NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the n00bs running for the Republican ticket has left the race because he can't keep up. I say good because the space he was taking can now be occupied by a better Republican, such as Ron Paul.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_po/brownback)

TOPEKA, Kan. - Republican Sen. Sam Brownback abandoned his 2008 presidential bid Friday, his White House aspirations dashed by a lack of support and money.

Said the Kansas senator: "My yellow brick road just came short of the White House this time."

The conservative managed to gain the support of only 1 percent of Republicans in this month's Associated Press-Ipsos poll after peaking at 3 percent in June. Fundraising reports this week showed that his campaign was struggling financially, with $94,000 available to spend.

Brownback is expected to run for Kansas governor in 2010 when his second term expires. He has said he won't run for the Senate again.

He announced his withdrawal at the Kansas Statehouse, standing with his wife, Mary, and three of his five children.

One young campaign volunteer held a sign saying, "We (heart) Sam)."

"We're out of money," said Brownback.

He had previously said he would stay in the presidential race through Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses in January and would drop out of the field if he finished worse than fourth there. Throughout the summer, Brownback spent considerable time and money in Iowa leading up to an August straw poll.

He finished third in that event, to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in a blow to his candidacy.

Huckabee could stand to gain by Brownback's departure, especially among religious conservatives who share the two candidates' opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Brownback, 51, is a former Kansas agriculture secretary who won a seat in the U.S. House in 1994, the same year voters angry with Democratic President Clinton swept the GOP back into congressional majorities.

Two years later, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole resigned his seat to run for president, and Brownback captured Dole's seat. He won a full term in 1998 and was re-elected easily in 2004.

He is known for his passionate opposition to abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. But his pledge to "rebuild the family and renew the culture" didn't resonate with enough voters as he ran for president.

GOP officials said the crowded presidential field made it difficult for him to break out of the pack.

"There were too many conservatives in the race, and Huckabee took off in the straw poll and that gave him some momentum that Brownback didn't have," said Des Moines lawyer Steve Roberts, a member of the Republican National Committee.

One of the n00bs running for the Republican ticket has left the race because he can't keep up. I say good because the space he was taking can now be occupied by a better Republican, such as Ron Paul.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_po/brownback)

You mean another fake Libertarian.

OT: Brownback is so trivial I doubt most of you will realize who he was.

...wasn't he one of the three people who demonstrated that he was too delusional to be president by claiming evolution doesn't exist?

...wasn't he one of the three people who demonstrated that he was too delusional to be president by claiming evolution doesn't exist?

Who cares what his private beliefs are?

I would rather have a good President that rejects science than a terrible President that accepts it.

Not that Brownback would be a "good President"; he wouldn't. But the principle is the same.

No offense, but I don't think it's possible to be a good president who rejects science.

Who cares what his private beliefs are?

I would rather have a good President that rejects science than a terrible President that accepts it.

Not that Brownback would be a "good President"; he wouldn't. But the principle is the same.

I'd imagine some acceptance of science as being necessary to being a good president...or surviving, for that matter.

No offense, but I don't think it's possible to be a good president who rejects science.

Well, as long as his ignorance regarding science doesn't shape his politics, it doesn't bother me.

No offense, but I don't think it's possible to be a good president who rejects science.

QFT

Well, as long as his ignorance regarding science doesn't shape his politics, it doesn't bother me.

Someone who doesn't accept science is bound to make bad decisions.

OT: Brownback is so trivial I doubt most of you will realize who he was.

Most, yes.
But not me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator

Good. Fucking. Riddance.

One of the n00bs running for the Republican ticket has left the race because he can't keep up. I say good because the space he was taking can now be occupied by a better Republican, such as Ron Paul.

Racist, anti-semitic theocratic conspiracy nuts who believe that abortion and gay marriage should be banned on the federal level and who have an economic policy that would destroy the economy are better how?

Racist, anti-semitic theocratic conspiracy nuts who believe that abortion and gay marriage should be banned on the federal level and who have an economic policy that would destroy the economy are better how?

Despite my hatred of Libertarians, he seems like what we need right now for 4-8 years. I don't support him as my main choice, but he is my preferred Republican.

Ron Paul has good foreign policy, domestic not so much. I don't know if anyone saw the last Republican debate, but it was a total bore, RP was the only redeeming quality because he was the only person talking substance, the rest of them mindless bumbled out tired-out lines and catch-phrases with no content, their wasn't a single policy proposal from the GOP while the Dems are pumping out a proposal or two a week. Voting GOP at this stage would be literally vote for nothing.

Ron Paul has good foreign policy, domestic not so much. I don't know if anyone saw the last Republican debate, but it was a total bore, RP was the only redeeming quality because he was the only person talking substance, the rest of them mindless bumbled out tired-out lines and catch-phrases with no content, their wasn't a single policy proposal from the GOP while the Dems are pumping out a proposal or two a week. Voting GOP at this stage would be literally vote for nothing.

Yeah, he actually knows why 9/11 happened.

As a Kansan, I don't like Brownback. He's a disgrace to the awesome name that is Kansas.

Good riddance!

As a Kansan, I don't like Brownback. He's a disgrace to the awesome name that is Kansas.

Good riddance!

Actually I think the Westboro Baptist Church is more of a disgrace to Kansas than Brownback is, but maybe not....tie?

Who cares what his private beliefs are?

Are you joking? About anyone interested in US politics.
His private beliefs will shape his policy. Or do you wish for another puppet president?

Well, as long as his ignorance regarding science doesn't shape his politics, it doesn't bother me.
Except of course that, in Brownback's case, his personal beliefs DO shape his politics. Because of his extreme fundamentalist religious beliefs, Senator Brownback is devoted to banning abortion, banning gay marriage, replacing the teaching of evolution with creationism in US schools, instituting school prayer, etc. His beliefs also shape his policies on environmental issues, discrimination/civil rights issues, and issues of governmental power. And he is also on record as wanting to amend the Constitution to enshrine his religiously-directed policies as foundations of the US system of law and government -- in direct contradiction of said Constitution.

Brownback no longer running is a good thing, but looking at who's left, I don't feel any safer.

I wanted Brownback to win. I'm so sick of all these homos cuming all over our society and its traditions and I'm sick of whores murdering their children because they couldn't keep their legs closed. Don't like my opinion? Tough luck bitches.

Except of course that, in Brownback's case, his personal beliefs DO shape his politics. Because of his extreme fundamentalist religious beliefs, Senator Brownback is devoted to banning abortion, banning gay marriage, replacing the teaching of evolution with creationism in US schools, instituting school prayer, etc. His beliefs also shape his policies on environmental issues, discrimination/civil rights issues, and issues of governmental power. And he is also on record as wanting to amend the Constitution to enshrine his religiously-directed policies as foundations of the US system of law and government -- in direct contradiction of said Constitution.

Brownback no longer running is a good thing, but looking at who's left, I don't feel any safer.

Your a stupid emo teenager. What do you know?

Abortion is the modern holocaust, anyone with a heart and a brain would want to ban it. Even Jane Roe is pro-life now. Hell, even Bernard Bathanson, founder of NARAL and former abortion "doctor", is pro-life.

80% of the country opposes homos marrying, to force society to accept that is true tyranny.

Brownback doesn't want to replace evolution with creation. Way to assume you douchebag.

School prayer was allowed in the time of the founding fathers. Just because a few atheists and secular Jews don't like it doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.


This country is a Christian majority. If you want left-wing atheism then move to the PRC. I sure wouldn't care if your kind left. And no I dont believe in creationism and all that nonsense, so don't cry "fundy" at me. I just have the common sense to see that all you damn 18 year old liberals are screwing up the entire world with your backwards idealism.

Your a stupid emo teenager. What do you know?.
Try not to flame, please.

80% of the country opposes homos marrying, to force society to accept that is true tyranny..
Oh how Id love to see a reliable source for that

Brownback doesn't want to replace evolution with creation. Way to assume you douchebag..
This is gonna get old real fast. Stop flaming

School prayer was allowed in the time of the founding fathers. Just because a few atheists and secular Jews don't like it doesn't mean we shouldn't have it..
This is a new argument. Source, please.

This country is a Christian majority. If you want left-wing atheism then move to the PRC. I sure wouldn't care if your kind left. And no I dont believe in creationism and all that nonsense, so don't cry "fundy" at me. I just have the common sense to see that all you damn 18 year old liberals are screwing up the entire world with your backwards idealism.

Um, while youre certainly not a complete fundy, you are a pretty big one. And you really are asking to get it. STOP FLAMING, get educated, or just crawl back under your rock in Jesusland

Who cares what his private beliefs are?

I would rather have a good President that rejects science than a terrible President that accepts it.

Not that Brownback would be a "good President"; he wouldn't. But the principle is the same.
I don't think that in this era a person would be capable of properly governing a modern country if they held science in contempt.

80% of the country opposes homos marrying, to force society to accept that is true tyranny.

Ending of slavery was tyranny, then?

Brownback doesn't want to replace evolution with creation. Way to assume you douchebag.

Right, he wants to replace it with intelligent design.

School prayer was allowed in the time of the founding fathers. Just because a few atheists and secular Jews don't like it doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.

Schools during the time of the Framing of the Constitution and the Declaration were not government run schools. The earliest public school system was in Massachusetts in the 1840s, and only in 1918 was elementary education mandatory and state-supplied in every state.

Had you know any history at all, you would realize your rabid anti-Semitism plays no part.


This country is a Christian majority. If you want left-wing atheism then move to the PRC. I sure wouldn't care if your kind left. And no I dont believe in creationism and all that nonsense, so don't cry "fundy" at me. I just have the common sense to see that all you damn 18 year old liberals are screwing up the entire world with your backwards idealism.

You wouldn't know left wing if it bit you in the arse.

Well, as long as his ignorance regarding science doesn't shape his politics, it doesn't bother me.

any intelligent, educated person who makes the decision to intentionally disbelieve evolution has already demonstrated that he is willing to let his faith interfere with his ability to make intelligent, rational, and educated decisions.

Someone who does so demonstrates his willingness to substitute his faith for reason.

Why should I not expect that to affect his politics?

Ending of slavery was tyranny, then?

Don't forget the civil rights movement. Apparently Theodosis has never heard of tyranny of the majority.

Don't forget the civil rights movement. Apparently Theodosis has never heard of tyranny of the majority.


Slavery would have died out anyway. And the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was over the states rights to leave the uinion and states rights in general. And I'm pretty sure the majority of the nation opposed slavery.

And keeping some innocent person enslaved because of their skin color is totally different than denying some foaming homo the right to wed some other dirty foaming homo.

