Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Politics political discourse

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-18-2012, 02:18 PM   #21076
sangaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sangaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,881
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavon Affair View Post
Gary Johnson failed to attract to many or Ron Paul supporters largely because he lacked RP's strong non-interventionist stance on foreign policy. Johnson came out in favor of sending foreign aid to Israel and sending the military to hunt down KONY2012 in Africa early in his campaign. During the last months of the campaign Johnson tried to portray himself as the peace candidate but the damage had already been done.

It seems to me many on this site play up gay marriage as the most important issue of the day largely because their boyfriend Obama is dropping bombs on civilians from robots in the sky and being as bad or worse as W. on civil liberties.
What? When did Gary Johnson come out in favor of sending foreign aid to anywhere? I've only seen him speak out against foreign aid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prana View Post
We have gone from "Ron Paul loves the gays" to "OK well he may not actually love the gays but don't you believe he's better than the other Republicans" again.
I figured you'd say something like this, but that's ok because the latter part of your statement is essentially what I've been arguing (along with Paul being against federal bans on abortion or gay marriage). I'm pretty sure I've never argued that Ron Paul loves gays, but it seems clear to me that he's substantially better on gay rights and civil liberties than the vast majority of the Republican party. He voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell and was against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone Booth View Post
This is only possibly true in the sense that Ron Paul is probably too incompetent to get anything done. If you normalize for competence, Ron Paul is a lot more dangerous and it's not even close. Would Gary North with the political ability to become elected President be more dangerous for abortion and gay rights than a typical Republican president? Of course, he wants to stone women who have abortion, their doctors and non-celibate gays. What's the political difference between Gary North and Ron Paul? There is none.

Ron Paul being either a largely incompetent buffoon or a conman out to enrich himself, family and friends at the expense of his supporters and their cause, or a little bit of both, may be a net positive for society because he takes resources away from others who may be harmful. But such is the fate of bad causes in an enlightened society - they get the political representation they deserve.
I reject the bolded unless you can provide much better evidence.

And to be clear, you're saying Ron Paul is more opposed to abortion and gay rights than Rick Santorum, Bachmann, etc..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf View Post
That bill wasn't just Ron Paul spitballing around some anti-federal positions. It was a direct response to the SCOTUS case that overturned sodomy laws. He felt, and stated, that case was the multicultural secular left advancing their agenda by legislating through the courts.

Do you know what other group likes to blame activist judges for pushing leftist views through the courts? Like, what group gets furiously furiously angry when some ivory tower federal judges tell Real Americans that they can't have segregation, or school prayer, or a big ole' monument to the 10 commandments? Reactionary social conservatives.
We're on the same side on this, I am strongly against that bill or any bill that allows governments to rob people of their privacy and liberties and/or discriminate based on gender, race, religion, or orientation. I'm about as socially liberal as they come.

It's definitely a strike against Ron Paul in my book and it's one of the reasons (probably the biggest reason) I prefer Gary Johnson's ideology and political positions. It's also a problem I have with almost any Republican politician who gets to influence laws on social issues.

It was still a no-brainer for me to vote for Ron Paul in the republican primaries (I believe it was just him and Romney on the VA ballot) for a number of reasons.
sangaman is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:24 PM   #21077
Phone Booth
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,274
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by sangaman View Post
Please put in plain English why you think extreme social conservatives (or reactionaries if you'd prefer) would support Ron Paul. Do you think it's because Ron Paul wants to stone or execute gays, keep gays in the closet, bring back the nazi movement... Because that's what you seem to be insinuating and I do not agree.
You're gonna have to read Gary North's books to get a detailed, theoretical explanation. In general, they want theocracy and they know they are not that far from a theocratic majority in several states where evangelical Christianity is strong in numbers. But the federal government and its meddling courts represent a major obstacle in their vision.

The other part of this is that this group overlaps significantly with white nationalist groups who hold a major grudge against the federal government for ending segregation, slavery or white dominance. There's a lot of yapping about how biblical theocracy would justify slavery and such nonsense. Ron Paul's rhetoric of wanting to go back to a time when the federal government had significantly less power resonates with them because they too want to go back in time.


