155 replies to this topic

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 11 December 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Ron Paul is consistent on marriage and his voting record proves it.

He's consistent about his distaste for the federal government, not about whether or not he supports gay marriage.

Quote

You can claim otherwise and soil me in the process but that doesn't change the facts.

You're perfectly capable of soiling yourself. You don't need my help.

Quote

When deciding on the consistency of any bureaucrat, look at the voting record.

That's your criteria, not mine.

Quote

Nothing more needs to be said about your ideas on what "consistency" means.

Consistency means practicing what you preach. Does Ron Paul do that? No. He can't make his mind up and therefore he isn't consistent.

[acidhead]

MichaelW, on 10 December 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Dare I say it, Mitt Romney? Someone who doesn't support gay marriage or the rights for gay couples to get married and votes for legislation that supports his beliefs?

the flip-flopping master

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 11 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

He's consistent about his distaste for the federal government, not about whether or not he supports gay marriage.



You're perfectly capable of soiling yourself. You don't need my help.



That's your criteria, not mine.



Consistency means practicing what you preach. Does Ron Paul do that? No. He can't make his mind up and therefore he isn't consistent.

Ron Paul practices what he preaches.  You just don't understand what he preaches and you typically blame others for that lack of understanding.  It's quite the pattern actually.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 11 December 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Ron Paul practices what he preaches.

So if Ron Paul says he supports gay marriage, why does he then say marriage is between a man and a woman? A question that as of yet, has not received an answer.

Quote

You just don't understand what he preaches and you typically blame others for that lack of understanding.

I understand he hates the federal government. That's not an excuse though to say you support one thing and then support the opposite.

Quote

It's quite the pattern actually.

The pattern of me winning and you loosing is becoming more recurrent. Mainly because you haven't the faintest clue what's happening outside the basement you live in.

[acidhead]

That pattern is going to get you banned from this forum.

[Yamato]

I'm unaware of losing anything. What Ron Paul said in the video posted for discussion above hasn't been challenged yet.   Because his views represent my views, I feel like I'm standing on solid ground here.

As for people wasting their time getting personal with me, I know who I am, so if people think they've "won" something by talking about me, they just need self-assurance and somehow find it by insulting strangers on the internet.  I only wish that good discussions weren't allowed to be derailed by the usual suspects.  That encourages their behavior, and we wind up with more of it.   It also punishes innocent people by muting their voices in what would have otherwise been excellent points they could have made.

Back to the digression that won't go away:  If Ron Paul had voted two different ways about marriage, he would be inconsistent on marriage.   I've listened to everything I could find on the internet about what Ron Paul has said about marriage, and his voting record confers with what he's said.  Marriage is a religious ceremony voluntarily made between people who love each other by taking vows in front of family and friends and God.  It became a matter for the government to get involved by requiring state license agreements due to health concerns that no longer exist due to medical technology being so far beyond what it was in the 18th and 19th century.   There's rock solid consistency from Ron Paul on marriage too.   This trollic change of subject here has made the aggregate discussion have as much to do about gay marriage as it does Israel, unfortunately.

If I want to marry a man, the federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with it.  Thank you, Ron Paul.   The weak-kneed democrats and republicans you serve with who try to hedge and compromise with this "civil union" nonsense makes you look prescient and wise as usual.

Edited by Yamato, 12 December 2012 - 05:40 AM.

[Saru]

Enough with the personal attacks please

The discussion can be had without resorting to derogatory personal remarks about the person you are debating with.

[MichaelW]

acidhead, on 12 December 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

That pattern is going to get you banned from this forum.

I'm still here.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 12 December 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

I'm unaware of losing anything.

*snip*

Quote

What Ron Paul said in the video posted for discussion above hasn't been challenged yet.

Neither has my video. You know, the one where he says he supports the rights of voluntary association and people can call it whatever they wanted to?

Quote

Because his views represent my views, I feel like I'm standing on solid ground here.

So you believe that not forming an opinion on an issue and sticking with it but saying one thing and then saying something that is the complete opposite is good? That explains a lot then.

