Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Ron Paul to Congress: Stop Worshipping Israel


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#46    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,440 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:57 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 03 December 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

If he were 10 year younger I think thats exactly what would be happening.
But preacherman76 why does it have to be just himself?  No offense but it's his ideas that are (mostly) needed.  The movement was strong and one of the best grassroots types since Perot.  People are HUNGRY for real change and if RP's movement could keep rolling along, even slowly, and evolve even a little on some of his more drastic  stands then it would have a REAL chance as a viable third party.  Man, after this next 4 years (if anything is left) people are going to be so sick of politics as usual they are going to be primed to accept anyone not currently in office.  Just imagine if those rallies he was famous for started popping up on college campuses in the Spring and Summer in all 50 states.  His people could easily accomplish that.  They could provide a real time alternative in ideas to the bilge that is seeping from DC every day for the next 2 or 3 years while the same old crowd anoint the next leader.  The movement could grow into a monster in that time.  The media couldn't ignore them forever - especially when the crowd sizes kept growing.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#47    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:52 AM

View PostYamato, on 03 December 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Such opinions from the guy who pays zero (the real peanut).

My opinions are as valid as anyone else's. And besides, at least I have the mental capacity and reasoning to say what oppression is and what isn't. My views aren't motivated by religion. My views are based on facts, not bull**** and conspriacy theories.

Quote

The aggregate cost of our foreign policy is insidious.   Read the 9/11 Commission report.  The authors who are the foremost experts admit the war in Iraq was coming to the aid of our "friend", Israel. Peanuts, my foot.

This isn't about 9/11 or Iraq. It's about how far $2.6 billion goes in Israel.

The OP doesn't even know the subject of his own thread. How pathetic.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#48    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:03 AM

View PostMichaelW, on 02 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Generally speaking, most politicians believe that what they think is right must either be illegal or legal. Ron Paul is obviously different to most politicians.

True dat...

View PostMichaelW, on 02 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

I have, but I haven't seen anyone who genuinely believes it.

Really? You have never seen someone who doesn't believe the way he or she chooses to live life should be mandated by law? I don't spend a lot of time in New Zealand, but around here there are tons of people like that (though granted, they very very seldom make it to the national level as politicians).

View PostMichaelW, on 02 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

A conflict of ideas, you say? So if someone says that they don't mind people of the same sex getting married and calling it marriage, and then saying marriage is only between a man and a woman, that, according to the made-up definitions that this forum seems to produce in alarming amounts, isn't a change of opinion or "flipping" but is merely a conflict of ideas?

How is saying gay couples can call their relationship marriage and then saying marriage is only about a man and a woman not flipping? It's saying two different things. No consistency whatsoever.

Once again, some people can separate their personal opinions on what is right and good from an effort to force those opinions on others through legislation. I'll confess I don't exactly know Paul's complete stance on gay marriage, but I don't see a problem with someone saying either, "Marriage is between a man and a woman, but gay people should have a legal equivalent with the same rights and responsibilities.", or, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's a personal and religious belief and has impact on my legal opinion."

It's no different from a judge choosing to call a case fairly under the law in spite of finding the personality and lifestyle of a defendant to be abhorrent... or really anyone in the government putting the law that gives them their power above their personal opinions on how someone should live life. Again, it's really rare for a politician at the national level...

View PostMichaelW, on 02 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

A conflict of ideas is consistency now? Christ, no wonder people think of Americans as uneducated if the result of the education system is you and Yamato. And the fact you're only calling me out on the definition of a word and not the fact that the man lacks consistency is quite interesting.

Let me ask you something. If a man can't form an opinion and stick with it during his abortive election campaign, what makes you think he's going to stick with it when he is elected into any official office?

Maybe the definition is the problem here since we're from different places. Here, you judge a politician's consistency on how he votes and what he says. Again, Ron Paul is famous and infamous for being the only one who won't temporarily put his convictions on hold and vote against what he preaches. He's also one of the only congressmen who doesn't take the coward's way out and abstain instead of going on record that he believes the unpopular option is the better legal one in many cases.