Quote:
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the Federal government as a whole has been a friend to civil liberties over the past few decades. We have the absurd Patriot Act and NDAA,
How do you think state governments would deal with threats of terrorism and border security issues in the absence of federal government? Patriot Act is pretty weak sauce, compared to what states would be willing to put into place. Ron Paul doesn't comment on this hypothetical much, but the guy whom he last endorsed for President does:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/1490

Quote:
the miserable war on drugs (where Federal agents have raided old ladies growing medical mj for themselves with a legal prescription, and then been vindicated by the SCOTUS),
Federal War on Drugs has fairly minimal impact on citizens that aren't associated with international drug cartels or other criminal/terrorist groups. The average recreational drug user is highly unlikely to run into trouble with the FBI - it's state and local police that they ought to fear. Of course, Ron Paul wants to allow state governments to go unchecked in this instance.

Quote:
the TSA...
Again, how would states do this any better?


Quote:
not to mention the de facto ban on internet poker which has really limited and damaged my lifestyle.
Gambling is almost entirely state-regulated. The federal government doesn't ban internet poker for anyone who lives in a state that allows it. I believe not a single state allows foreign, unlicensed operators to offer internet gambling to its residents.


Quote:
And recently, the only government entities to allow legal drug use or gay marriage have been - you guessed it - states.
Are you saying that the current division of power between federal and state is such that the federal government already doesn't get in the way of states offering civil liberties such as medical marijuana gay marriage? What can Ron Paul do for you here then? Of course, Ron Paul wants to get in the way - he suports DOMA and wants it defended and enforced (Obama administration is choosing not to defend it in courts, believing it unconstitutional) which would force the federal government not to recognize those same-sex marriages allowed at the state level. So yes civil liberties can win at the state level, but when it does happen, Ron Paul firmly supports federal intervention to undo the gains.
Phone Booth is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:33 PM   #21078
Huehuecoyotl
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Huehuecoyotl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: It's hard to get by on a smile
Posts: 18,937
I think states' rights people are missing the overarching point that those who are saying that federal government has been better at Civil Rights. They aren't saying that federal government > state governments in all situations. They are saying historically the federal government has pushed forward key civil rights in opposition of states who knew they were in the minority so resorted to claiming states' rights to preserve their small areas where they held a majority.

States' rights as a theoretical idea is fine and should be something to look at as a legitimate political option. But so should be looking at the Federal government when it's there trying to expand rights, protect rights, or protect minorities.
Huehuecoyotl is online now  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:41 PM   #21079
sangaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sangaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,881
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill] View Post
Worth noting that anti sodomy and anti interracial marriage laws are still "on the books", they just dont get used because of the SCOTUS rulings. But if the We The People act has the right language they would instantly reactivate.

Re Ron Paul worse than any other politician on gay rights and abortion in the primary - it is asking the wrong question. The better question is why did you phrase it so that Jon Huntsman who signed multiple pro life bills as governor get given a pass by you as being less of a danger to abortion rights.

But sure, overlooking that and taking the same Phone Booth clause of overlooking the speed to which he would make his own party vote against him and probably impeach him I do think he is noteworthy as the only politician in that primary who has tried multiple times to undermine the balance of powers in the constitution by using the legislative body to restrict the power of the judicial branch. Even Newt and Romney were only talking about pushing through a constitutional amendment and frankly I think only Ron Paul would be arrogant enough to try and push through a bill as dangerous as the We The People act.
I thought they'd been stricken but maybe I was wrong. I can see how a We The People type act would at least allow similar laws to be passed if not make the old laws automatically effective again.

I mentioned Jon Huntsman only because my understanding is he's a lot more moderate than the other candidates. I'm not super familiar with his positions on individual issues. I said "probably" Jon Huntsman for that reason.