Quote

As for people wasting their time getting personal with me, I know who I am, so if people think they've "won" something by talking about me, they just need self-assurance and somehow find it by insulting strangers on the internet.

*snip*

Quote

I only wish that good discussions weren't allowed to be derailed by the usual suspects.  That encourages their behavior, and we wind up with more of it.   It also punishes innocent people by muting their voices in what would have otherwise been excellent points they could have made.

*snip* What Ron Paul thinks about Israel matters little in the global scheme of things. What you're doing is what you are, quite baselessly, accusing me of doing. Wasting space.

Quote

If Ron Paul had voted two different ways about marriage, he would be inconsistent on marriage.

*snip*

Quote

Marriage is a religious ceremony voluntarily made between people who love each other by taking vows in front of family and friends and God.

Maybe in your world. People can be married and have it recognised as marriage without the need for God.

Quote

The weak-kneed democrats and republicans you serve with who try to hedge and compromise with this "civil union" nonsense makes you look prescient and wise as usual.

And the idea that the states will make the best choice is obvious that you care little about others beyond your immediate surroundings nor recognise their lacks of rights. As usual. You've denied the Palestinians in Lebanon this and now gay couples in the US. Have some empathy for once.

Edited by Saru, 18 December 2012 - 09:29 PM.
Removed personal insults/flaming

[Yamato]

People can get married and have it defined and recognized by whoever they want; that's the point! It should be a free, voluntary decision made by the individual or a loving couple, not by their government.   According to Ron Paul, it's not government to decide who marriage doesn't apply to.

Relying on government to make our personal decisions for us with force is where our rights get infringed.

Government can't bestow rights on us.  That's the fundamental misunderstanding people have about government and Ron Paul's philosophy.   Governments only infringe on rights that we already have.  

Palestinian rights are being violated on the most basic human level.   Palestinians don't need a perpetual and indefinite hand to mouth existence.   Cheerleading more welfare across their controlled borders is the last thing they need to raise children to be productive members of society and not mentally ill future terrorists.   Taking a side of state-sponsored handouts and trade fixing and closed borders propping up a foreign oppressive regime to punish a domestic population of people is tyrannical and definitively opposed to liberty and rights.   Palestinians need self determination and the liberty to live free.

I have never entertained the idea that here in America we treat different groups of people differently because of their characteristics, or something in history that happened to one group and not another.   Whenever we engage in favoritism of one group over another, the other group is treated unfairly.   Israel is a prime example of this.  

Governments don't have rights and they can't give what they don't have.   The Israeli government, the US, the UK, the UN or the NWO can't give Palestinians their rights.  Palestinians have those rights already.  Israel just needs to take their boot off Palestine's throat and let it live free.

Governments have powers enumerated to them by a constraining document called the US Constitution in my country.   That's the rule of law and that's how one group of people aren't treated differently than another group.   We're all born equal, we don't get our marriage rights because we're straight.  We get our rights as individuals regardless of our characteristics or what group we identify with.   All individuals across the world deserve every right that I enjoy as an American at a minimum; that position only becomes controversial when I include groups that aren't politically popular in certain venues, like Palestinians.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 13 December 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

People can get married and have it defined and recognized by whoever they want; that's the point!

I know it's the point. But Ron Paul, despite stating this clearly, doesn't want this to happen. He wants the federal government out of it so that states can decide because he knows that states will conform with what he considers marriage to be.

Quote

It should be a free, voluntary decision made by the individual or a loving couple, not by their government.

But what happens if there are laws already in place that either prevents them from doing so, or prevents married gay couples from having the same equality as married heterosexual couples. Inequalities like adoption for example.

Quote

According to Ron Paul, it's not government to decide who marriage doesn't apply to.

It's the idiots that run the state governments that have the same opinions as him. How is it he can state that he supports this kind of thing and then vote in a way so that allows conservative states to prevent gay couples from getting married?

Quote

Relying on government to make our personal decisions for us with force is where our rights get infringed.