You remember that guy Willard Romney? He ran for president a while back. He flips. He says he's pro choice when speaking to a liberal crowd and zealously pro life when speaking to a religiously conservative crowd. This inconsistency applies to every policy question he's ever been forced to answer around politically different groups. From Ron Paul, we've just had decades of boring speeches in support of the Constitution and votes that go the same way. That is consistency.

Now, if you can find where Ron Paul said he believes gay people should have the right to be married and another instance where he said they shouldn't (which again couldn't be attributed to his wanting different terminology but the same rights or his stating his personal moral stance instead of his legal one), then you have an argument. He'd still be the most consistent politician on the national level by an unbelievable margin, but you would be able to argue that he was inconsistent once.

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

This isn't about 9/11 or Iraq. It's about how far $2.6 billion goes in Israel.

The OP doesn't even know the subject of his own thread. How pathetic.

Damn! You're awfully quick to tell someone who has a different opinion from you that it's because they're too stupid to think on your level. I'll resist the urge to answer such a charge in the manner and maturity level it deserves (which would be saying "Your momma dresses you funny!") and just point out that if (IF I say!!) attacking Iraq and many of the other entanglements the US gets into in the region are in Israel's interest but not ours, then the argument could be made the the costs of these entanglements should be included in discussions like this even if they aren't officially earmarked as foreign aid.


View Postand then, on 03 December 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

But preacherman76 why does it have to be just himself?  No offense but it's his ideas that are (mostly) needed.  The movement was strong and one of the best grassroots types since Perot.  People are HUNGRY for real change and if RP's movement could keep rolling along, even slowly, and evolve even a little on some of his more drastic  stands then it would have a REAL chance as a viable third party.  Man, after this next 4 years (if anything is left) people are going to be so sick of politics as usual they are going to be primed to accept anyone not currently in office.  Just imagine if those rallies he was famous for started popping up on college campuses in the Spring and Summer in all 50 states.  His people could easily accomplish that.  They could provide a real time alternative in ideas to the bilge that is seeping from DC every day for the next 2 or 3 years while the same old crowd anoint the next leader.  The movement could grow into a monster in that time.  The media couldn't ignore them forever - especially when the crowd sizes kept growing.

My personal opinion is that by shouting the same message from the rooftops for three decades, Ron Paul BECAME the message in the minds of many - especially since they don't hear it from any other prominent politicians. Again, only an opinion, but I also think lots of people were thinking Rand Paul would be the successor of this mantle (even though I said years ago here that he's a better politician than his father but not nearly as strict a constitutionalist). Those people are beginning to (and I believe will continue to) be disappointed in Rand Paul as his political star rises. Enough disappointment and hopefully people will change their online trolling from "RON PAUL ROCKS!!!!!!!11 VOTE FOR HIM!!" to "The Constitution rocks, vote for someone who will uphold it."

I'm pessimistic that people actually will do this, but open to being pleasantly surprised.


#49    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:08 AM

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

My opinions are as valid as anyone else's. And besides, at least I have the mental capacity and reasoning to say what oppression is and what isn't. My views aren't motivated by religion. My views are based on facts, not bull**** and conspriacy theories.



This isn't about 9/11 or Iraq. It's about how far $2.6 billion goes in Israel.

The OP doesn't even know the subject of his own thread. How pathetic.
Your opinions invalidate themselves when you get personal with people as you've done on this thread once again.   Put down the immature trollish derailing abuse already.  You're not making any friends or allies here with that attitude.  

Now let's address the subject of my thread.  Our foreign policy in the Middle East is based on Israel worship per the video you are supposed to be discussing, therefore it's queer you think I don't know the subject.   Did you even watch the video?  You don't seem to understand what the subject is when you're denying the ramifications of it and the reasons why we're against US foreign policy.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#50    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM

View Postsam12six, on 04 December 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

Really? You have never seen someone who doesn't believe the way he or she chooses to live life should be mandated by law? I don't spend a lot of time in New Zealand, but around here there are tons of people like that (though granted, they very very seldom make it to the national level as politicians).

