suggest cutting foreign aid, it's tied to a line about "spending the money here first" usually followed by something about defunding planned parenthood or NPR. You know, charlatan talk.
If only it wasn't on this issue.... When it comes to those other things he mentioned I agree with him but we both know some states won't allow gay marriage until the year 2100 if it's left to them. And like I said that's unacceptable.His position is one of personal liberty and more localized decisions which in turn better serve more local cities desires and local populations wants and needs.
Paul is standing in the way of more Federal power grabs. You're god damn right that's very nice.
Pauls official position of abortion is to just get the government out of the issue of abortion all together.Pauls official postition of Gay marriage is to just get the government out of the issue of marriage all together.
It wasn't an issue before federally because there was no legal construct. You're building your case around speculation. There are still plenty of people who believe that it is not the Federal government's responsibility to recognize a marriage.Macbeth wrote:
It has never been an issue before because the fact that people may want to marry outside of the traditional biological constructs had never been a social issue. Everyone assumed that every state wold allow men and women to marry each other because that was the only way it was really ever done. But times have changed and the laws didn't keep up, on a state level or a federal level.
You can marry whoever you want. Paul is saying that it is not within the Federal governments right to force a state to recognize it. Gay or otherwise.Macbeth wrote:
I believe the right to marry who you want to marry is an right. They aren't on the same level as freedom of speech but they both fall under the whole equality thing.
If only it wasn't on this issue.... When it comes to those other things he mentioned I agree with him but we both know some states won't allow gay marriage until the year 2100 if it's left to them. And like I said that's unacceptable.His position is one of personal liberty and more localized decisions which in turn better serve more local cities desires and local populations wants and needs.
Paul is standing in the way of more Federal power grabs. You're god damn right that's very nice.
It seems you're lacking consistency about what is acceptable or not. Slavery is ok to allow for the States to sort it out individually but the recognition of marriage isn't?Macbeth wrote:
The civil war was about slavery yes. But slavery would have ended over time on it's own without or without the civil war.
Ask yourself what is so important about recognizing marriage. Do you honestly believe it's in the 'same area of human equality' as slavery, physically owning another human being? You're simply asking for a government to recognize it. It's virtually meaningless.Pauls official position of abortion is to just get the government out of the issue of abortion all together.Pauls official postition of Gay marriage is to just get the government out of the issue of marriage all together.
Pauls official postition of segregation is to just get the government out of the issue of segregation all together.
Pauls official postition of slavery is to just get the government out of the issue of slavery all together.
Yes, not being another human's property isn't on the same level as not being allowed to marry another guy but it's in the same area of human equality.
At least my side will win in the long run. The very very long run probably.
I was responding to the ''horseshit'' comment. Their facts are right their conclusion is warped.The civil war was about slavery yes.But slavery would have ended over time on it's own without or without the civil war. It's not economically viable to keep slaves in industrialized countries. Housing, food, healthcare, and enforcement cost would make any increased productivity a slave would have over one or several minimum wage workers meaningless.Poseidon wrote:
You don't know how many people I've seen claim that the Civil War was a war about state's rights and that "slavery would've naturally stopped over time". Horseshit.eleven bravo wrote:
civil war was fought to end slavery
But he doesn't want to give voting rights to fetuses or force gay people to go to straight camps. Clearly he's the wrong kind of conservative for War Man's taste.Kmar wrote:
He's the only GOP candidate worth a shit.War Man wrote:
Fuck Ron Paul.Kmar wrote:
I don't think the GOP field of candidates could be anymore depressing. Paul might be the exception, but the chances of him winning are pretty damn low.
Because he's right. Marriage shouldn't be defined at the federal level at all. It's not the governments business who gets married, to whom, or where. The very concept of marriage licenses is an abomination. Why do I need Uncle Governor Cuomo's permission in order to get married in the Catholic Church with my fiancee?Macbeth wrote:
He's been against it at times and for it at times but his voting record shows he that he isn't someone to be relied upon when it comes down to a vote."Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."
gay marriage isn't a basic human right. marriage isn't a basic human right. it's a luxury. whether I get married or not doesn't really impact my life. I'm still free to live with her, have kids with her, and get a cemetery plot next to hers. In the grand scheme of things, the rights of two men or two women to marry each other are pretty fucking far down the list of things that should qualify as a basic human right.Macbeth wrote:
That's very nice but it ignores the fact that the federal government tramples on states rights all the time already for a whole host of different reasons and that historically right and necessary social changes has been rammed down the states throats.