Wouldn't constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage or abortion be much more detrimental for abortion/marriage rights than a We The People type bill? The former seems like an outright nationwide ban, whereas the latter seems to only allow individual states to ban if they choose to. Certainly, with a We The People act on the books, you could at least still get married in the northeast if you were gay (not that I'm saying that's ok, you should be able to do that anywhere, but it seems better than the constitutional ban).

Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill] View Post
Reactionaries like Paul because he would empower them to do everything just short of stoning gay people. He didnt just disagree with the supreme court overruling a ban on sodomy but he though they shouldnt have even heard the case under states rights. He thinks the civil rights act is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed and is actively worried about the inevitable SCOTUS case about gay marriage that will apply the 14th amendment and legalise it across the nation.

As for the last paragraph, that just isnt true. Picking up on a small number of backsliding examples of the federal government and then combining it with literally two examples from this month of states actions is a terrible way to start.

Some states have tried to ban being Muslim. The fed stops them. As recent as 2000 Texas was prosecuting people for gay sex. The fed stopped them. Arizona passed a law literally designed to racially harass latinos. The fed stopped them (mostly). Multiple states tried to pass ID laws to strip voting rights for racial minorities and other vulnerable people and the fed stopped them (under the Voting Rights act). Literally over 100 new pro life laws have been passed and signed in the past 2 years. Multiple mosques have had construction blocked then later resumed due to the first amendment. Multiple states dont just stop you playing online poker but stop gambling of any kind and used to raid home games (I stopped paying attention to poker a few years ago, I dont know if it still happens). Since you said the last few decades I can easily go right back to the civil rights movement but I do not feel the need to explain to you how the fed won a lot of hard fought battles against Ron Paul supporters on that. Roe v Wade would also be included in this where states used to force women to have their rapists babies against their will until the fed stopped that practice - something so barbaric I doubt anyone would ever advocate it now

Look, no one is saying the fed is perfect, but it is clearly better than the states on civil rights. It just isnt even close. And this is while the fed has forced them to give people civil rights, if the fed didnt exist who ****ing knows what would be going on in Mississippi today if they dont have to worry about the first, 14th and other nice amendments you take for granted. States rights is the politics of hatred.
I'm stunned that you can brush aside the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, NDAA, and TSA as just a "small number of backsliding examples". Those are big deals, to me and to a lot of other people. Among the most important civil rights issues as far as I'm concerned. And I still can't play online poker without fear of the DOJ shutting everything down thanks to the Federal Govt and the UIGEA, and that is a big part of my livelihood.

Also states have been legalizing marijuana (at least on a medical basis) and gay marriage for a while, it started well before this month. States started legalizing medical marijuana in 1998 and gay marriage in 2004. But the feds will still raid you for making marijuana for your own legal prescription.

And note that I did agree that the federal courts have protected civil liberties many times. The constitution was a huge step forward and has definitely prevented local governments from doing lots of harmful and backwards things.

I did cherry pick a few examples of federal government being awful on civil liberties and states being good, but I think they're significant enough that you can't just make a blanket statement that federal government is good for civil liberties and states are bad.
sangaman is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:46 PM   #21080
FlyWf
It's the other way
 
FlyWf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: [ ] REGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE
Posts: 49,994
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Ron Paul as a protest vote is fine. Ron Paul as "AMERICAS ONE TRUE CHANCE", Ron Paul as the "ONLY PRINCIPLED MAN IN WASHINGTON", Ron Paul as the Prophet King of the Lost City of Gold...

That **** rustles my jimmies.

Ron Paul has managed to find a way to explain complicated economic and constitutional law issues in a way simple enough to fit into a Youtube video: MAKING **** UP.