Not really. Most people don't really care what the government does unless it is something which is fairly pathetic, such as spanking (a bill passed Parliament outlawing it a few years ago and a government referendum found that the majority of people were against the bill) or something which gives people equality and rights. People were supportive of the legalisation of civil unions in 2007 and generally supportive of the Marriage Equality Bill (which defines civil unions as marriages in the same terms as "normal" marriage and gives gay couples the right to adopt).

Quote

I'll confess I don't exactly know Paul's complete stance on gay marriage, but I don't see a problem with someone saying either, "Marriage is between a man and a woman, but gay people should have a legal equivalent with the same rights and responsibilities.", or, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's a personal and religious belief and has impact on my legal opinion."

What I said was his stance. He said it was up to the states individually to define what marriage is, said that gay people can marry and call it marriage and then said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As I said, doesn't look like something someone who is supposedly consistent in their beliefs would say.

Quote

It's no different from a judge choosing to call a case fairly under the law in spite of finding the personality and lifestyle of a defendant to be abhorrent... or really anyone in the government putting the law that gives them their power above their personal opinions on how someone should live life. Again, it's really rare for a politician at the national level...

Thing is, judges have to act professionally in spite of their personal beliefs. They can say that they personally oppose or support something but their job dictates that their personal opinion doesn't matter, because of procedure and law. Politicians aren't judges because personal beliefs and motives are what got them into politics in the first place. Most people do things on the "behalf of their electorates", but as I found out yesterday, this isn't the case.

Point is, you can't compare politicians to judges.

Quote

Maybe the definition is the problem here since we're from different places.

I doubt that we'd see two different things based on geographic and minor linguistic differences.

Quote

Here, you judge a politician's consistency on how he votes and what he says.

Same in NZ. But politics here are different to that of the US. And most people wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway because he keeps changing his mind.

Quote

Again, Ron Paul is famous and infamous for being the only one who won't temporarily put his convictions on hold and vote against what he preaches.

Our current Prime Minister voted against the Civil Union's bill in 2007 because he thought it was what the electorate wanted. My current MP is voting against the Marriage Equality Bill because he thinks it's what the electorate wants, despite personal beliefs.

Ron Paul appears to not go against what he preaches because he preaches several different things that contradict each other and uses them when the opportunity arises. How is it possible to say gay people can get married and call it marriage and then go onto say that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman?

Quote

You remember that guy Willard Romney?

Never heard of him. He that Mexican born father of Mitt?

Quote

He ran for president a while back. He flips. He says he's pro choice when speaking to a liberal crowd and zealously pro life when speaking to a religiously conservative crowd. This inconsistency applies to every policy question he's ever been forced to answer around politically different groups. From Ron Paul, we've just had decades of boring speeches in support of the Constitution and votes that go the same way. That is consistency.

You're not making the same comparison as I am. From what I have seen on his positions on gay marriage, he sounds a lot like Romney. As I said, Paul says gay people can get married and call it marriage and he wouldn't have a problem with it, then says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Looks pretty much like he's pandering to the progressives and the conservatives. Same as Romney.

Quote

Now, if you can find where Ron Paul said he believes gay people should have the right to be married and another instance where he said they shouldn't (which again couldn't be attributed to his wanting different terminology but the same rights or his stating his personal moral stance instead of his legal one), then you have an argument.

Sure. Not entirely sure on the validity of the sources though.
http://www.christian...ge.html?start=3

Page 3. Has the quote where he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.



It's an hour long, but 12 minutes in, you have the quote "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they  want" right out of the proverbial horse's mouth.

Quote

Damn! You're awfully quick to tell someone who has a different opinion from you that it's because they're too stupid to think on your level.

Yamato has repeatedly said that I am apparently too immature to understand his clearly profound ideas and not intelligent enough to think and reason on the same level as he is. I consider it a perfect example of you reap what you sow. The ball's in his court. He can change the way he treats other posters and I'll do the same.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#51    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:13 AM

View PostYamato, on 04 December 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

Your opinions invalidate themselves when you get personal with people as you've done on this thread once again.