Schools during the time of the Framing of the Constitution and the Declaration were not government run schools. The earliest public school system was in Massachusetts in the 1840s, and only in 1918 was elementary education mandatory and state-supplied in every state.

Had you know any history at all, you would realize your rabid anti-Semitism plays no part.

"Anti-semetism" lol. Ever here of Engel vs. Vitale? It was a secular Jew who threw a fit and got prayer out of public schools. Today the ADL is one of the driving forces that is seeking to get Christianity canned. It has been the suits of reform Jewish rabbis that has taken down Christmas trees and mangers.

Are Buddhists trying to take down Christmas trees? Nope. What about Muslims? Not at all. Hindus? No.

Its just Jews and atheists. Somehow the secular Jews think they, being the "choson", get to have things their way 24/7. Its quite annoying to say the least.

I have nothing but respect for Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Jews (such as Rabbi Yehuda Levin). However secular and reform Jews are the most elitist and pestering group this country has ever allowed in. Moses and Elijah would bawl their eyes out at the sight of modern Judaism.

And keeping some innocent person enslaved because of their skin color is totally different than denying some foaming homo the right to wed some other dirty foaming homo.

Only in your mind. People couldnt imagine a worse abomination 100 years ago than a white person and a black person getting married. Now you want to do the same to homosexuals. There's no difference other than the type of discrimination.

Only in your mind. People couldnt imagine a worse abomination 100 years ago than a white person and a black person getting married. Now you want to do the same to homosexuals. There's no difference other than the type of discrimination.

A black man and white women (or vice versa) have compatible anatomy, so any opposition to that is illogical.

Sodomites however defy nature at every turn, they prey on children, they are screwing up society, etc. These beasts are a menace.

Sodomites however defy nature at every turn, they prey on children, they are screwing up society, etc. These beasts are a menace.

I presume that you are now going to provide me with some evidence that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, or that their activities are in some way detrimental to society?

Its fools like Brownback and Paul that make me want to abandon the Republican party and be a full fledged independent. Good Riddence Brownback. You should have left the race earlier. Now if we get the other rubbish out of the race...

*snip*

And its fools like these that give Christianity a bad name :headbang:

A black man and white women (or vice versa) have compatible anatomy, so any opposition to that is illogical.

Sodomites however defy nature at every turn, they prey on children, they are screwing up society, etc. These beasts are a menace.

That depends entirely on how you define natural.

I presume that you are now going to provide me with some evidence that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, or that their activities are in some way detrimental to society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

Homosexual groups to endorse pedophilia:

- COC (largest gay group in Netherlands)
- International Gay and Lesbian Association (self-explanatory)
- NAMBLA (self-proffessed homosexuals)
- MARTIJN (combined gay-pedophila alliance)
- National Homosexuality Association (Germany's largest gay group)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

Homosexual groups to endorse pedophilia:

- COC (largest gay group in Netherlands)
- International Gay and Lesbian Association (self-explanatory)
- NAMBLA (self-proffessed homosexuals)
- MARTIJN (combined gay-pedophila alliance)
- National Homosexuality Association (Germany's largest gay group)

Most people do not like NAMBLA in this country anyway. As to the others..I'm going to need to see better sources but yet I know I am going to be waiting awhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

Homosexual groups to endorse pedophilia:

- COC (largest gay group in Netherlands)
- International Gay and Lesbian Association (self-explanatory)
- NAMBLA (self-proffessed homosexuals)
- MARTIJN (combined gay-pedophila alliance)
- National Homosexuality Association (Germany's largest gay group)

Should we actually be disturbed that you apparently have that bookmarked in case you need to whip it out to fight against those "dirty homos"?

Rampant Homophobia? On MY NSG?
... More likely than I thought.


Outside of that, I've yet to see a single rational argument from... what was it, Theodosis X? Just a bunch of insults and baseless claims.

This, friends, is why superstition such a problem. People twist it around, get indoctrinated by it, and base their lives around it like it matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

Homosexual groups to endorse pedophilia:

- COC (largest gay group in Netherlands)
- International Gay and Lesbian Association (self-explanatory)
- NAMBLA (self-proffessed homosexuals)
- MARTIJN (combined gay-pedophila alliance)
- National Homosexuality Association (Germany's largest gay group)

Excellent. I like this particular brand of logic because it lets me do this.

From your post, I can infer that you believe the existence of homosexual groups who also promote paedophilia means that this is evidence that homosexuality encourages paedophilia. Let me take this logic further.

Christian groups who partake in terrorism:

Army of God
God's Army - A terrorist group in Myanmar.
Nagaland Rebels
National Liberation Front of Tripura
Phineas Priesthood
National Democratic Front of Bodoland

I can therefor infer from the logic that you have demonstrated that due to this group of Christian terrorist organisations, Christians must be a threat to the national security of various nations around the world.

Christian groups who support racism:

The Aryan Nations
Church of Jesus Christ Christian
Mission To Israel
Folk And Faith
LaPorte Church of Christ
Yahweh's Truth
Kingdom Identity Ministries
White Separatist Banner

I can therefor infer from the logic that you have demonstrated that due to this group of Christian racist organisations, Christians must be a threat to race relations.

Also consider this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism) list of Christian socialists and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism) list of Christian Communists. From your logic, I can infer that large numbers of Christians are opposed to capitalism and are therefor un-American.

So there we have it. I'll take a compromise; I'll admit that homosexuals are a threat to children, if you admit that Christians are a threat to national security, racial minorities and the American way of life.

Theo, it's time to come down from Brownback mountain.

Excellent. I like this particular brand of logic because it lets me do this.

From your post, I can infer that you believe the existence of homosexual groups who also promote paedophilia means that this is evidence that homosexuality encourages paedophilia. Let me take this logic further.

Christian groups who partake in terrorism:

Army of God
God's Army - A terrorist group in Myanmar.
Nagaland Rebels
National Liberation Front of Tripura
Phineas Priesthood
National Democratic Front of Bodoland

I can therefor infer from the logic that you have demonstrated that due to this group of Christian terrorist organisations, Christians must be a threat to the national security of various nations around the world.

Christian groups who support racism:

The Aryan Nations
Church of Jesus Christ Christian
Mission To Israel
Folk And Faith
LaPorte Church of Christ
Yahweh's Truth
Kingdom Identity Ministries
White Separatist Banner

I can therefor infer from the logic that you have demonstrated that due to this group of Christian racist organisations, Christians must be a threat to race relations.

Also consider this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism) list of Christian socialists and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism) list of Christian Communists. From your logic, I can infer that large numbers of Christians are opposed to capitalism and are therefor un-American.

So there we have it. I'll take a compromise; I'll admit that homosexuals are a threat to children, if you admit that Christians are a threat to national security, racial minorities and the American way of life.


I do believe you just won the thread, good sir. Bravo.

Have you ever noticed how the people that CLAIM TO BE intolerant of homosexuals tend to come out of the closet soon after?

And its fools like these that give Christianity a bad name :headbang:

:headbang: My sentiments exactly.

"Anti-semetism" lol. Ever here of Engel vs. Vitale? It was a secular Jew who threw a fit and got prayer out of public schools. Today the ADL is one of the driving forces that is seeking to get Christianity canned. It has been the suits of reform Jewish rabbis that has taken down Christmas trees and mangers.

Are Buddhists trying to take down Christmas trees? Nope. What about Muslims? Not at all. Hindus? No.

Its just Jews and atheists. Somehow the secular Jews think they, being the "choson", get to have things their way 24/7. Its quite annoying to say the least.

I have nothing but respect for Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Jews (such as Rabbi Yehuda Levin). However secular and reform Jews are the most elitist and pestering group this country has ever allowed in. Moses and Elijah would bawl their eyes out at the sight of modern Judaism.

What is so bad about not having to see a horrible oppressive religion shoved in your face at a government institution. I find it very insulting when any religious objects are in schools.

Only in your mind. People couldnt imagine a worse abomination 100 years ago than a white person and a black person getting married. Now you want to do the same to homosexuals. There's no difference other than the type of discrimination.

A black man and white women (or vice versa) have compatible anatomy, so any opposition to that is illogical.

Sodomites however defy nature at every turn, they prey on children, they are screwing up society, etc. These beasts are a menace.

QFT. There is a huge difference that Theo has stated. The purpose of sex and love is for reproductive needs, therefore homosexuality is incorrect and a bad mutation that could theoretically end a species.

I presume that you are now going to provide me with some evidence that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, or that their activities are in some way detrimental to society?

I just saw this in my law class. NAMBLA is one example mentioned already. If we allow homosexual stuff, soon we'll allow pedophilia and other absurd things. The line must be drawn at an human male with any human female.

Its fools like Brownback and Paul that make me want to abandon the Republican party and be a full fledged independent. Good Riddence Brownback. You should have left the race earlier. Now if we get the other rubbish out of the race...

Paul is a somewhat paleoconservative and old Republican, so he's more Republican than the rubbish they have up there. National Republicans are like a cempletely different party...

Theo, it's time to come down from Brownback mountain.

I have to give you an lol for that clever remark.

And its fools like these that give Christianity a bad name :headbang:

No, it's the fact that Christians try to shove their crap down everyone's throat and claim such superiority by having their crap every where (eg Christmas trees). This is not a Christian nation. It's an American nation. Also, don't forget the Crusades and Middle Ages. It's a shame the Romans did such a poor job in eliminating this cult that now has corrupted the minds of 1 out of every 3 people in the world.

Paul is a somewhat paleoconservative and old Republican, so he's more Republican than the rubbish they have up there. National Republicans are like a cempletely different party...

Ron Paul is an anti-federalist.

No, it's the fact that Christians try to shove their crap down everyone's throat and claim such superiority by having their crap every where (eg Christmas trees). This is not a Christian nation. It's an American nation. Also, don't forget the Crusades and Middle Ages. It's a shame the Romans did such a poor job in eliminating this cult that now has corrupted the minds of 1 out of every 3 people in the world.

You were good till you threw in the last sentence.

You were good till you threw in the last sentence.
Well I somewhat agree with it, I think that Christianity would be good today if Jesus' gospel was actually followed rather than just used by the crazy ultra-moralistic dogmatic fascists to justify their bigotry. In short my view of Christianity is summed up as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M

QFT. There is a huge difference that Theo has stated. The purpose of sex and love is for reproductive needs, therefore homosexuality is incorrect and a bad mutation that could theoretically end a species.

With over 7 billion people in this world, its more than a reproductive need. A small percentage of homosexuals isn't going to affect the survivability of the human race.



I just saw this in my law class. NAMBLA is one example mentioned already. If we allow homosexual stuff, soon we'll allow pedophilia and other absurd things. The line must be drawn at an human male with any human female.


NAMBLA advocated pederasty which is completely different from homosexuality. And who exactly decides where this line protecting society is drawn?

