Iowa Presidential Caucus

I love how this man manages to link together democrats/liberals/people left of center/homosexuals/pedophiles/nazis :bulb:

Perhaps the comparison to the Arab Spring is more apt than it initially seems, in that light >_< :p

I'm even more impressed by his iPad/healthcare analysis, where he points out the absurdity of buying $900 iPads while complaining about having to spend $900 on healthcare. I didn't know iPads were that expensive or that ubiquitous among American households, or that they were exchanged every year, or that the average household paid eg. $900 for healthcare. I thought it was more like $9000 per family per year. I dunno man, I think this guy is making shit up. And I looked at some things he's said and it's like he doesn't even know the first thing about the drug industry.

I think this guy has a real gift though. I mean, people say Obama is a good orator, but he's never (to my knowledge) been able to tie together buttsex, child-abuse, bestiality, incest, polygamy and various other concepts listed above in such an informative way. I feel I now understand that the US people have no right to privacy, because it is not granted by the constitution.



why are people voting for this guy

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...astian/844.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Ron Paul is a little more sparkly now, last one to get nailed too.

---

Which totally makes sense given how he supports removing the government from the institution of marriage entirely.

Really? Because I thought he was fine with letting state governments meddle all they like in the institution of marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Which totally makes sense given how he supports removing the government from the institution of marriage entirely.

---

according to the article I pulled that from (no sound at work), this glitter attack wasn't about gay rights :(

"Charlie McAwesome" was heard shooting "housing and healthcare are human rights, not privileges."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

"Charlie McAwesome" was heard shooting "housing and healthcare are human rights, not privileges."

---

Co-opting faggot symbols is not cool guys

That said, if entering the US is a privilege, surely living there is as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Really? Because I thought he was fine with letting state governments meddle all they like in the institution of marriage.

---

He personally supports removing the government from the institution, but he's a Constitutionalist which means he wouldn't want to deprive states of their 10th Amendment rights.

In short, he wants the government out, but he wants it done legally; it falls outside of the constitutional purview of the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

He personally supports removing the government from the institution, but he's a Constitutionalist which means he wouldn't want to deprive states of their 10th Amendment rights.

In short, he wants the government out, but he wants it done legally.

---

Which is to say that he'd nothing, and gay marriage would be banned in most states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Which is to say that he'd nothing, and gay marriage would be banned in most states.

---

Welcome to a constitutional Republic? If you want to pass a constitutional amendment, you've got my support. If you want to pass a state amendment, you've got my support. As near as I can tell you'd have his too. Circumventing the law because it's convenient is great when you agree with it -- not so much when you fall foul of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

He personally supports removing the government from the institution, but he's a Constitutionalist which means he wouldn't want to deprive states of their 10th Amendment rights.

In short, he wants the government out, but he wants it done legally.

---

Yes, but to summarise his position on marriage, he is perfectly fine with letting state governments meddle all they like in the institution of marriage, including enforcing his own views on what marriage is (ie. between one man and one woman) even if it leads to unequal treatment of gay couples. I only have the wikipedia article to go on, and from that article I get the vague impression that he'd gladly vote for all the DOMAs and Prop8s that come his way. So, if the glitter assault had really been about gay marriage, and if we accept glitter as a legitimate mode of expression, he would in fact have been an appropriate target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Yes, but to summarise his position on marriage, he is perfectly fine with letting state governments meddle all they like in the institution of marriage, including enforcing his own views on what marriage is (ie. between one man and one woman) even if it leads to unequal treatment of gay couples. I only have the wikipedia article to go on, and from that article I get the vague impression that he'd gladly vote for all the DOMAs and Prop8s that come his way. So, if the glitter assault had really been about gay marriage, and if we accept glitter as a legitimate mode of expression, he would in fact have been an appropriate target.

---

And here's a prime example of why you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia as your only source...

A more thorough explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Welcome to a constitutional Republic? If you want to pass a constitutional amendment, you've got my support. If you want to pass a state amendment, you've got my support. As near as I can tell you'd have his too. Circumventing the law because it's convenient is great when you agree with it -- not so much when you fall foul of it.

---

I believe the Constitution already prohibits treating different classes of people differently. States have no constitutional right to provide material benefits only to male/female relationships.