Righty-o then. I'll remind you of this whenever you post something "personal" about me (although the religiousness of your opinions aren't exactly cryptic Yam).

Quote

Put down the immature trollish derailing abuse already.

Immature? I'm surprised you haven't called my response to your posts harassment yet.


Quote

You're not making any friends or allies here with that attitude.

I'm not here to make friends, Yam. I'm here to voice my opinions and say what people say is either right or wrong and why it is so. Just because you have "like" buttons on your posts doesn't mean that people actually are people being friendly towards you.

And besides, I doubt your attitude towards other posters is actually very friendly either.

  

Quote

Our foreign policy in the Middle East is based on Israel worship per the video you are supposed to be discussing.

Fine. So I'm assuming Ron Paul is equally supportive of removing all foreign aid to countries in the Middle East then?

Oh, and "queer"? Really? Couldn't think of something less offensive?

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#52    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:26 AM

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Not really. Most people don't really care what the government does unless it is something which is fairly pathetic, such as spanking (a bill passed Parliament outlawing it a few years ago and a government referendum found that the majority of people were against the bill) or something which gives people equality and rights. People were supportive of the legalisation of civil unions in 2007 and generally supportive of the Marriage Equality Bill (which defines civil unions as marriages in the same terms as "normal" marriage and gives gay couples the right to adopt).



What I said was his stance. He said it was up to the states individually to define what marriage is, said that gay people can marry and call it marriage and then said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As I said, doesn't look like something someone who is supposedly consistent in their beliefs would say.



Thing is, judges have to act professionally in spite of their personal beliefs. They can say that they personally oppose or support something but their job dictates that their personal opinion doesn't matter, because of procedure and law. Politicians aren't judges because personal beliefs and motives are what got them into politics in the first place. Most people do things on the "behalf of their electorates", but as I found out yesterday, this isn't the case.

Point is, you can't compare politicians to judges.



I doubt that we'd see two different things based on geographic and minor linguistic differences.



Same in NZ. But politics here are different to that of the US. And most people wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway because he keeps changing his mind.



Our current Prime Minister voted against the Civil Union's bill in 2007 because he thought it was what the electorate wanted. My current MP is voting against the Marriage Equality Bill because he thinks it's what the electorate wants, despite personal beliefs.

Ron Paul appears to not go against what he preaches because he preaches several different things that contradict each other and uses them when the opportunity arises. How is it possible to say gay people can get married and call it marriage and then go onto say that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman?



Never heard of him. He that Mexican born father of Mitt?



You're not making the same comparison as I am. From what I have seen on his positions on gay marriage, he sounds a lot like Romney. As I said, Paul says gay people can get married and call it marriage and he wouldn't have a problem with it, then says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Looks pretty much like he's pandering to the progressives and the conservatives. Same as Romney.



Sure. Not entirely sure on the validity of the sources though.
http://www.christian...ge.html?start=3

Page 3. Has the quote where he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.



It's an hour long, but 12 minutes in, you have the quote "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they  want" right out of the proverbial horse's mouth.



Yamato has repeatedly said that I am apparently too immature to understand his clearly profound ideas and not intelligent enough to think and reason on the same level as he is. I consider it a perfect example of you reap what you sow. The ball's in his court. He can change the way he treats other posters and I'll do the same.
And you complain that I don't know what the subject is?  The topic of this thread is US foreign policy and Israel.

I'm also quite flattered that my behavior controls your behavior but I'm really not interested in leading you around like that.

Please show me where I didn't "treat other posters" to your liking so we can at least know what you're talking about.

Reading your rant about Ron Paul makes you look like you believe one can't have principle and an opinion both.  Fortunately, Ron Paul has both about everything he legislates, and remains the most consistent statesman from the United States in our lifetime.  You've never been able to understand my consistency correctly regarding US foreign policy and I'm not surprised to see you get Ron Paul so wrong.

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman and supporting all voluntary associations where people can call it whatever they want isn't a "flip flop".   Admit that you were wrong about that, and just move on.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#53    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:35 AM

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Righty-o then. I'll remind you of this whenever you post something "personal" about me (although the religiousness of your opinions aren't exactly cryptic Yam).