Ron Paul is an anti-federalist.



You were good till you threw in the last sentence.

I firmly believe in that statement for the past few years. Although I have toned it down a bit.

What is so bad about not having to see a horrible oppressive religion shoved in your face at a government institution. I find it very insulting when any religious objects are in schools.

So you're voting for someone who doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state.

I disagree with the Separation of Church and State, in fact I support the abolition of the Church, I don't think anyone should ever be exposed to a so hideous, bigoted, irrational and violent creed as religion. Religion is anti-science and brutally intolerant of difference, be that difference moral, sexual, ethical or whatnot. Religion has finally sensed it's own irrelevance, and like a cornered beast is striking out viciously at everything.

You know, whenever I need a good laugh, I just log into the forums to see what smug rhetoric the pseudo-intellectuals are spouting about religion.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....it never ends....and Christianity lives on and continues to grow and thrive.

Art

So you're voting for someone who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

What I said should have ahd a question mark. I would happily vote for someone who supports a huge wall between church and state.

I disagree with the Separation of Church and State, in fact I support the abolition of the Church, I don't think anyone should ever be exposed to a so hideous, bigoted, irrational and violent creed as religion. Religion is anti-science and brutally intolerant of difference, be that difference moral, sexual, ethical or whatnot. Religion has finally sensed it's own irrelevance, and like a cornered beast is striking out viciously at everything.

Yes, religion is proto-science, and therefore obsolete.

You know, whenever I need a good laugh, I just log into the forums to see what smug rhetoric the pseudo-intellectuals are spouting about religion.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....it never ends....and Christianity lives on and continues to grow and thrive.

Art

Yup. :) And Christianity is actually in decline in all reasonably sane parts of the world.

just saw this in my law class. NAMBLA is one example mentioned already. If we allow homosexual stuff, soon we'll allow pedophilia and other absurd things. The line must be drawn at an human male with any human female.

Human male with any human female? That would include paedophilia, btw.

Religion is anti-science and brutally intolerant of difference, be that difference moral, sexual, ethical or whatnot. Religion has finally sensed it's own irrelevance, and like a cornered beast is striking out viciously at everything.

Sometimes I love being gay, transsexual, and devoutly Christian. Because I don't even need to actually argue with that, I can just stand up and wave at you. Sweeping generalities are nearly always wrong.

Human male with any human female? That would include paedophilia, btw.

Caught me there. Any human male with any human female, both within a reasonable age range of each other. This means 21 and 17 are fine, but 82 and 21 are not.

QFT. There is a huge difference that Theo has stated. The purpose of sex and love is for reproductive needs, therefore homosexuality is incorrect and a bad mutation that could theoretically end a species.

Don't be silly.

Sex and love are enjoyable regardless of "reproductive needs."

Given the world's population, we hardly need to worry about an end to the species from having a small percentage of homosexuals. In fact, some homosexuality has been shown to be an evolutionary advantage.

I just saw this in my law class. NAMBLA is one example mentioned already. If we allow homosexual stuff, soon we'll allow pedophilia and other absurd things. The line must be drawn at an human male with any human female.

The line should be drawn at consenting adults. The question of gender has nothing to do with the question of ability to consent. Age, however, does. You and NAMBLA may have trouble making this distinction, but most people don't.

Caught me there. Any human male with any human female, both within a reasonable age range of each other. This means 21 and 17 are fine, but 82 and 21 are not.

*see above*

Someone who is 21 can consent to sex with someone that is 82 and vice versa. Why you should care about their age difference is beyond me.

Someone who is 21 can consent to sex with someone that is 82 and vice versa. Why you should care about their age difference is beyond me.
Because it's icky, obviously.

Because it's icky, obviously.

Yep. And we should outlaw everything icky. Including pooing, vomiting, and rotting food. :p

Yep. And we should outlaw everything icky. Including pooing, vomiting, and rotting food. :p

I concur entirely. BAN EXCRETION!

Because it's icky, obviously.

I'm still of the theory that people that condemn sexual behavior X between consenting adults wish they had the nerve to engage in X.

What I said should have ahd a question mark. I would happily vote for someone who supports a huge wall between church and state.

Then you shouldn't support Ron Paul. He is actively against the separation of Church and State.

EDIT: Here is a quote from Ron Paul's Weekly Column (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm) (emphasis added):

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

...

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

snip
I have seen that quoted a few times now, and every times it just turns me off RP, don't get me wrong I hate all his domestic policy but I was attracted to his 'avoid foreign entanglement' ending US imperialism foreign policy, it's a massive contradiction and a shame that he supports the Jeffersonian founding fathers constitutionalist line about foreign policy and the rest, but he completely ignores the secularism and rejection of religious dogmatism that the founders were about.

Yep. And we should outlaw everything icky. Including pooing, vomiting, and rotting food. :p

Don't forget the bible, koran, torah... :D

Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God . . .

I'm curious, how many references to God can Ron Paul find in the US Constitution? Now, I might not be the *coughs* constitutional scholar that Mr. Paul is, but in my own limited memory, I can think of exactly one, and that one hardly counts.

SO I am curious, for a man who so fervently claims to want to adhere to our constitution, how many references to god can he find in a document that is "replete" with them..

Slavery would have died out anyway. And the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was over the states rights to leave the uinion and states rights in general.

Just to make sure, what was the state right they were leaving for? Oh yeah, I remember now, the right to continue slavery, not some sort of romantic "right of self-determination over the tyrannical North who doesn't respect Southern values".

And no, slavery wouldn't have died out any time close to the Civil War. I mean, free labor vs. paid labor. Which do you think the South would have picked?

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....it never ends....and Christianity lives on and continues to grow and thrive.

...and Spiro T. Agnew continues to claw at the husk of his casket.

Narf

Don't be silly.

Sex and love are enjoyable regardless of "reproductive needs."

Irrelevant

Given the world's population, we hardly need to worry about an end to the species from having a small percentage of homosexuals. In fact, some homosexuality has been shown to be an evolutionary advantage.
Proof?

The line should be drawn at consenting adults. The question of gender has nothing to do with the question of ability to consent. Age, however, does. You and NAMBLA may have trouble making this distinction, but most people don't.
Why should an adult be defined as 18? Or 16 as in several places?

*see above*

Someone who is 21 can consent to sex with someone that is 82 and vice versa. Why you should care about their age difference is beyond me.
What is your opinion on a 21 year old male and a 15 year old female? That seems a lot less disturbing than 82 and 21.

Irrelevant

Not at all. It is relevant to anyone that is human.


Proof?

*sigh*

It's been shown many times and I don't really want to get into a whole side argument about your pet form of social Darwinism.

But, this article is worth reading: On the Originality of Species (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2004/mayjun/features/roughgarden.html)

If you are not convinced, read a copy of Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398).


Why should an adult be defined as 18? Or 16 as in several places?

You are merely quibbling about what the age of consent should be, not on the principle that consent by those able to consent is the key to what is acceptable.

Given that you expressed such strong feelings against pedophilia, I don't believe that you really don't care about the age of someone consenting to sex.

What is your opinion on a 21 year old male and a 15 year old female? That seems a lot less disturbing than 82 and 21.

Why? I find the former more questionable. I have no doubt that the 82 year old and the 21 year old are able to consent meaningfully.

Not at all. It is relevant to anyone that is human.

No, it is irrelevant to the fact that sex and love are for reproductive purposes, not fun. What humans do with that ability isn't relevant.


*sigh*

It's been shown many times and I don't really want to get into a whole side argument about your pet form of social Darwinism.

But, this article is worth reading: On the Originality of Species (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2004/mayjun/features/roughgarden.html)

If you are not convinced, read a copy of Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398).

Does nothing to prove your point. It's just a reading about the gay agenda trying to justify itself by sounding scientific.


You are merely quibbling about what the age of consent should be, not on the principle that consent by those able to consent is the key to what is acceptable.

Given that you expressed such strong feelings against pedophilia, I don't believe that you really don't care about the age of someone consenting to sex.
I'm questioning why it should be 18 years or 16 years. What makes the difference between 15 years, 364 days and 16 years?

Why? I find the former more questionable. I have no doubt that the 82 year old and the 21 year old are able to consent meaningfully.
How can a young female actually want to have sex with an old man? She just wants his money and will suck up to his wants for it.

Then you shouldn't support Ron Paul. He is actively against the separation of Church and State.
Are you another one of those individuals on a crusade against him?

Your a stupid emo teenager. What do you know?

Abortion is the modern holocaust, anyone with a heart and a brain would want to ban it. Even Jane Roe is pro-life now. Hell, even Bernard Bathanson, founder of NARAL and former abortion "doctor", is pro-life.

80% of the country opposes homos marrying, to force society to accept that is true tyranny.

Brownback doesn't want to replace evolution with creation. Way to assume you douchebag.

School prayer was allowed in the time of the founding fathers. Just because a few atheists and secular Jews don't like it doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.


This country is a Christian majority. If you want left-wing atheism then move to the PRC. I sure wouldn't care if your kind left. And no I dont believe in creationism and all that nonsense, so don't cry "fundy" at me. I just have the common sense to see that all you damn 18 year old liberals are screwing up the entire world with your backwards idealism.
Sorry to have been away from NSG for a while. Just had to acknowledge this one because it is probably the funniest response I've ever gotten. :D :D :D

I'm curious, how many references to God can Ron Paul find in the US Constitution? Now, I might not be the *coughs* constitutional scholar that Mr. Paul is, but in my own limited memory, I can think of exactly one, and that one hardly counts.
You have to take the time period into account. In those days, people didn't want to risk saying the Lord's name in vain, so they usually just used the word "have." This appears in the Constitution no less than sixty times.

<snip>
Originally Posted by Sel Appa
Why should an adult be defined as 18? Or 16 as in several places?

You are merely quibbling about what the age of consent should be, not on the principle that consent by those able to consent is the key to what is acceptable.

Given that you expressed such strong feelings against pedophilia, I don't believe that you really don't care about the age of someone consenting to sex.
Obviously, he's quibbling because he got caught flat-footed by you noticing that he listed two ages (82 and 21) as being an unacceptable combination (akin to pedophilia), even though both are solidly within legal age of consent. Many people may not understand why a 21-year-old would want to have sex with an 82-year-old, but the 21-year-old is an adult and fully able to make whatever lousy decisions he or she pleases, so it's not at all like pedophilia, not even a little. Apparently, rather than admit his mistake, he prefers to dig himself into an even deeper hole.

Some people seem to think the best cure for being wrong is being more wrong.