Looking at some of the comments from eg. Santorum and Ron Paul I can't help but wonder if they ever consider the problem of, well, the tyranny of the majority :bulb:

States rights proponents in the US got the idea into their head that only national majorities can be oppressive. After all, that's why segregation and Jim Crow was enforced nationally...or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Looking at some of the comments from eg. Santorum and Ron Paul I can't help but wonder if they ever consider the problem of, well, the tyranny of the majority :bulb:

---

...

Then you aren't really looking at comments from Paul, or you are doing so myopically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

And here's a prime example of why you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia as your only source...

---

Quote:

---

Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[140] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.

[...]

In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration's Justice Department had determined that a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and, as a result, the administration would no longer argue in support of the act's constitutionality in court.[141] Paul issued a statement to Iowa Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's position, saying: "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state."[142][143]

---

Which is why I think that, on the balance, he's all about shafting the gays. I have no doubt he's sincere in his views on the role of the federal govt. or the obligations states should have towards one another etc, but, unless the quotes above are outright lies, this is a man who opposes equal rights for same-sex couples and would gladly preserve an unjust status quo through the exploitation of the bigotry of the majority. I think his views on same-sex marriages should be taken separately from the rest of his libertarian views. There is nothing to say the man has to be completely consistent just because he's libertarian :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

...

Then you aren't really looking at comments from Paul, or you are doing so myopically.

---

I dunno, I was thinking of remarks such as:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoD Santorum

But Santorum says if people have a problem with the laws in their state, they can just take their frustration to the voting booth.

"You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things," he told Tapper. "You should let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things, get rid of the legislature and replace them."

---

That said I shall check out the clips later when the missus is not snoozing :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Which is why I think that, on the balance, he's all about shafting the gays.

---

Selectively quoting Wikipedia might lead to that conclusion. Let's be honest, you believe that because it's what you want to believe, not because it's based on evidence. Let's break down the offending quote. First, Paul opposes efforts to redefine marriage at the federal level. What he has consistently said is that he opposes Federal legislation of marriage at all. Likely Paul supports aspects of DOMA, including the ability for states to refuse recognition of the marriage standards of other states.

To further put DOMA/the definition of marriage into perspective, it was Bill Clinton who signed it into law, and Barrack Obama is on record as saying the same thing.

Now, let's look at his positions more broadly. Paul voted to repeal DADT, he voted twice against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and he's consistently said that marriage should be a private matter between individuals. If that's all about shafting gays, then I'm eager to hear your take on Obama, who opposes same sex weddings. If you're looking myopically at a single quote, or cursorily at a single position, it's easy to come to any conclusion you want to. After all, looking at his stances and opinions on the whole takes effort, and might require you to look beyond a Wikipedia page.

Quote:

---

I have no doubt he's sincere in his views on the role of the federal govt. or the obligations states should have towards one another etc, but, unless the quotes above are outright lies, this is a man who opposes equal rights for same-sex couples and would gladly preserve an unjust status quo through the exploitation of the bigotry of the majority. I think his views on same-sex marriages should be taken separately from the rest of his libertarian views. There is nothing to say the man has to be completely consistent just because he's libertarian :razz:

---

His role - again - is that the government should play no role in what does or doesn't constitute a marriage, and what does or doesn't constitute a marriage contract. He has consistently said this every time the question has been raised, and he has been clear in what that means. You're keen on taking one stance and using that to define all his possible positions, but that's a lazy and simple approach. Or is pushing nuance only appreciated when it's at Lewk's expense?

Quote:

---

I dunno, I was thinking of remarks such as:

---

You might notice that Santorum is not spelled P - A - U - L.

Wow, Santorum won Colorado despite being down 10-14% there as of two days ago.

Isn't it part of the same old narrative, though? Anybody but Romney, Anybody but Obama?

Is Santorum as GOP candidate and possibly POTUS now a realistic possibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Is Santorum as GOP candidate and possibly POTUS now a realistic possibility?

---

Not really, his Social Sucking Up to the ultra right wing will scare away then Independents right back to Obama.

We could get a brokered convention however if Gingy/Suck Up/Paul siphon away 50% of the delegates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Not really, his Social Sucking Up to the ultra right wing will scare away then Independents right back to Obama.