Immature? I'm surprised you haven't called my response to your posts harassment yet.




I'm not here to make friends, Yam. I'm here to voice my opinions and say what people say is either right or wrong and why it is so. Just because you have "like" buttons on your posts doesn't mean that people actually are people being friendly towards you.

And besides, I doubt your attitude towards other posters is actually very friendly either.

  


Fine. So I'm assuming Ron Paul is equally supportive of removing all foreign aid to countries in the Middle East then?

Oh, and "queer"? Really? Couldn't think of something less offensive?
Ron Paul is supportive of removing all foreign aid to countries period.

Do you share your opinions with other people where you're actually friendly with them?   That's what we're asking you to do here.  Just try to be friendly with people when you discuss things.  and then and I disagree completely about this subject and yet somehow we can remain gentlemanly with one another.   If you can't understand the value of doing that, even on an anonymous message board, that's what will bring people to think you're immature.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#54    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,756 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:40 PM

View Postand then, on 03 December 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

But preacherman76 why does it have to be just himself?  No offense but it's his ideas that are (mostly) needed.  The movement was strong and one of the best grassroots types since Perot.  People are HUNGRY for real change and if RP's movement could keep rolling along, even slowly, and evolve even a little on some of his more drastic  stands then it would have a REAL chance as a viable third party.  Man, after this next 4 years (if anything is left) people are going to be so sick of politics as usual they are going to be primed to accept anyone not currently in office.  Just imagine if those rallies he was famous for started popping up on college campuses in the Spring and Summer in all 50 states.  His people could easily accomplish that.  They could provide a real time alternative in ideas to the bilge that is seeping from DC every day for the next 2 or 3 years while the same old crowd anoint the next leader.  The movement could grow into a monster in that time.  The media couldn't ignore them forever - especially when the crowd sizes kept growing.

Well to be honest with you, after the way he was treated in the last primary, even if we found someone else who constitutionalist can get behind, they will lie cheat and steal to make sure they dont lose thier grip on power. I have no faith that America can be saved politicaly.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#55    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Not really. Most people don't really care what the government does unless it is something which is fairly pathetic, such as spanking (a bill passed Parliament outlawing it a few years ago and a government referendum found that the majority of people were against the bill) or something which gives people equality and rights. People were supportive of the legalisation of civil unions in 2007 and generally supportive of the Marriage Equality Bill (which defines civil unions as marriages in the same terms as "normal" marriage and gives gay couples the right to adopt).

Yes, I've already agreed that Paul is an exception among politicians.

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

What I said was his stance. He said it was *1 up to the states individually to define what marriage is, *2 said that gay people can marry and call it marriage and then said that *3 marriage is between a man and a woman.

As I said, doesn't look like something someone who is supposedly consistent in their beliefs would say.

1 - Which is completely consistent with the stance that every power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belongs to states

2 - Which sounds like his opinion on the legal aspect

3 - Which sounds like his personal moral judgement of the matter

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Thing is, judges have to act professionally in spite of their personal beliefs. They can say that they personally oppose or support something but their job dictates that their personal opinion doesn't matter, because of procedure and law. Politicians aren't judges because personal beliefs and motives are what got them into politics in the first place. Most people do things on the "behalf of their electorates", but as I found out yesterday, this isn't the case.

Point is, you can't compare politicians to judges.

Sure you can. Their job is supposed to be to make the best decision for their realm of influence that is supported by law. The fact that most don't actually do that isn't a knock on Paul.


View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

I doubt that we'd see two different things based on geographic and minor linguistic differences.

One would think, but apparantly New Zealanders believe not trying to legislate your personal morals is flipping.

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Same in NZ. But politics here are different to that of the US. And most people wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway because he keeps changing his mind.

See...

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Our current Prime Minister voted against the Civil Union's bill in 2007 because he thought it was what the electorate wanted. My current MP is voting against the Marriage Equality Bill because he thinks it's what the electorate wants, despite personal beliefs.