Note that Ron Paul wouldn't just order his Attorney General to go back to defending the unconstitutional provisions of DOMA, Ron Paul introduced ANOTHER jurisdiction stripping bill that would've prevented any federal court from even hearing any cases about DOMA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act

The fringe of people who dislike gays even more than the GOP platform is out there, and Ron Paul wants their money.
FlyWf is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:52 PM   #21081
sangaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sangaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,881
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
I think states' rights people are missing the overarching point that those who are saying that federal government has been better at Civil Rights. They aren't saying that federal government > state governments in all situations. They are saying historically the federal government has pushed forward key civil rights in opposition of states who knew they were in the minority so resorted to claiming states' rights to preserve their small areas where they held a majority.

States' rights as a theoretical idea is fine and should be something to look at as a legitimate political option. But so should be looking at the Federal government when it's there trying to expand rights, protect rights, or protect minorities.
Yeah I agree with this. I would be in favor of federal laws/constitutional amendments that protected a wide array of privacy issues and civil rights, and I'd expect the states to get shot down if they tried to restrict those anyway.

I actually think the term "state rights" is often used hypocritically because the "rights" they're referring to is the right to take away rights of that state's denizens. Like slavery being a state's rights issue, yeah right. Same with marriage, the right to get married belongs to the people not to the government (whichever level it may be) as far as I'm concerned.

But I don't think the federal govt is inherently any less dangerous to the rights of its citizens than state govts, and there are plenty examples of this over the last decade.
sangaman is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:59 PM   #21082
[Phill]
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
[Phill]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 52,389
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Wouldn't constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage or abortion be much more detrimental for abortion/marriage rights than a We The People type bill? The former seems like an outright nationwide ban, whereas the latter seems to only allow individual states to ban if they choose to. Certainly, with a We The People act on the books, you could at least still get married in the northeast if you were gay (not that I'm saying that's ok, you should be able to do that anywhere, but it seems better than the constitutional ban).
In a vacuum, sure, a constitutional amendment would be worse than a WTP act, but it is significantly more difficult to pass. An act just needs to pass both the house (majority vote) and the senate (majority vote without a filibuster, 60 votes if one were to be applied) then signed by the President. An amendment requires 67% support in both the house and senate and they need three quarters of states to agree to the amendment.

I mean this is all up in the air, especially since you need a huge shift in public opinion to get Paul elected, something that will be reflected in both houses and probably in most state governments too. He was never ever going to win the presidency, neither were the nutballs we are comparing him with, but the arrogance of Ron Paul to write such legislation as the WTP act which is designed to act as an amendment but avoid the difficulty of passing one is disgusting. He knows his law is so illegal that he wrote part of it so that courts cannot pass judgement on the law. It is impossible to even say it could work by blindfolding courts as he wants, there is no precedent, but it really should worry supporters of him.
[Phill] is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 03:08 PM   #21083
Case Closed
self-banned
 
Case Closed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: pooping my big boy pants
Posts: 19,112
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...e-war-20111223

Quote:
“I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me,” the letter said. “Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)”
-Ron Paul.

Yeahhhh, we know where he stands.
Case Closed is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 03:11 PM   #21084
sangaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sangaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,881
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone Booth View Post
You're gonna have to read Gary North's books to get a detailed, theoretical explanation. In general, they want theocracy and they know they are not that far from a theocratic majority in several states where evangelical Christianity is strong in numbers. But the federal government and its meddling courts represent a major obstacle in their vision.

The other part of this is that this group overlaps significantly with white nationalist groups who hold a major grudge against the federal government for ending segregation, slavery or white dominance. There's a lot of yapping about how biblical theocracy would justify slavery and such nonsense. Ron Paul's rhetoric of wanting to go back to a time when the federal government had significantly less power resonates with them because they too want to go back in time.




How do you think state governments would deal with threats of terrorism and border security issues in the absence of federal government? Patriot Act is pretty weak sauce, compared to what states would be willing to put into place. Ron Paul doesn't comment on this hypothetical much, but the guy whom he last endorsed for President does:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/1490



Federal War on Drugs has fairly minimal impact on citizens that aren't associated with international drug cartels or other criminal/terrorist groups. The average recreational drug user is highly unlikely to run into trouble with the FBI - it's state and local police that they ought to fear. Of course, Ron Paul wants to allow state governments to go unchecked in this instance.