Originally Posted by Sel Appa
What is your opinion on a 21 year old male and a 15 year old female? That seems a lot less disturbing than 82 and 21.
Why? I find the former more questionable. I have no doubt that the 82 year old and the 21 year old are able to consent meaningfully.
I find it questionable too, especially since in most states (or all? I'm not sure) the 15-year-old is a minor below the age of consent for sex. So Sel Appa is saying that he finds actual pedophilia less disturbing than sex between consenting adults. I wonder if he realizes he said that.

Are you another one of those individuals on a crusade against him?

I wouldn't call it a crusade. I oppose what the man stands for.

He is a dangerous idiot that should not be allowed to run this country. Case in point, his views on separation of Church and State are simply unAmerican.

No, it is irrelevant to the fact that sex and love are for reproductive purposes, not fun. What humans do with that ability isn't relevant.
You are making a patently ridiculous set of assertions of fact without any supporting data (which, of course, is no surprise). Especially, I challenge you to show how love is tied in with reproduction, biologically.

Then I ask you to explain how either your silly notions about sex, or other people's more enlightened notions about sex, have anything to do with the goals of politicians like Brownback of legislating "morals" in the US.

Obviously, since no one is seeking laws mandating that people reproduce, then the parts of sex that you call "irrelevant" are the most relevant parts, when discussing politics, since that is what is in question.

If you think that only sex for reproduction is acceptable to society, then you should be advocating laws that outlaw or restrict sex for ANYONE for any reason other than making babies. If you do not seek to ban non-reproductive sex by heterosexuals, then your remarks about homosexual sex are meaningless. If I can have sex just for fun without being called "unnatural" or whatever, then why shouldn't they?

Does nothing to prove your point. It's just a reading about the gay agenda trying to justify itself by sounding scientific.
"Gay agenda" is a talking point (social conservative variety). Talking points are debate-spam that invalidate arguments by rendering them content-less. Please refrain from wasting our time with them.

I'm questioning why it should be 18 years or 16 years. What makes the difference between 15 years, 364 days and 16 years?
Partly the individual's degree of cognitive development and partly the law.

How can a young female actually want to have sex with an old man? She just wants his money and will suck up to his wants for it.
So? What business it of yours?

You have to take the time period into account. In those days, people didn't want to risk saying the Lord's name in vain, so they usually just used the word "have." This appears in the Constitution no less than sixty times.

:D Ah, I get it now. Those clever freemasons with their secret codes. ;)

No, it is irrelevant to the fact that sex and love are for reproductive purposes, not fun. What humans do with that ability isn't relevant.

To echo you, where is your proof?


Does nothing to prove your point. It's just a reading about the gay agenda trying to justify itself by sounding scientific.

I'm sorry. Real science by real scientists doesn't count if it furthers the "gay agenda."

I provided that link in hopes you were intellectually curious. I should have known you were just looking for debate fodder.

I'm questioning why it should be 18 years or 16 years. What makes the difference between 15 years, 364 days and 16 years?

1. And I am questioning to what is this relevant? Surely you aren't arguing that there should be no such thing as the age of consent or consent as a principle.

2. It is a matter of law and human development.

How can a young female actually want to have sex with an old man? She just wants his money and will suck up to his wants for it.

1. Let's assume that is true. Who cares?

2. The mysteries of the human heart and the human libido don't fit so neatly into your boxes.

You have to take the time period into account. In those days, people didn't want to risk saying the Lord's name in vain, so they usually just used the word "have." This appears in the Constitution no less than sixty times.

Wait...so we have to assume that every time someone uses that conjugation of a common verb, they're referring to God?

Wait...so we have to assume that every time someone uses that conjugation of a common verb, they're referring to God?
And you just did it, too. ;) Truly, he is omnipresent.

And you just did it, too. ;) Truly, he is omnipresent.
I called upon the Lord, and He supported my arguments!

:D

Sorry to have been away from NSG for a while. Just had to acknowledge this one because it is probably the funniest response I've ever gotten. :D :D :D

Emo teenager, eh? Sounds kinda hot. :p

I wouldn't call it a crusade.
I would.

He is a dangerous idiot that should not be allowed to run this country. Case in point, his views on separation of Church and State are simply unAmerican.
Dangerous idiot, because you disagree with him? Does that entitle me to label you a 'dangerous idiot' as well? Being 'unAmerican' makes one a 'dangerous idiot'? You sound like a neocon. I don't agree with him on some matters, but I'd have him any day over the arrogant slime on the Democrat side and the warhawks on the Republican side.

Dangerous idiot, because you disagree with him? Does that entitle me to label you a 'dangerous idiot' as well?

Um...ok?

Being 'unAmerican' makes one a 'dangerous idiot'? You sound like a neocon.

Trust me. The poster you quoted is no neocon.

I don't agree with him on some matters, but I'd have him any day over the arrogant slime on the Democrat side and the warhawks on the Republican side.

I'd vote for Clinton before I voted Ron Paul if I found no suitable 3rd party candidate to waste my vote on. That should tell you something about him.

Trust me. The poster you quoted is no neocon.
I am aware.

I'd vote for Clinton before I voted Ron Paul if I found no suitable 3rd party candidate to waste my vote on. That should tell you something about him.
Your opinion matters not one whit to me.

Your opinion matters not one whit to me.

And your opinion matters not on whit to me or anyone else on these forums.

And your opinion matters not on whit to me or anyone else on these forums.
Wonderful. Then we can just ignore each other from hereon. Goodbye.

* SNIP*

For a second post, this is half decent. :) Nicely done. O hope you do post more here.

And good, I'm glad Brownback dropped out.

Some of the politicians running are really not much better than what there is now. It's not exactly cream of the crop these days.

America may have a lot of Christians but most are not rabid fundies and would like to see their nation progress rather than regress on important social issues, as well as not wallow in the quagmire created by the Bush administration. The choices don't look that great.

The only moderately tolerable GOP candidate is Guiliani.

I would.

Then you have a very lax definition of "crusade." Apparently merely opposing a Presidential candidate counts.


Dangerous idiot, because you disagree with him? Does that entitle me to label you a 'dangerous idiot' as well? Being 'unAmerican' makes one a 'dangerous idiot'? You sound like a neocon. I don't agree with him on some matters, but I'd have him any day over the arrogant slime on the Democrat side and the warhawks on the Republican side.

Dangerous idiot for a long list of reasons not least of which is his position on separation of Church and State. Other reasons include his view on abortion, monetary policy, ... just about everything.

UnAmerican because his view of separation of Church and State is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and some 200-plus years of history. The man has a warped view of the United States.

If disagreeing strongly with someone who poses such risk to the country as Ron Paul makes me sound like a neocon, so be it. Your attempt at an insult fails.

I'd vote for Clinton before I voted Ron Paul if I found no suitable 3rd party candidate to waste my vote on. That should tell you something about him.

The only wasted vote is a vote not voted.

I find it questionable too, especially since in most states (or all? I'm not sure) the 15-year-old is a minor below the age of consent for sex. So Sel Appa is saying that he finds actual pedophilia less disturbing than sex between consenting adults. I wonder if he realizes he said that.
The age of consent is absurd and arbitrary. You don't become magically developed when you turn 16 or 18 or 21. Anyone who is able to have heterosexual sex within a certain age range should be able to. 21 and 15 is not in any way, shape, or form pedophilia.

You are making a patently ridiculous set of assertions of fact without any supporting data (which, of course, is no surprise). Especially, I challenge you to show how love is tied in with reproduction, biologically.

Then I ask you to explain how either your silly notions about sex, or other people's more enlightened notions about sex, have anything to do with the goals of politicians like Brownback of legislating "morals" in the US.

Obviously, since no one is seeking laws mandating that people reproduce, then the parts of sex that you call "irrelevant" are the most relevant parts, when discussing politics, since that is what is in question.

If you think that only sex for reproduction is acceptable to society, then you should be advocating laws that outlaw or restrict sex for ANYONE for any reason other than making babies. If you do not seek to ban non-reproductive sex by heterosexuals, then your remarks about homosexual sex are meaningless. If I can have sex just for fun without being called "unnatural" or whatever, then why shouldn't they?
I didn't bring this off topic. Cat Tribe did, or maybe Theo.

It's quite obvious what sex and love is for. Humans are able to ignore their instinct to reproduce somewhat and in order to counter that, love and the pleasures of sex were developed so that humans would be naturally encouraged to engage in activities that would produce offspring.

Partly the individual's degree of cognitive development and partly the law.
There is a huge bias against "minors" that has convinced people that anyone under 18 is insufficiently developed. There is minimal difference between a 17 and a 22 year old. After puberty, we are adequately developed to engage in sexual activities with a partner of the opposite sex.

I'm sorry. Real science by real scientists doesn't count if it furthers the "gay agenda."

I provided that link in hopes you were intellectually curious. I should have known you were just looking for debate fodder.
That article gave nothing except that a transgender scientist thinks sex may not be just for reproductive purposes, which ultimately it always is: to overcome anti-instinct issues that would hinder reproduction.

1. And I am questioning to what is this relevant? Surely you aren't arguing that there should be no such thing as the age of consent or consent as a principle.

2. It is a matter of law and human development.
There should be no age of consent. Consent should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

There should be no age of consent. Consent should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Are you seriously advocating a criminal investigation every time someone has sex to determine wether both parties were consenting?

Are you seriously advocating a criminal investigation every time someone has sex to determine wether both parties were consenting?

No. On the contrary I'm saying there shouldn't be a criminal investigation just because a 15 year old has sex.

It's quite obvious what sex and love is for. Humans are able to ignore their instinct to reproduce somewhat and in order to counter that, love and the pleasures of sex were developed so that humans would be naturally encouraged to engage in activities that would produce offspring.

There is a huge bias against "minors" that has convinced people that anyone under 18 is insufficiently developed. There is minimal difference between a 17 and a 22 year old. After puberty, we are adequately developed to engage in sexual activities with a partner of the opposite sex.

That article gave nothing except that a transgender scientist thinks sex may not be just for reproductive purposes, which ultimately it always is: to overcome anti-instinct issues that would hinder reproduction.

There should be no age of consent. Consent should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

1. So I'll put you down as ignoring evidence you don't like and not providing any evidence to support your own view. Saying something at controversy is "obvious" is not an argument.

2. Now who sounds like NAMBLA? Can a 13 year old consent to sex? Can an 8 year old?

3. Granted when you draw a line at a certain age that line is based on the average or median ability to consent and may seem somewhat arbitrary. But difficulty in drawing the line does not void the need for a line. You could argue over why a speed limit is 55 mph instead of 54 or 56, but that still doesn't excuse you for driving 65 mph.

4. The bottom line is consenting sex between people able to consent. So long as those conditions are met, what business is it of yours?

No. On the contrary I'm saying there shouldn't be a criminal investigation just because a 15 year old has sex.