And where I live, the government has to grant equality. That's why the Marriage Equality Bill is before Parliament. Because gay couples don't have the same rights.

Quote

Government can't bestow rights on us.

Says you.

Quote

Palestinian rights are being violated on the most basic human level.

So why is it you think this only happens in the Occupied Territories?

Quote

Palestinians don't need a perpetual and indefinite hand to mouth existence.

So letting them continue to live in squalor and remain oppressed is a much better idea? Yam, you can't apply what your personal Jesus Ron Paul thinks to every government and every situation you come across. Not every situation is the same and not everything can be fixed with a one size fits all "solution".

That's what I meant about educating yourself. You've shown here with all this "anti-statist" rhetoric that you don't understand what happens elsewhere and that it isn't about statists and anti-statists or whatever it is crazy people who like Ron Paul claim to champion. The Palestinians don't need to be free of their government. They need it because it is the only thing that separates them from being what they were 30 years ago. Their government is what got them international recognition as a state.

Quote

I have never entertained the idea that here in America we treat different groups of people differently because of their characteristics, or something in history that happened to one group and not another.

So is that the reason why Indians live on reservations and not as respected and productive members of society? Why did the Civil Rights Movement happen, Yam? You tell me. You seem to be educated enough to make these assumptions on what the US is and what it isn't so clearly you must be able to tell me why the Civil Rights Movement occurred in the first place.

(I already know as I studied it in what Americans call "high school" but I want Yam's ideas of why it happened.)

Quote

Governments don't have rights and they can't give what they don't have.

Quote

Israel just needs to take their boot off Palestine's throat and let it live free.

You've contradicted yourself here. How do you expect the Palestinians to live free if the Israeli government doesn't have rights and therefore can't grant them to Palestinians?

And if the Palestinians already have rights, how are they oppressed? The reason why they are oppressed is because they
don't have any rights.

Quote

That's the rule of law and that's how one group of people aren't treated differently than another group.

If only that were true, historically or today for that matter.

Quote

We get our rights as individuals regardless of our characteristics or what group we identify with.

If only that was true. And it's this kind of viewpoint is the reason why many people in the US are being discriminated against and mistreated. They don't have rights and idiots like you won't accept that any government attempt to give them rights will make their lives any easier.

Quote

All individuals across the world deserve every right that I enjoy as an American at a minimum; that position only becomes controversial when I include groups that aren't politically popular in certain venues, like Palestinians.

It's not your inclusion of Palestinians that makes what your say controversial: it's your silly idea that every single problem in the world can be solved with one single solution. It's your unawareness of what's really happening in the world, your treatment of everything as black and white and your stubbornness to believe that everything you say is prophetic and gospel.

What you need to realise Yam, is that the world isn't black and white, but many, many shades of grey.

Edited by MichaelW, 14 December 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[Yamato]

That's the way the US government works.  The states decide. That's why they're called states.  They have theoretically infinite powers to legislate whatever they want however they want.  Just like other states.   The federal government does not.  Its powers are enumerated by the US Constitution.  States followed that pattern and wrote their own Constitutions.   Decentralization and locality (closeness to the people) of power is conducive to liberty.   The wonderful thing about the US is we have 50 different places as an American to choose from.

Defending individual rights first is precisely how to end racism, bigotry, discrimination of all kinds.   Because everyone is an individual.   I see beauty in everyone.  Not just this skin color, or that religion, or the other ethnic group.  And I sure as hell don't tolerate government force control micromanaging different laws for different groups of people.    People who think that our rights come from our skin color or our sexuality or age or gender or shoe size are discriminatory by definition.   Special treatment of any group just for characteristics they're born with means that the excluded groups get treated unfairly.   When mankind evolves in the future to put an end to this groupthink mentality, then we will all be free from oppression and needless conflicts like Israel-Palestine.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 14 December 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Defending individual rights first is precisely how to end racism, bigotry, discrimination of all kinds.

But the thing is Yam,  you have failed to answer my question. The reason why they are oppressed is because they don't have rights Yam. Otherwise, they would be free if they had rights. But they don't, so they are oppressed.