Again, how would states do this any better?




Gambling is almost entirely state-regulated. The federal government doesn't ban internet poker for anyone who lives in a state that allows it. I believe not a single state allows foreign, unlicensed operators to offer internet gambling to its residents.




Are you saying that the current division of power between federal and state is such that the federal government already doesn't get in the way of states offering civil liberties such as medical marijuana gay marriage? What can Ron Paul do for you here then? Of course, Ron Paul wants to get in the way - he suports DOMA and wants it defended and enforced (Obama administration is choosing not to defend it in courts, believing it unconstitutional) which would force the federal government not to recognize those same-sex marriages allowed at the state level. So yes civil liberties can win at the state level, but when it does happen, Ron Paul firmly supports federal intervention to undo the gains.
The fact that states might come up with something worse than the Patriot Act and TSA doesn't justify the Federal Govt enacting them. As it relates to Ron Paul, he's strongly against the civil liberties assaults from those bills.

My example of an old lady getting raided by federal agents for growing her own medical marijuana was a real one and was upheld by the SCOTUS. There have been more raids of medical marijuana producers under Obama than under Bush and Attorney General Holder has said that the Fed Govt will continue to prosecute individuals for marijuana possession, despite it's legal status in some states.

I'm surprised you don't understand what the Federal Govt has done to online poker when we're posting on a poker forum. Only a few states actually ban online poker and it's the UIGEA that caused Party Poker to immediately leave the US market and recently allowed the DOJ to crack down on Pokerstars and ban them from the US.

Kudos to the Obama administration for not enforcing DOMA, clearly one area where Obama is superior to Ron Paul in my book.
sangaman is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 03:28 PM   #21085
sangaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sangaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,881
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill] View Post
In a vacuum, sure, a constitutional amendment would be worse than a WTP act, but it is significantly more difficult to pass. An act just needs to pass both the house (majority vote) and the senate (majority vote without a filibuster, 60 votes if one were to be applied) then signed by the President. An amendment requires 67% support in both the house and senate and they need three quarters of states to agree to the amendment.

I mean this is all up in the air, especially since you need a huge shift in public opinion to get Paul elected, something that will be reflected in both houses and probably in most state governments too. He was never ever going to win the presidency, neither were the nutballs we are comparing him with, but the arrogance of Ron Paul to write such legislation as the WTP act which is designed to act as an amendment but avoid the difficulty of passing one is disgusting. He knows his law is so illegal that he wrote part of it so that courts cannot pass judgement on the law. It is impossible to even say it could work by blindfolding courts as he wants, there is no precedent, but it really should worry supporters of him.
OK this makes sense. Realistically speaking, the nation is headed in a direction that makes the war on drugs and discrimination against gays increasingly unpopular. I don't expect any new federal laws that discriminate against gays and I eventually expect the notion of being against the war on drugs to become mainstream. I fully expect future generations to think of laws banning gay marriage the way my generation thinks of laws banning interracial marriage.

I'm interested in seeing that happen sooner rather than later, but I'm more concerned about other areas of civil liberties that seem to be headed in the wrong direction. People are getting more and more callous to the government invading their privacy and denying them basic rights. And I'm especially concerned with the hawkish, war-like policies and attitudes of our government recently.

I think Ron Paul's presidential campaign has had a positive effect on American politics because he didn't campaign on a platform of "hey lets make sure states can restrict marriage" but rather on a platform of ending wars abroad, ending the war on drugs, restoring liberties, and reining in the federal government. The latter doesn't excuse his anti-gay policies, but I don't think his anti-gay policies completely nullify the positive things he's said and done either.
sangaman is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 03:46 PM   #21086
AlexM
ignored
 
AlexM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hate cannot drive out hate
Posts: 20,650
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by sangaman View Post
Same with marriage, the right to get married belongs to the people not to the government (whichever level it may be) as far as I'm concerned.
That's exactly the problem though. We've chosen to involve the government. If the government weren't involved, there would be no problem. Don't add government sanctioning of gay marriages. Remove government sanctioning of ANY marriages. Then people can marry whoever they want.
AlexM is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 03:49 PM   #21087
AlexM
ignored
 
AlexM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hate cannot drive out hate
Posts: 20,650
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed View Post
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...e-war-20111223



-Ron Paul.