So... when should there be a criminal investigation?

No. On the contrary I'm saying there shouldn't be a criminal investigation just because a 15 year old has sex.

But what Cosmopoles said is the logical consequence of a case-by-case investigation. If there is no age of consent then sexual intercourse between two people is always going to be equally suspect.

Otherwise you are just quibbling with where the line is drawn. Maybe not at 16 but at 15 or 14. (I'm not agreeing with you on lowering the age, here, just to be clear.)

No. On the contrary I'm saying there shouldn't be a criminal investigation just because a 15 year old has sex.
But what Cosmopoles said is the logical consequence of a case-by-case investigation. If there is no age of consent then sexual intercourse between two people is always going to be equally suspect.

Otherwise you are just quibbling with where the line is drawn. Maybe not at 16 but at 15 or 14. (I'm not agreeing with you on lowering the age, here, just to be clear.)
This is the first thing I see when I innocently look at the thread about the fundamentalist Christian who was running for President. Looking into it I found what the discussion was about, but can you realize how shocked I was when I first saw it?

But what Cosmopoles said is the logical consequence of a case-by-case investigation. If there is no age of consent then sexual intercourse between two people is always going to be equally suspect.

Otherwise you are just quibbling with where the line is drawn. Maybe not at 16 but at 15 or 14. (I'm not agreeing with you on lowering the age, here, just to be clear.)

If there is a criminal complaint of rape, then consent must be found or not found. We already have rape on the books. Why do we need another law? As my law teacher says (paraphrasing) "Well-intentioned law does not make good law"

If there is a criminal complaint of rape, then consent must be found or not found. We already have rape on the books. Why do we need another law? As my law teacher says (paraphrasing) "Well-intentioned law does not make good law"

I'm not sure where you are studying law, but laws concerning the age of consent already exist. No one is talking about a new law. It's "on the books" already.

You also seem to misunderstand how a rape statute reads. If one party is unable to consent, it is just as much rape as when someone doesn't consent.

This is the first thing I see when I innocently look at the thread about the fundamentalist Christian who was running for President. Looking into it I found what the discussion was about, but can you realize how shocked I was when I first saw it?

:D

There has been some rather strange thread drift, but it involves the OP and it does all tie back together.

Apparently Brownback leaving was not much of a topic in and of itself. Good riddance.

I'm not sure where you are studying law, but laws concerning the age of consent already exist. No one is talking about a new law. It's "on the books" already.

You also seem to misunderstand how a rape statute reads. If one party is unable to consent, it is just as much rape as when someone doesn't consent.

I never said anything about it being proposed. I think a 15 year old or 13 year old is quite able to consent to one of around the same age.

Off topic but it seems that Theodosis X and Sel Appa are on Fundies say the darnest things.

Dangerous idiot for a long list of reasons not least of which is his position on separation of Church and State. Other reasons include his view on abortion, monetary policy, ... just about everything.
What is your level of education in economics, if I may ask? What competence do you have to judge whether his monetary policies are 'dangerous'?

If disagreeing strongly with someone who poses such risk to the country as Ron Paul makes me sound like a neocon, so be it. Your attempt at an insult fails.
Someone you claim is a danger.

What is your level of education in economics, if I may ask? What competence do you have to judge whether his monetary policies are 'dangerous'?

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said Ron Paul was a dangerous idiot because of his policies.

Regardless, I believe I have as much education in economics as Cong. Paul. His advanced degree is in medicine, mine is in law. I studied economics in several courses in getting my degrees.

But the question isn't about my competence, it is about Ron Paul's incompetence and the foolish and harmful nature of his beliefs.

Someone you claim is a danger.

Yup. Deal with it.

Off topic but it seems that Theodosis X and Sel Appa are on Fundies say the darnest things.

Somewhat ironically, I'm a liberal...or rather a socialist.

Somewhat ironically, I'm a liberal...or rather a socialist.

Which makes your views on homosexuality all the more bizarre.

But even more bizarre is that you would support Ron Paul.

Somewhat ironically, I'm a liberal...or rather a socialist.

Socialism is more economic than your views on morality. While people who are socialist tend to be liberal with personal matters as well, there's no rule that says they have to. These two beliefs aren't incompatible.

But even more bizarre is that you would support Ron Paul.

It's bizarre that anyone would support Ron Paul, except maybe rigidly anti-federal government Christian fundamentalists.

I guess the libertarian fad has to have its idols, however inappropriate.

It's bizarre that anyone would support Ron Paul, except maybe anti-federal government Christian fundamentalists.

There was one poster whose signature read "Paul/Gravel: For a Crazier America!" Can anyone remember who it was? I want to see if he or she sells bumper stickers.

These two beliefs aren't incompatible.

Yeah, historically there have been plenty of socialists who were bigoted assholes when it came to homosexuality.

Apparently, for some people equality and justice only apply to straight people.

I never said anything about it being proposed. I think a 15 year old or 13 year old is quite able to consent to one of around the same age.

I'm curious. On what basis is a 13 year old able to consent to sex with a 13 year old, but not to sex with someone who is 21 years old?

Statutory rape laws in the US tend to take into account the age of the perpetrator when classifying a rape, but that is different than treating the sex as consensual.

Regardless, I think you've never really addressed my primary point which is that consenting sex between those able to consent is acceptable and sex that does not involve consent is not acceptable.

On what basis is a 13 year old able to consent to sex with a 13 year old, but not to sex with someone who is 21 years old?

Power difference?

Even if not a formal authority figure, a much older person is more likely to intimidate a thirteen-year-old than someone of the same age is, and resistance may be more difficult.

Power difference?

Even if not a formal authority figure, a much older person is more likely to intimidate a thirteen-year-old than someone of the same age is, and resistance may be more difficult.

Oh, I agree. But I also think there is something inherently suspect about the ability of a 13 year old to consent to sex with anyone. I'm wondering if (and how) Sel Appa makes such a distinction.

There was one poster whose signature read "Paul/Gravel: For a Crazier America!" Can anyone remember who it was? I want to see if he or she sells bumper stickers.

That would be Soviestan, if I'm not mistaken.

Well, as long as his ignorance regarding science doesn't shape his politics, it doesn't bother me.

Two words and an initial should show you why this is dangerous: George W. Bush

Slavery would have died out anyway. And the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was over the states rights to leave the uinion and states rights in general. And I'm pretty sure the majority of the nation opposed slavery.

And keeping some innocent person enslaved because of their skin color is totally different than denying some foaming homo the right to wed some other dirty foaming homo.

Somewhere in the oath of office they say something about protecting America from enemies both foreign and domestic. An insurrection would qualify I think. Take up arms against the central government and what do you expect would happen?

:D

There has been some rather strange thread drift, but it involves the OP and it does all tie back together.

Apparently Brownback leaving was not much of a topic in and of itself. Good riddance.

Eh, he was yet another member of the Class of '94 and '96 who discovered that their Biblical principles carried not a whit of detectable class animus against people making heaps of money off the backs of the working class. While the prairie of Kansas has withered and died, to be replaced by industrial feedlots that pay people minimum wage or less for the most statistically-dangerous work in America, Sam Brownback was busy nailing them to the cross of cheap labor for their trouble.

The man deserves to be tossed off the national stage by the scruff and belt loop. He got better than he deserved.

Racist, anti-semitic theocratic conspiracy nuts who believe that abortion and gay marriage should be banned on the federal level and who have an economic policy that would destroy the economy are better how?
Racist? I have not heard Paul make any racist remarks if you have a picture of him with a white hood on and burning a cross please let me know.

Anti-semitic? Well he is against the horrible treatment of the Palestinians by the IDF and against the war in Iraq and future war in Iran I know Israel is for both these wars but I fail to see how being against American Imperialism in the middle east that benefits Israel makes you Anti-semitic.If it does could you please explain how?

Conspiracy Nut? He has said numerous times he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job is their another conspiracy he has touted that makes you call him a conspiracy nut?

Abortion and gay marriage banned on a federal level? He has said he support states rights to make this decision on their own. Yes that might mean a ban in some states but that is not a federal ban. Ron Paul was also booed at the Republican debate for being the only candidate to say he was against an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. So could you please explain to me why he would say that at the latest republican debate when he knows it is very unpopular thing to say with social conservative and still be for banning gay marriage on a federal level?

Racist? I have not heard Paul make any racist remarks if you have a picture of him with a white hood on and burning a cross please let me know.
The infamous "blacks are stupid and criminal" pamphlet.

Anti-semitic? Well he is against the horrible treatment of the Palestinians by the IDF and against the war in Iraq and future war in Iran I know Israel is for both these wars but I fail to see how being against American Imperialism in the middle east that benefits Israel makes you Anti-semitic.If it does could you please explain how?

Conspiracy Nut? He has said numerous times he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job is their another conspiracy he has touted that makes you call him a conspiracy nut?
Both of these are actually connected. He releases pamphlets that talk about a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

Abortion and gay marriage banned on a federal level? He has said he support states rights to make this decision on their own. Yes that might mean a ban in some states but that is not a federal ban. Ron Paul was also booed at the Republican debate for being the only candidate to say he was against an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. So could you please explain to me why he would say that at the latest republican debate when he knows it is very unpopular thing to say with social conservative and still be for banning gay marriage on a federal level?
Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, and introduced the We the People Act. He has introduced and voted for numerous bills that would restrict abortion on the federal level, most notably the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Which makes your views on homosexuality all the more bizarre.

But even more bizarre is that you would support Ron Paul.

Wait! I'm not done! I support gun rights and am almost completely pro-life (first trimester only unless mother's life is in danger, but strongly discouraged)

I happen to hate and despise libertarians and think they should all die in a hole, but this country needs Ron Paul for a few years, especially considering the other stooges available.

Yeah, historically there have been plenty of socialists who were bigoted assholes when it came to homosexuality.

Apparently, for some people equality and justice only apply to straight people.

There is equality and justice for all people.

I'm curious. On what basis is a 13 year old able to consent to sex with a 13 year old, but not to sex with someone who is 21 years old?

Statutory rape laws in the US tend to take into account the age of the perpetrator when classifying a rape, but that is different than treating the sex as consensual.

Regardless, I think you've never really addressed my primary point which is that consenting sex between those able to consent is acceptable and sex that does not involve consent is not acceptable.

I said the sole limitations should be when you are outside a reasonable age range.

There is equality and justice for all people.

Ah, you magically made racism, sexism, and homophobia disappear! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but so long as homosexuals are denied rights based on gender or sexual orientation, there isn't equality and justice for all people.

I said the sole limitations should be when you are outside a reasonable age range.

And I am asking you why you make such a strange limitation.

How is your "reasonable age range" any less arbitrary than the age of consent?