It's not difficult to work out Yam. And can you answer this question? Who can give the Palestinians their rights?

Quote

I see beauty in everyone.

Then you are either eternally optimistic or naive.

Quote

When mankind evolves in the future to put an end to this groupthink mentality, then we will all be free from oppression and needless conflicts like Israel-Palestine.

So, you've essentially done exactly what I expected to you to do and not actually answer questions and then pretend what the teachings of your personal Jesus Ron Paul can be applied to the problems faced by the Palestinians. Why can't you read anything I post and let it actually sink in? There's a lot of bone to go through to get to that teeny brain of yours Yam so it might take a while. But trust me, you will see the light.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 14 December 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

But the thing is Yam,  you have failed to answer my question. The reason why they are oppressed is because they don't have rights Yam. Otherwise, they would be free if they had rights. But they don't, so they are oppressed.

It's not difficult to work out Yam. And can you answer this question? Who can give the Palestinians their rights?



Then you are either eternally optimistic or naive.



So, you've essentially done exactly what I expected to you to do and not actually answer questions and then pretend what the teachings of your personal Jesus Ron Paul can be applied to the problems faced by the Palestinians. Why can't you read anything I post and let it actually sink in? There's a lot of bone to go through to get to that teeny brain of yours Yam so it might take a while. But trust me, you will see the light.

They don't have rights so they're oppressed.  Brilliant!  You've answered your own question if that's the answer you were looking for.  I disagree, and we can agree to that.

I believe as the Founders believed.  Rights are inherently and self-evidently bestowed upon us.   Everyone has rights in the United States of America.  That is the beautiful standard that's good enough for everyone else in the world too.  I don't take my rights for granted and I walk a mile in the shoes of others before I pass blanket judgments about politics and oppressive regimes

This value of inherent human rights is fundamental to all people of all races, religions and creeds, and universally seen in all countries and all governments.  That is, if rights aren't being forcibly taken away from people, they are free to exercise those rights at will, if they choose.  And that's how it should be.  In the US. In New Zealand.  In Israel.  In Palestine.  In Tibet.  In Somalia.  In Sri Lanka.  In China.  North Korea.  Iran.   Canada, the UK and Australia.   Japan and Korea.  Pakistan and India.  Rwanda and Sudan.   Egypt and Syria.   That is good enough for the entire world.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 15 December 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

They don't have rights so they're oppressed.  Brilliant!  You've answered your own question if that's the answer you were looking for.

I already knew the right answer to that question. I wanted your answer so I could see whether or not you were capable of putting two and two together.

Quote

I disagree, and we can agree to that.

Why? You can't disagree on something that's one or the other. If a people don't have rights, they are oppressed. If they do have rights, they are free.

Quote

That is the beautiful standard that's good enough for everyone else in the world too.  I don't take my rights for granted and I walk a mile in the shoes of others before I pass blanket judgments about politics and oppressive regimes.

Interesting how you made two sentences that aren't mutually exclusive. No one can walk in, or even attempt to walk in, the shoes of someone who has no rights and you can't simply sit there, wave a magic wand and pretend that your ideas are the best and greatest and will automatically solve everyone's problems. That's the point I'm trying to make and you're failing to understand. Not everyone thinks like you do.

Quote

This value of inherent human rights is fundamental to all people of all races, religions and creeds, and universally seen in all countries and all governments.  That is, if rights aren't being forcibly taken away from people, they are free to exercise those rights at will, if they choose.  And that's how it should be.  In the US. In New Zealand.  In Israel.  In Palestine.  In Tibet.  In Somalia.  In Sri Lanka.  In China.  North Korea.  Iran.   Canada, the UK and Australia.   Japan and Korea.  Pakistan and India.  Rwanda and Sudan.   Egypt and Syria.   That is good enough for the entire world.

Why can't you just look at my post and actually read what I have posted? *snip*

Edited by Saru, 18 December 2012 - 09:28 PM.
Removed personal attack