That's nice that he has a strong of a conviction against federal power expansion but I think protecting people's basic human rights supersedes states rights completely.I understand the concern, I really do, but that's like saying a amendment to protect people's right to freedom of speech should be blocked because it may set a precedent for a amendment protecting freedom of religion or a freedom of the press. I consider freedom of marriage to be a basic human right along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."
Last edited by Jay (2011-06-18 06:12:12)
No, slavery isn't ok because it means denying life and liberty to other human beings. It's no different from kidnapping. Putting marriage in the same stratosphere of discussion is completely silly.Macbeth wrote:
It seems you're lacking consistency about what is acceptable or not. Slavery is ok to allow for the States to sort it out individually but the recognition of marriage isn't?"
I'll answer the rest later, I have to go. But I just want to point out that I wasn't against the Civil war or defending slavery at all. I was just making the point that it isn't viable and would have went out on it's own eventually.I was responding to the ''horseshit'' comment. Their facts are right their conclusion is warped.The civil war was about slavery yes.But slavery would have ended over time on it's own without or without the civil war. It's not economically viable to keep slaves in industrialized countries. Housing, food, healthcare, and enforcement cost would make any increased productivity a slave would have over one or several minimum wage workers meaningless.Poseidon wrote:
You don't know how many people I've seen claim that the Civil War was a war about state's rights and that "slavery would've naturally stopped over time". Horseshit.
Those benefits should be outlawed. They discriminate against single people. The government shouldn't be either encouraging or discouraging marriage.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
How about things like all the benefits that come with being married? There's quite a few y'know
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
I would think that being able to visit your loved one in a hospital would be a pretty basic right, but up until last year one couldn't do that if you were gay.
man i hope you never get laid off in your lifetime with that attitude.Macbeth wrote:
Sure it looks good on paper when you cut 50 billion or something but it doesn't add up to much overall.
Jay wrote:
Because he's right. Marriage shouldn't be defined at the federal level at all. It's not the governments business who gets married, to whom, or where. The very concept of marriage licenses is an abomination. Why do I need Uncle Governor Cuomo's permission in order to get married in the Catholic Church with my fiancee?Macbeth wrote:
He's been against it at times and for it at times but his voting record shows he that he isn't someone to be relied upon when it comes down to a vote."Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."
So take it up at the state level then. Or, they have the freedom to move to a more tolerant state. New York is about to allow gay marriage. They can move here.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
And let's not forget the restrictions on adoption and the fact that many states still do not put gays as a protected class under employment discrimination laws. They're pretty much second-class citizens in some places.
And I'm perfectly ok with civil unions for everyone that doesn't get married in a church. I don't care if it's called marriage, or civil union, or "I will fuck this man or woman for the rest of my life and no one else". It doesn't matter. It's just a word.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I agree, but I think we'd sooner see gay marriage legalized at the federal level than see marriage benefits outlawed. Aren't you yourself getting a legal marriage?
Frankly I've thought for a while now that government should simply classify people as being in a civil union or not. If a church doesn't want to marry two gays then ok, that's the church's choice, but the government should "unify" (or whatever the appropriate verb is) two people regardless of orientation.
Exactly. The point is indiscriminate.Jay wrote:
Because he's right. Marriage shouldn't be defined at the federal level at all. It's not the governments business who gets married, to whom, or where. The very concept of marriage licenses is an abomination. Why do I need Uncle Governor Cuomo's permission in order to get married in the Catholic Church with my fiancee?Macbeth wrote:
He's been against it at times and for it at times but his voting record shows he that he isn't someone to be relied upon when it comes down to a vote."Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."
Jesus Christ read the highlighted part over a few times. The anti civil war people who uses the argument that slavery would have went out on it's own are right (their facts) their conclusion that the civil war shouldn't have happened though is wrong. Reading comprehension fail.Jay wrote:
No, slavery isn't ok because it means denying life and liberty to other human beings. It's no different from kidnapping. Putting marriage in the same stratosphere of discussion is completely silly.Macbeth wrote:
It seems you're lacking consistency about what is acceptable or not. Slavery is ok to allow for the States to sort it out individually but the recognition of marriage isn't?"
I'll answer the rest later, I have to go. But I just want to point out that I wasn't against the Civil war or defending slavery at all. I was just making the point that it isn't viable and would have went out on it's own eventually.I was responding to the ''horseshit'' comment. Their facts are right their conclusion is warped.The civil war was about slavery yes.But slavery would have ended over time on it's own without or without the civil war. It's not economically viable to keep slaves in industrialized countries. Housing, food, healthcare, and enforcement cost would make any increased productivity a slave would have over one or several minimum wage workers meaningless.