Yeahhhh, we know where he stands.
I read the quote and was like, "WTF, that doesn't sound like anything RP has ever said or would ever say."

Clicked on the link: Yep, LDO.
AlexM is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 04:03 PM   #21088
Case Closed
self-banned
 
Case Closed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: pooping my big boy pants
Posts: 19,112
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM View Post
I read the quote and was like, "WTF, that doesn't sound like anything RP has ever said or would ever say."

Clicked on the link: Yep, LDO.
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/1...icitation2.pdf

It's all Ron's. Looks like a RP byline at the bottom.
Case Closed is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 04:12 PM   #21089
All-In Flynn
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
All-In Flynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 8,095
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Nah, an authorised surrogate has explained that those were the writings of a former authorised surrogate, and not Paul himself. What more do you need?
All-In Flynn is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 04:26 PM   #21090
AlexM
ignored
 
AlexM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hate cannot drive out hate
Posts: 20,650
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed View Post
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/1...icitation2.pdf

It's all Ron's. Looks like a RP byline at the bottom.
If you believe that, you're a moron. I don't believe you believe it though.
AlexM is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 04:27 PM   #21091
Case Closed
self-banned
 
Case Closed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: pooping my big boy pants
Posts: 19,112
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn View Post
Nah, an authorised surrogate has explained that those were the writings of a former authorised surrogate, and not Paul himself. What more do you need?
Something less than RP himself addressing this with extreme belligerence. Obviously having a candid conversation with him about it would be too much to ask. I know that.
Case Closed is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 04:40 PM   #21092
zikzak
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
zikzak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,243
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM View Post
That's exactly the problem though. We've chosen to involve the government. If the government weren't involved, there would be no problem. Don't add government sanctioning of gay marriages. Remove government sanctioning of ANY marriages. Then people can marry whoever they want.
Making marriage completely meaningless isn't the way to solve the problem. This has been argued before itf, and the "get government out of marriage" camp ends up looking really silly.
zikzak is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 04:55 PM   #21093
Happy_Fish
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Happy_Fish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Here for the WW
Posts: 7,497
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Why would removing government make marriage completely meaningless?
Happy_Fish is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 05:04 PM   #21094
zikzak
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
zikzak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,243
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Fish View Post
Why would removing government make marriage completely meaningless?
Government involvement in marriage isn't state sanction of a couple's undying love. It's contract enforcement.

You can already get non-government married to anyone and anything you like, but if you want the legal rights to go with it, it's impossible to not have the government involved.
zikzak is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 05:23 PM   #21095
[Phill]
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
[Phill]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 52,389
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

How do you even get government out of marriage?

Keep in mind the guy who thinks government should get out of marriage also thinks it is a states rights issue and would call a federal bill like the "Getting Government out of Marriage act" which told states to neither limit nor recognise any marriages tyranny.

But say you can, however that would work, what happens to marriage? Does it just become a contract? If it is a contract who enforces it, government? Do all the associated rights that cannot be conveyed through such a contract without direct governmental involvement such as tax issues go away or does government need to sign the new marriage contracts (which means they are not out of marriage)?

Look, there are two option on the table to stop making gay marriage an issue. You can completely re-write literally thousands of laws to get government out of marriage or you can just uniformly apply the 14th amendment.
[Phill] is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 06:05 PM   #21096
dessin d'enfant
Pooh-Bah
 
dessin d'enfant's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,389
Re: Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ludacris View Post
just because you don't agree with something doesn't automatically mean you're anti something.
Lol...I never said that it did. In this particular case I think anti-gay is a fair description that most people would agree with.
dessin d'enfant is offline  

Closed Thread
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online