If every party is capable of consent and does validly consent to sex, why does it matter that their ages may differ?

If one party is not capable of consent or does not consent, why does it matter that they are relatively the same age?

Wait! I'm not done! I support gun rights and am almost completely pro-life (first trimester only unless mother's life is in danger, but strongly discouraged)

I happen to hate and despise libertarians and think they should all die in a hole, but this country needs Ron Paul for a few years, especially considering the other stooges available.


Why, if you support separation of Church and State, would you support Ron Paul?

Hell, why would you support him, period?

Ah, you magically made racism, sexism, and homophobia disappear! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but so long as homosexuals are denied rights based on gender or sexual orientation, there isn't equality and justice for all people.



And I am asking you why you make such a strange limitation.

How is your "reasonable age range" any less arbitrary than the age of consent?

If every party is capable of consent and does validly consent to sex, why does it matter that their ages may differ?

If one party is not capable of consent or does not consent, why does it matter that they are relatively the same age?

Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.

You shouldn't have an 80 year old and a 20 year old having sex. It's pedophilia in a different form.

Why, if you support separation of Church and State, would you support Ron Paul?

Hell, why would you support him, period?

Ron Paul is what this country needs right now. Someone who knows how to work foreign policy. I disagree with a lot of his ideas and hate libertarians, but we could use him right now. Regardless, he's my top Republican pick, not my top pick. And the only church and state stuff I've heard about him is from opponents.

Ron Paul is what this country needs right now. Someone who knows how to work foreign policy. I disagree with a lot of his ideas and hate libertarians, but we could use him right now. Regardless, he's my top Republican pick, not my top pick. And the only church and state stuff I've heard about him is from opponents.

Sorry, but the "church and state stuff" that I quoted was directly from Ron Paul's congressional website. linky (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm)

Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.

Your concept of "equality" is stupid.

It's pedophilia in a different form.

Only if your basis for opposing pedophilia is because it disgusts you... rather than being based on any rational standard.

Sorry, but the "church and state stuff" that I quoted was directly from Ron Paul's congressional website. linky (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm)

Doesn't mean anything.

The only wasted vote is a vote not voted.


The age of consent is absurd and arbitrary. You don't become magically developed when you turn 16 or 18 or 21. Anyone who is able to have heterosexual sex within a certain age range should be able to. 21 and 15 is not in any way, shape, or form pedophilia.


I didn't bring this off topic. Cat Tribe did, or maybe Theo.
But you made it an outrageous distraction by your ridiculous statements. Trust me, we wouldn't still be talking about it, if not for you.

It's quite obvious what sex and love is for. Humans are able to ignore their instinct to reproduce somewhat and in order to counter that, love and the pleasures of sex were developed so that humans would be naturally encouraged to engage in activities that would produce offspring.
Love? Are you sure about that? So the love I feel for my parents is designed to produce offspring. How about the love some people feel for their god? I've heard that can produce offspring, but not very often.

Really, Sel, take ten minutes to think about what you are saying.

There is a huge bias against "minors" that has convinced people that anyone under 18 is insufficiently developed. There is minimal difference between a 17 and a 22 year old. After puberty, we are adequately developed to engage in sexual activities with a partner of the opposite sex.


That article gave nothing except that a transgender scientist thinks sex may not be just for reproductive purposes, which ultimately it always is: to overcome anti-instinct issues that would hinder reproduction.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? I mean, really, you are presenting nothing but your personal opinion, which you use to support a set of biases, and you're acting as if it established fact. It isn't. Period. Reproduction and sexual pleasure are NOT functionally related. Sexual pleasure has LOTS of uses/benefits in life that are in way related to reproduction. And that's it. So the argument that non-reproductive sexual conduct is somehow unnatural is bunk, pure and simple.

There should be no age of consent. Consent should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Another outrageous and ridiculous remark. "No age of consent." Think, Sel, think.

Ron Paul is what this country needs right now. Someone who knows how to work foreign policy.
His "foreign policy" consists of pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.
They can't marry, can't visit their lovers in the hospital, can't name who they choose to be their health care proxy, often their last wills are not honored by the courts if they are challenged, and in many places (in the US), they are routinely denied employment or advancement in employment, often have trouble getting equal protection under the law when they are attacked and/or their rights are violated.

I challenge you to show how this proves they are treated as equals.

While your at it, referring to your earlier "there is equality and justice for all" remark, account for women still not getting equal pay for equal work.

You shouldn't have an 80 year old and a 20 year old having sex. It's pedophilia in a different form.
Bullshit.

It is nothing at all like pedophilia. Pedophilia refers specifically to sex with children. A 20-year-old is not a child. The end.

And since the 20-year-old is not a child, but rather an adult, who are you to dictate who he or she may or may not have sex with? It's none of your business who an adult has consensual sex with. It is everybody's business to protect people who cannot protect themselves -- including people who cannot give informed consent, people like children -- from being exploited by others. Hence the age of consent. Learn to cope with it. The law protects the weak. It does not protect your squeamish sensibilities.

Ron Paul is what this country needs right now. Someone who knows how to work foreign policy. I disagree with a lot of his ideas and hate libertarians, but we could use him right now. Regardless, he's my top Republican pick, not my top pick. And the only church and state stuff I've heard about him is from opponents.
TC provided you with church and state stuff from Paul himself. You decided to pretend it didn't exist, but that doesn't really change anything.

But you made it an outrageous distraction by your ridiculous statements. Trust me, we wouldn't still be talking about it, if not for you.


Love? Are you sure about that? So the love I feel for my parents is designed to produce offspring. How about the love some people feel for their god? I've heard that can produce offspring, but not very often.

Really, Sel, take ten minutes to think about what you are saying.


What the fuck is this supposed to mean? I mean, really, you are presenting nothing but your personal opinion, which you use to support a set of biases, and you're acting as if it established fact. It isn't. Period. Reproduction and sexual pleasure are NOT functionally related. Sexual pleasure has LOTS of uses/benefits in life that are in way related to reproduction. And that's it. So the argument that non-reproductive sexual conduct is somehow unnatural is bunk, pure and simple.


Another outrageous and ridiculous remark. "No age of consent." Think, Sel, think.

Love far family members ensures the continued survival of them. If you didn't care for your family or vice versa, you would all die. The reason we have sexual pleasure is because if we didn't, we'd never bother to reproduce and would die off. Asexual people don't make children.

His "foreign policy" consists of pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

No, you are mistaking that with the current policy in place by Bush.

Sorry, but the "church and state stuff" that I quoted was directly from Ron Paul's congressional website. linky (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm)

Yeah, but that's about Christmas. I think every congressman, at least Republican ones, are required by federal law to fight on the side of good in the apparently gigantic War on Christmas.
With that, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, and the War on My Neighbor Philip, I don't know how I'm going to be able to fulfill my noble, patriotic responsibilities without collapsing. It's very exhausting work (especially with Philip).

The infamous "blacks are stupid and criminal" pamphlet. Could you give me a link


Both of these are actually connected. He releases pamphlets that talk about a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. I would also like a link to this.


Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, and introduced the We the People Act. He has introduced and voted for numerous bills that would restrict abortion on the federal level, most notably the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.Paul did not vote for the Defense of Marriage act (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml) look at the yeas his name is not in them. As for the Marriage Protection act. Paul voted for that to keep the issue marriage out of the courts and leave that decision to the states. You can read more on why he co sponsored this bill in his Article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html).
Ron Paul did vote for the ban on Partial Birth Ban Act because he is sees partial birth abortion as barbaric but he did criticize (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html) the bill because he disagreed with how the federal government imposed it will over the states in regards to abortion.

Paul did not vote for the Defense of Marriage act (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml) look at the yeas his name is not in them.
I didn't say he did. I said he supported it. He couldn't have voted for it at the time, but he said that he would have had he been in office.

The infamous "blacks are stupid and criminal" pamphlet.

Which he didn't write.

Both of these are actually connected. He releases pamphlets that talk about a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

Bullshit.

He has introduced and voted for numerous bills that would restrict abortion on the federal level, most notably the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Maybe because it's an issue better left to state governments?

Sorry, but the “church and state stuff” that I quoted was directly from Ron Paul’s congressional website. linky (“http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm”)
“the anti-religious elites”

This nutter is running for President?

Geez...

Maybe because it's an issue better left to state governments?
Not according to the Constitution.

“the anti-religious elites”

This nutter is running for President?

Geez...

And people wonder why I do not support Ron paul and consider him a class-A nut.

And people wonder why I do not support Ron paul and consider him a class-A nut.
Thinking about it, isn’t Paul the dude who Wilgrove and others keep on going on about (I tend to avoid the US Presidency debates here on NS:G; too full of partisan idiocy for my liking.)?

What’s his appeal?

Thinking about it, isn’t Paul the dude who Wilgrove and others keep on going on about (I tend to avoid the US Presidency debates here on NS:G; too full of partisan idiocy for my liking.)?

What’s his appeal?

He's a "libertarian".

He’s a “libertarian”.
Ah.

I’ll peruse his site, but I suspect he’s a libertarian of the ilk that I get suspicious of, rather than the kind of libertarian I have sympathy for.

Not according to the Constitution.
Partial Birth abortion is in the constitution? Could you tell me where I have read the constitution but missed the section on partial birth abortions.

And people wonder why I do not support Ron paul and consider him a class-A nut.Class A nut like looking in Putin's eyes and seeing good? Maybe saying the war in Iraq would be paid with oil revenues and not cost the American tax payer? Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Brownie your doing a heck of a job? Those are sayings of a class A nut and anyone who believed that bullshit needs to shut the hell up and not say a word about Nuts when you have been cheering on the loony bin for the past 6 1/2 years and are now supporting the same Class A nuts who want a war with Iran.

Thinking about it, isn’t Paul the dude who Wilgrove and others keep on going on about (I tend to avoid the US Presidency debates here on NS:G; too full of partisan idiocy for my liking.)?

What’s his appeal?His big appeal is ending the War in Iraq, ending the drug war and pulling all U.S troops out all overseas bases worldwide. That is why I like him.

Partial Birth abortion is in the constitution? Could you tell me where I have read the constitution but missed the section on partial birth abortions.

Paul was involved in numerous bills to restrict abortion, only one of which was the partial birth abortion ban.

As for abortion in general not being in the constitution, let me ask you this quick question...do you think the government can make a law making it illegal for you to have kids?

How about to not have kids?

Frankly Paul is the worst kind of libertarian, the kind that wants government's hands off, but only on issues he wants them off of. On issues he favors government intervention, he has no qualms about legal restrictions.