Ron Paul appears to not go against what he preaches because he preaches several different things that contradict each other and uses them when the opportunity arises. How is it possible to say gay people can get married and call it marriage and then go onto say that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman?

It's possible to say that the same way it's possible to say, "I belive fast food is ruining the health of this country, but fast food should not be illegal."  Again, having a belief in your personal life that you do not wish to impose on everyone else is not flipping.

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Never heard of him. He that Mexican born father of Mitt?

Willard Mitt Romney

View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

You're not making the same comparison as I am. From what I have seen on his positions on gay marriage, he sounds a lot like Romney. As I said, Paul says gay people can get married and call it marriage and he wouldn't have a problem with it, then says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Looks pretty much like he's pandering to the progressives and the conservatives. Same as Romney.



Sure. Not entirely sure on the validity of the sources though.
http://www.christian...ge.html?start=3

Page 3. Has the quote where he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

<snip video>

It's an hour long, but 12 minutes in, you have the quote "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they  want" right out of the proverbial horse's mouth.

Again, it doesn't sound like a flip to me. In your nonvideo link he says, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." This sounds like he's stating his personal moral stance, but I will agree that he's trying to be political about it and skirt the line with his wording.


View PostMichaelW, on 04 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Yamato has repeatedly said that I am apparently too immature to understand his clearly profound ideas and not intelligent enough to think and reason on the same level as he is. I consider it a perfect example of you reap what you sow. The ball's in his court. He can change the way he treats other posters and I'll do the same.

Well, I'd never called you immature, but you were quick enough to tell me...

View PostMichaelW, on 02 December 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

A conflict of ideas is consistency now? Christ, no wonder people think of Americans as uneducated if the result of the education system is you and Yamato.

...when I disagreed with your characterization of Paul's lack of desire to legislate his personal lifestyle choices as political inconsistency. It's been my experience that when someone implies that a person with a different opinion is not educated enough to understand the discussion, the insult usually applies, but not to the receiver.


#56    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

When the national debt reaches $20 trillion (and why on earth wouldn't it?) and interest rates return to sensible levels, let's say 7% in the wake of what we just went through, how is the government going to afford to pay $1.4 trillion on nothing but interest on the debt?   Who's going to lose their lunch on that?   Not the foreigners?   Just middle class Americans?   How long are foreign economies going to let us borrow and print ourselves further down the road of interest-only loan payments?   How did we ever get into the situation we've dug ourselves into?   By allowing our Congress to give in to the entitlement class like foreign-welfare lobbyists who are pushing US foreign policy.  

Warfare (commercial warfare) can be viewed as just another entitlement these days.  It's just another government-funded racket loaded with well-monied and well-lobbied special interests.   Warfare is just another welfare.  Where did this entitlement generation come from?

The problem with our collective attitude about entitlement and spending is symptomatic in our rhetoric.  Contemporary liberal thinking looks at only one individual line item on the total budget at a time and calls it peanuts.   For example, how many liberals (o/w known as republicans) have I heard proclaim that "if we reduced the defense budget to zero, we'd still be in a deficit" (so therefore, don't reduce it).   One can play that rhetorical game with anything in the budget, and that's exactly what people do.  It serves no other purpose than to perpetuate the spending problem and let people pretend the problem isn't their own.  Growing the government becomes equated to economic prosperity, and when everything's a peanut nothing gets cut.  

But when the bills come due, everyone's going to wake up.  It won't just be someone else's son who died in the desert fighting foreigners' battles.  We're all going to learn full-out what bankruptcy really is, and I don't mean the kind that we can keep printing our way out of.  The young deserve to pay for their own problems, but they don't deserve to pay for ours too.   Instead of falling into the generational rant of "those kids these days" I'll blame the parents for allowing their kids to feel as entitled as they do, to take what they have in this world for granted, to see reality through a gadget 3" screen, and in particular, to think that this foreign-entitlement-madness between the US and Israel has a chance of continuing indefinitely like all the rest of the bankruptcy we're amorally delaying away.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#57    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:34 PM

View PostYamato, on 04 December 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

I'm also quite flattered that my behavior controls your behavior but I'm really not interested in leading you around like that.