He'd be at least respectable if he applied his position equally across the board, of less government restriction in total. but no, like most "libertarians" he only wants government involvement to end where he wants it to end. If he doesn't particularly care much for the act (say, abortion and gay marriage) he's quite happy to have the government step in.

Class A nut like looking in Putin's eyes and seeing good?

Ohh nice strawman.

Maybe saying the war in Iraq would be paid with oil revenues and not cost the American tax payer? Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Brownie your doing a heck of a job? Those are sayings of a class A nut and anyone who believed that bullshit needs to shut the hell up and not say a word about Nuts when you have been cheering on the loony bin for the past 6 1/2 years and are now supporting the same Class A nuts who want a war with Iran.

HAHAHA!! Boy you really are wacko. No wonder you support the anti-federalist nut for president. Come back when you have a real argument.

His big appeal is ending the War in Iraq, ending the drug war and pulling all U.S troops out all overseas bases worldwide. That is why I like him.

And how is he going to end the drug war and does he have any clue as to what isolationism will do?

His big appeal is ending the War in Iraq, ending the drug war and pulling all U.S troops out all overseas bases worldwide. That is why I like him.
Hmmm, I’ll give him points for having a slightly more sensible policy on drugs and Iraq than Bush, but that isn’t hard.

Personally I wouldn’t vote for him; I don’t like the idea of isolationist foreign policies, especially pulling out of the ICC, and I just plain flat out disagree with him on issues of abortion and border ‘control’.

Though I must say, his website, and all the other official websites of Presidential candidates I’ve visited, on both sides of the fence, look exactly the same, and are far too vague on political policies. Just a proliferation of red, white and blue, combined with headings of ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’ and ‘hope’ everywhere.

Personally I wouldn’t vote for him; I don’t like the idea of isolationist foreign policies, especially pulling out of the ICC, and I just plain flat out disagree with him on issues of abortion and border ‘control’.

Now you see why many call him a nut?

Though I must say, his website, and all the other official websites of Presidential candidates I’ve visited, on both sides of the fence, look exactly the same, and are far too vague on political policies. Just a proliferation of red, white and blue, combined with headings of ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’ and ‘hope’ everywhere.

Why do you think I am not going to vote in the primaries as of now. The messages are the same (except for those on the far right which will not win..)

Ohh nice strawman.Strawman your dear leader GWB said that. Prove I am wrong. I love how you NeoCon cheerleaders laugh at the truth



HAHAHA!! Boy you really are wacko. No wonder you support the anti-federalist nut for president. Come back when you have a real argument.I am a whacko for pointing out what was said by your NeoCon leaders before and during the the beginning of the war. How does pointing out what they said make me a whacko? Please explain how following the constitution make someone an anti federalist? Please site facts and not resort to immature mocking of the truth again in your imitation of Neocon television and radio pundits.

Hmmm, I’ll give him points for having a slightly more sensible policy on drugs and Iraq than Bush, but that isn’t hard.

Personally I wouldn’t vote for him; I don’t like the idea of isolationist foreign policiesI have never understood how ending American Imperialism makes you an Isolationist could you explain this?

Strawman your dear leader GWB said that. Prove I am wrong. I love how you NeoCon cheerleaders laugh at the truth

And the funny part is? I do not even support GWB all the time. Infact, i support him about 50% of the time.

I am a whacko for pointing out what was said by your NeoCon leaders before and during the the beginning of the war. How does pointing out what they said make me a whacko? Please explain how following the constitution make someone an anti federalist? Please site facts and not resort to immature mocking of the truth again in your imitation of Neocon television and radio pundits.

Guess what? You are supporting an extremist who wants to basically override the entire Constitution of the United States. Anyone who supports a candidate like that is a wacko.

Guess what? You are supporting an extremist who wants to basically override the entire Constitution of the United States. Anyone who supports a candidate like that is a wacko.How is Ron Paul overriding the Constitution? Please do tell.

How is Ron Paul overriding the Constitution? Please do tell.

his stance on gay marriage and abortion is certainly questionable.

his stance on gay marriage and abortion is certainly questionable.What is wrong with his stance on gay marriage (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84). His stance on abortion is the same he is personally against it but he is a Libertarian who respects state and local laws and will not interfere on a federal level.

What is wrong with his stance on gay marriage (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84). His stance on abortion is the same he is personally against but he is a Libertarian who respects state and local laws and will not interfere on a federal level.

Which is why he supports bills that interfere on a federal level.

Partial Birth abortion is in the constitution? Could you tell me where I have read the constitution but missed the section on partial birth abortions.

9th Amendment. 14th Amendment applies it to the states.

What is wrong with his stance on gay marriage (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84).

Although the matter has not been litigated by the Supreme Court, there are many who feel the standard from Loving v. Virginia should be applied to the matter. He has come out in favor of not permitting gay marriage. This is arguably unconstitutional.

His stance on abortion is the same he is personally against but he is a Libertarian who respects state and local laws and will not interfere on a federal level.

Actually considering he has taken steps to limit abortion by federal law, this isn't at all true.

In addition, as demonstrated in this thread, he has come out as actively against the seperation of church and state, which is deeply and profoundly unconstitutional.

Why do you think I am not going to vote in the primaries as of now. The messages are the same (except for those on the far right which will not win..)
Much the same situation here in the UK.

I have never understood how ending American Imperialism makes you an Isolationist could you explain this?
From what I can tell from his website, apart from recalling US troops back from bases around the world (which is what I take you to mean by ‘ending American Imperialism’), Paul is also advocating the US pull out of many international treaties, trying to get away from international organisations such as the UN, WTO. Which is isolationist.

Mind you, I too don’t support NAFTA, nor the WTO, but I think Paul wants to get out of the international treaties and organisations because of his libertarian credentials, rather than the ‘free’ trade ideology of NAFTA, the WTO, et al.

How is Ron Paul overriding the Constitution? Please do tell.

his stance on gay marriage and abortion is certainly questionable.

What is wrong with his stance on gay marriage (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84). His stance on abortion is the same he is personally against it but he is a Libertarian who respects state and local laws and will not interfere on a federal level.

Which is why he supports bills that interfere on a federal level.

9th Amendment. 14th Amendment applies it to the states.

Why did I quote all of these? To show why Ron Paul does not deserve to be President of the United States. LHS? It is apparent you have a different form of Constitution in front of you than CF, NA, and myself have.

I want to correct an error here. The Supreme Court recently ruled there is no constitutional right to a partial birth abortion.

Not according to the Constitution.

Yes, according to the Constitution.

His "foreign policy" consists of pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

Peacefully trading with the rest of the world is "pretending they don't exist?"

I say good because the space he was taking can now be occupied by a better Republican, such as Ron Paul.

:rolleyes: how can people still say things like that without even a trace of irony? What's so special about this random generic republican/nut? Give it up already, internet "libertarians".

Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, and introduced the We the People Act. He has introduced and voted for numerous bills that would restrict abortion on the federal level, most notably the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Quoted for truth. Also, to emphasize the dangerous farce that is the We the People Act. It has as its aim the gutting of the Constitution.


Paul did not vote for the Defense of Marriage act (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml) look at the yeas his name is not in them.

He supports it. He says so in the link you provided below. Moreover, the whole point of the Marriage Protection Act is to keep the judiciary from overseeing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. :headbang:

As for the Marriage Protection act. Paul voted for that to keep the issue marriage out of the courts and leave that decision to the states. You can read more on why he co sponsored this bill in his Article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html).

Thanks for that excellent link. It proves what is scary about Paul's position. He not only supports states' banning of gay marriage despite the Constitution, but also supports anti-sodomy laws.

Yeah, he is a real winner. :rolleyes:

Ron Paul did vote for the ban on Partial Birth Ban Act because he is sees partial birth abortion as barbaric but he did criticize (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html) the bill because he disagreed with how the federal government imposed it will over the states in regards to abortion.

Nice fence-straddling. He voted for it. He can't also claim to be against it. If it was so bad, why vote for it.

Maybe because it's an issue better left to state governments?

1. Then why did Paul vote for a federal law (the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act) that takes the issue away from state governments?

2. The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights take certain liberties out of the reach of state and local governments. Paul doesn't like that because he doesn't like the Constitution.

Partial Birth abortion is in the constitution? Could you tell me where I have read the constitution but missed the section on partial birth abortions.

The 14th Amendment protects liberty, including the right to abortion. It is not my fault you don't understand the Constitution.

It is true the Supreme Court recently ruled in a close decision that the ban on partial birth abortion did not place an undue burden on the right to abortion. Of course, if you are going to argue every Supreme Court decision is right then you have to accept Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

What is wrong with his stance on gay marriage (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84).

His stance ignores the 14th Amendment which (a) protects fundamental rights including the right to marriage and (b) guarantees equal protection under the law -- including against discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.

His stance also tries to gut the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Consitution.

His stance on abortion is the same he is personally against it but he is a Libertarian who respects state and local laws and will not interfere on a federal level.

And yet he has voted to "interfere" on a federal level.

As his votes show, his "respect[] for state and local laws" is just code for supporting the banning of abortion despite the provisions of the Constitution.

Yes, according to the Constitution.

No. The 14th Amendment takes certain fundamental liberties out of the hands of the states.

I want to correct an error here. The Supreme Court recently ruled there is no constitutional right to a partial birth abortion.

Close, but not quite. The Court ruled that the ban on partial birth abortion did not unduly burden the right to abortion. Technical difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Why do you think I am not going to vote in the primaries as of now. The messages are the same (except for those on the far right which will not win..)

Please vote in the primaries. I don't get to vote in them and it hurts when someone says "I'm not voting in it". Surely, there is someone you support. Vote for them whether they have a chance or not. The only wa ythey don't have a chance is if people don't vote for them.

I have never understood how ending American Imperialism makes you an Isolationist could you explain this?

QFT. Ron Paul just wants to get our foot out of everyone's ass.

his stance on gay marriage and abortion is certainly questionable.

No, it isn't.

Please vote in the primaries. I don't get to vote in them and it hurts when someone says "I'm not voting in it". Surely, there is someone you support. Vote for them whether they have a chance or not. The only wa ythey don't have a chance is if people don't vote for them.

If I do vote. It sure as hell ain't Paulie boy.

If I do vote. It sure as hell ain't Paulie boy.

Ghouliani?

Ghouliani?

Whom I vote for is really none of NSG's business. Especially to people who make fun of people's names.

Whom I vote for is really none of NSG's business. Especially to people who make fun of people's names.

Hey, I'm just curious. Who you vote for is your decision, not mine.

If I do vote. It sure as hell ain't Paulie boy.

As long as you vote, I don't care who. It could be Jesus, a worm, or even Hillary Clinton. (I feel bad for the worm being with those other options...;))

Love far family members ensures the continued survival of them. If you didn't care for your family or vice versa, you would all die. The reason we have sexual pleasure is because if we didn't, we'd never bother to reproduce and would die off. Asexual people don't make children.


This is why I keep asking you to think before you type, because much of what you say above makes it seem like you know nothing about sex or sexual pleasure, which I'm sure must be a mistaken impression.

<snip>
Originally Posted by Neo Art
his stance on gay marriage and abortion is certainly questionable.


No, it isn't.

You're right. There is no question about his stance at all. It is clearly unconstitutional and therefore against the interests of the American people.

This is why I keep asking you to think before you type, because much of what you say above makes it seem like you know nothing about sex or sexual pleasure, which I'm sure must be a mistaken impression.

That's right...just dismiss my logical argument and say I don't know anything because I'm a 12-year old little boy who should be worried about Michael Jackson instead of what love is for.





(I'm not 12 actually...if you didn't figure that out...)

That's right...just dismiss my logical argument and say I don't know anything because I'm a 12-year old little boy who should be worried about Michael Jackson instead of what love is for.





(I'm not 12 actually...if you didn't figure that out...)

I didn't think you were 12. I was imagining you as an adult who doesn't know anything about sexual pleasure.

And I cannot dismiss the logic of your argument because your argument has no logic.

The fact is, you are either ignorant of or deliberately ignoring vast amounts of behavioral and biological data about both humans and other animals documenting non-reproductive behavior that still produces sexual pleasure and/or other sexual physical responses. Such behaviors do not include anything even approaching sexual intercourse and therefore cannot in any way be said to be connected to producing offspring. Such behaviors include a host of behaviors associated with social dominance, submission, bonding, and establishment of status, as well as physiological needs of stress reduction and healing. Only a few involve anything like orgasm, and even fewer involve reproduction.

You also ignore the fact that pleasure is in no way required for reproduction. I remind you (reluctantly) of the existence of rape which is perfectly capable of resulting in offspring, and I also remind you that the aforementioned data (which I had thought would be common knowledge by the 21st century, since it's been compiled for over 100 years by many experts (which is why I don't have a handy all-purpose link), also indicates that pleasure is far more often associated with emotional pair bonding than with reproduction.

For all these reasons, I say your assertion that sexual pleasure and love are connected to reproduction -- which implies that, since homosexual sex is non-reproductive, it cannot therefore really involve pleasure or love because those are only part of "real" (reproductive) sex -- is nothing but bigoted bullcrap.

The bottom line is this: Reproduction is one thing. Pleasure and love are something entirely different. They are related only in that they have some overlap of physiological, psychological and emotional functions in the human body/mind, but they do not serve the same purposes in our lives and are not dependent upon each other in any way, shape or form. So any argument that claims that pleasure and love are naturally meant to support reproduction can only fail.

I didn't think you were 12. I was imagining you as an adult who doesn't know anything about sexual pleasure.

And I cannot dismiss the logic of your argument because your argument has no logic.

The fact is, you are either ignorant of or deliberately ignoring vast amounts of behavioral and biological data about both humans and other animals documenting non-reproductive behavior that still produces sexual pleasure and/or other sexual physical responses. Such behaviors do not include anything even approaching sexual intercourse and therefore cannot in any way be said to be connected to producing offspring. Such behaviors include a host of behaviors associated with social dominance, submission, bonding, and establishment of status, as well as physiological needs of stress reduction and healing. Only a few involve anything like orgasm, and even fewer involve reproduction.

You also ignore the fact that pleasure is in no way required for reproduction. I remind you (reluctantly) of the existence of rape which is perfectly capable of resulting in offspring, and I also remind you that the aforementioned data (which I had thought would be common knowledge by the 21st century, since it's been compiled for over 100 years by many experts (which is why I don't have a handy all-purpose link), also indicates that pleasure is far more often associated with emotional pair bonding than with reproduction.

For all these reasons, I say your assertion that sexual pleasure and love are connected to reproduction -- which implies that, since homosexual sex is non-reproductive, it cannot therefore really involve pleasure or love because those are only part of "real" (reproductive) sex -- is nothing but bigoted bullcrap.

The bottom line is this: Reproduction is one thing. Pleasure and love are something entirely different. They are related only in that they have some overlap of physiological, psychological and emotional functions in the human body/mind, but they do not serve the same purposes in our lives and are not dependent upon each other in any way, shape or form. So any argument that claims that pleasure and love are naturally meant to support reproduction can only fail.

You misunderstand me. Love and sex is all intended to advance the species by keeping them together and attracting them to each other. There may be side effects, but that's because it's much more powerful than necessary. Therefore, homosexuals are mutations, that is mistakes. Why else would we have two different genders if we could just have one and it works the same?

Do you think you'd even bother having sex if it didn't create pleasure? Probably not and our species would die out. It makes perfect sense. The only goal in life is to reproduce and make our offspring a little bit better than us.

Therefore, homosexuals are mutations, that is mistakes.

First, actually, as has been explained to you before, there are plenty of plausible evolutionary explanations for homosexuality.

Second, even if homosexuality is not a trait evolution selects for... so what? Evolution does not even have a mind; it does not in any meaningful sense give us a "purpose."

Third, you are confusing is and ought: even if homosexuality is in some sense "unnatural", that means nothing about its morality.

Ghouliani?

Eh, fuck him and his anti-weasel stance.

First, actually, as has been explained to you before, there are plenty of plausible evolutionary explanations for homosexuality.

Second, even if homosexuality is not a trait evolution selects for... so what? Evolution does not even have a mind; it does not in any meaningful sense give us a "purpose."

Third, you are confusing is and ought: even if homosexuality is in some sense "unnatural", that means nothing about its morality.

That article provided no plausible explanations. At most it said that there might be some.

The purpose of our existence is to get better and better. That's why we can get better and better. That's why evolution exists. If things were fine with simple life, we wouldn't be arguing this now. I'm not arguing this anymore. We've gone so far off-topic and none of you seem to understand logic and reason.

That's why evolution exists.

Evolution has fuck-all to do with improvement. Evolution exists entirely because the duplication of genetic material is not perfect.

Evolution has fuck-all to do with improvement. Evolution exists entirely because the duplication of genetic material is not perfect.

Survival of the fittest = improvement

This thread is taking a deliciously ironic turn.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/611.gif

That article provided no plausible explanations.

Just glancing at the first one, I see a few.

Care to explain how they are not plausible?

The purpose of our existence is to get better and better. That's why we can get better and better. That's why evolution exists.

Just because evolution causes us to improve our capacity for survival and reproduction does not mean that we are getting "better" or that we have a purpose.

The fact that gravity pulls us toward the Earth does not mean that our purpose is to fall.

none of you seem to understand logic and reason.

Oh, poor little bigot. :rolleyes:

Survival of the fittest = improvement

Wrong. It's obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, so how about you stop talking about it, 'kay?

Asexual people don't make children.


Some of them have, actually...

You misunderstand me. Love and sex is all intended to advance the species by keeping them together and attracting them to each other. There may be side effects, but that's because it's much more powerful than necessary. Therefore, homosexuals are mutations, that is mistakes. Why else would we have two different genders if we could just have one and it works the same?

Do you think you'd even bother having sex if it didn't create pleasure? Probably not and our species would die out. It makes perfect sense. The only goal in life is to reproduce and make our offspring a little bit better than us.

That article provided no plausible explanations. At most it said that there might be some.

The purpose of our existence is to get better and better. That's why we can get better and better. That's why evolution exists. If things were fine with simple life, we wouldn't be arguing this now. I'm not arguing this anymore. We've gone so far off-topic and none of you seem to understand logic and reason.

Survival of the fittest = improvement
It has been a long time since I've read anything as ignorant and ill-informed as the tripe quoted above.

In each of these quotes you display the breathtaking breadth of your ignorance and your equally breathtaking determination to use that ignorance to carry your anti-gay bigotry.

1) Mutations = mistakes? Really? So, then every living thing on this planet is a mistake since every living thing on this planet is a result of millions of years of genetic mutations. If mutation = mistake, then it is a crying shame that there is anything on this planet but bacteria. Honestly, Sel, that remark is just so damned dumb I really don't know what to do with you.

2) Moving on from that monster pothole in your highway to ridiculousness, I would point out that just repeating your wrong argument is not going to make me think it's right. No matter how many times you say it, you're still not matching reality, so you're still wrong. So, in truth, I'm not misunderstading you. I understand you perfectly. You're wrong, and you're invested in being wrong because you think those wrong assertions support your prejudices.

But of course, when you cannot defeat the arguments that debunk your claims, a common tactic is to just repeat those claims as if you're explaining them and hope everyone will be tricked into thinking you said something new or fresh.

3) Oh, and now you know the "purpose of our existence"? And it's to get "better and better"? Better than what, pray tell? Aside from better than you at formulating arguments, that is.

4) "Survival of the fittest" does not mean improvement, you ignorant weasel. By every god in the universe, I wish that, just once, just for novelty, people would actually look up the meaning of words in the contexts in which they are used.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" means that those organisms that are the best suited to the demands of their environments will survive to reproduce better than those that are not well suited to their environment. The "fittest" is the most fit for the conditions. Not the bestest best of the better and better.

I know I keep asking you to do this, even though it is apparently very difficult for you, but THINK!!!

If a species evolves in a cold climate and becomes the most fit for cold climates and becomes the dominant life form in cold climates, and then the climate gets warm, is that species still the most fit? Or will that species become extinct if it fails to mutate into a species fit for warm climates?

And how will it achieve that mutation, eh? Will all the individual creatures agree on a plan to produce better and better offspring? No, Sel. They won't. The species will just carry on the way it always has, and the mutation will not occur unless the coding for warm climates already exists in its DNA, OR unless a "mistake" occurs -- a spontaneous mutation. And even that will not save the species unless enough mutated individuals exist within the species to replace those that die out because they were not "fit" for the new environment. In other words, your so-called "mistakes" that don't fit your narrow-minded notion of "better and better" are the key to species survival on a dynamic planet -- where we face constantly changing environmental conditions, food supplies, diseases and pathogens, and we never, ever know what will make the difference between survival and extinction.

Evolution is random, not reactive. Diversity is what makes it possible for species to adapt, but the diversity must already exist. It will not come into existence in response to external changes.

There is no such thing as "better and better" -- not on planet Earth where the best genetic design for today's conditions can make for a death sentence tomorrow. So instead of pointing out certain groups of people and labeling them "mistakes" (so arrogant!), you should be on your knees thanking whatever you believe in for the genetic diversity of H. sapiens.

5) Finally, just because I can't resist a softball:

Do you think you'd even bother having sex if it didn't create pleasure?
Well, now you know why I won't ever have sex with you, not even to save the species.