If it did, I would have stopped responding to your posts a long time ago.

Quote

Please show me where I didn't "treat other posters" to your liking so we can at least know what you're talking about.


Quote

Reading your rant about Ron Paul makes you look like you believe one can't have principle and an opinion both.

Opinions and principles are both personal beliefs.

Quote

You've never been able to understand my consistency correctly regarding US foreign policy and I'm not surprised to see you get Ron Paul so wrong.

I don't care about your consistency regarding foreign policy. It's your consistency surrounding Israeli policy and your opinions of it which are questionable. Such as your ideas about what oppression constitute for example. It's only oppression if it's committed by Israel. Same thing goes for self defence. Only justified if it's done by Palestinians.

Quote

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman and supporting all voluntary associations where people can call it whatever they want isn't a "flip flop".

Then what would you call it? Consistency probably. Saying one thing and then saying something else which is the complete opposite is probably normal for you.

Quote

Admit that you were wrong about that, and just move on.

But I am not wrong. That's the point. You personally won't see it because you're so infatuated with Paul and his so-called principles.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#58    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:47 PM

View Postsam12six, on 04 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

1 - Which is completely consistent with the stance that every power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belongs to states.

Fine.

Quote

2 - Which sounds like his opinion on the legal aspect.

Fine.

Quote

3 - Which sounds like his personal moral judgement of the matter.

It does. But you're trying to say that his personal opinions and what he votes for aren't intertwined. So why does he vote for legislation supporting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? If that's his personal view, why does he use it when he is voting in Congress?

Quote

Sure you can. Their job is supposed to be to make the best decision for their realm of influence that is supported by law. The fact that most don't actually do that isn't a knock on Paul.

Not in all aspects. A decision based on a personal one for example in a criminal trial would be a complete no-no wouldn't it?

Quote

One would think, but apparantly New Zealanders believe not trying to legislate your personal morals is flipping.

Everyone has different morals. What we legislate is about ensuring the rights of others.

Quote

It's possible to say that the same way it's possible to say, "I belive fast food is ruining the health of this country, but fast food should not be illegal."  Again, having a belief in your personal life that you do not wish to impose on everyone else is not flipping.

Indeed, but what would you call someone who then voted to illegalise fast food? Inconsistent?

Quote

Willard Mitt Romney

Ah, the looney tune himself.

Quote

Again, it doesn't sound like a flip to me. In your nonvideo link he says, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." This sounds like he's stating his personal moral stance, but I will agree that he's trying to be political about it and skirt the line with his wording.

And that's my point. Once you make a personal belief political that contradicts what you've previously said, and then done actions that support said beliefs, then it makes you contradictory and thus inconsistent.

Even though he supports the rights of states, it was about the definition of marriage and thus preventing states from recognising marriage licences or documents issued in other states, namely same sex marriages. Is that the sort of belief you expect from someone that said people can voluntarily associate themselves with another person and call it marriage?

Quote

Well, I'd never called you immature, but you were quick enough to tell me...

And I am sorry for that. Arguments with Yam can get very heated sometimes, especially when he plays the "I'm better than you because God gave me morals and intelligence and you're not religious so you don't have them" card. That and a lot of other deeply annoying traits.

Quote

...when I disagreed with your characterization of Paul's lack of desire to legislate his personal lifestyle choices as political inconsistency. It's been my experience that when someone implies that a person with a different opinion is not educated enough to understand the discussion, the insult usually applies, but not to the receiver.

See above.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#59    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,449 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:56 AM

Nothing sucks more than that moment during a debate when you realize you’re wrong.

What would Jesus do?

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#60    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,440 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:23 AM

View Postacidhead, on 05 December 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

Nothing sucks more than that moment during a debate when you realize you’re wrong.

What would Jesus do?
He wouldn't debate.  As for myself, I just admit when I think I'm wrong.  I've done it several times since I came to UM.  It's good for the soul :)

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users