We could get a brokered convention however if Gingy/Suck Up/Paul siphon away 50% of the delegates.

---

With any luck, Newt's out. As hard as that hat trick hit Romney, it hurt Newt harder. Good riddance. Santorum still only has an outside shot at the nomination, while having absolutely no chance in the general election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Selectively quoting Wikipedia might lead to that conclusion. Let's be honest, you believe that because it's what you want to believe, not because it's based on evidence. Let's break down the offending quote. First, Paul opposes efforts to redefine marriage at the federal level. What he has consistently said is that he opposes Federal legislation of marriage at all. Likely Paul supports aspects of DOMA, including the ability for states to refuse recognition of the marriage standards of other states.

To further put DOMA/the definition of marriage into perspective, it was Bill Clinton who signed it into law, and Barrack Obama is on record as saying the same thing.

Now, let's look at his positions more broadly. Paul voted to repeal DADT, he voted twice against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and he's consistently said that marriage should be a private matter between individuals. If that's all about shafting gays, then I'm eager to hear your take on Obama, who opposes same sex weddings. If you're looking myopically at a single quote, or cursorily at a single position, it's easy to come to any conclusion you want to. After all, looking at his stances and opinions on the whole takes effort, and might require you to look beyond a Wikipedia page.

His role - again - is that the government should play no role in what does or doesn't constitute a marriage, and what does or doesn't constitute a marriage contract. He has consistently said this every time the question has been raised, and he has been clear in what that means. You're keen on taking one stance and using that to define all his possible positions, but that's a lazy and simple approach. Or is pushing nuance only appreciated when it's at Lewk's expense?

---

I'm not interested in Ron Paul in Libertarian Utopia, I'm interested in Ron Paul in the real US. I like his ideal stance on marriage. But what you're getting in reality is a country where the majority in most (or many) states can and will preserve the status quo wrt marriage--its definition, its associated benefits--and deny equal rights to same-sex couples. It would be different if every person in every state were transformed into decent libertarians. That's not going to happen. What's going to happen is what you can expect from partial Libertarianism in the real world: tyranny of the majority; inequality and limited freedom for the less-strong. That's not an indictment of Libertarianism; if anything it's an indictment of large parts of our non-Libertarian world. You may believe that a little more Libertarianism is better than a little less Libertarianism. I would disagree.

Re. Obama and Clinton, what are you trying to say? :bulb: Do you imagine I appreciate their inability to help gay couples get equal treatment? I'm just glad the Obama administration was able--and willing--to take its present stance. No doubt the Paul administration woulda done the same :noob:

Quote:

---

You might notice that Santorum is not spelled P - A - U - L.

---

You may have noticed that I referred to both Santorum and Paul. Is there any part of that quote you believe Paul would disagree with? Although, one wonders if there is much in that quote even Obama would disagree with :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I'm not interested in Ron Paul in Libertarian Utopia, I'm interested in Ron Paul in the real US. I like his ideal stance on marriage. But what you're getting in reality is a country where the majority in most (or many) states can and will preserve the status quo wrt marriage--its definition, its associated benefits--and deny equal rights to same-sex couples. It would be different if every person in every state were transformed into decent libertarians. That's not going to happen. What's going to happen is what you can expect from partial Libertarianism in the real world: tyranny of the majority; inequality and limited freedom for the less-strong. That's not an indictment of Libertarianism; if anything it's an indictment of large parts of our non-Libertarian world. You may believe that a little more Libertarianism is better than a little less Libertarianism. I would disagree.

---

Then we've completely shifted away from the original basis for the disagreement, which is what Paul's stance and take on marriage is. I don't have much interest in discussing what would or would not happen beyond that. Not because it isn't worth discussing, but because I have a feeling we are coming from wildly different understandings on how things should work.

Quote:

---

Re. Obama and Clinton, what are you trying to say? :bulb: Do you imagine I appreciate their inability to help gay couples get equal treatment? I'm just glad the Obama administration was able--and willing--to take its present stance. No doubt the Paul administration woulda done the same :noob:

---

I'm trying to say that I somehow doubt you'd characterize them as being all about shafting the gays, and yet the policies they support - and have implemented - are more detrimental to the rights of homosexuals than the policies Ron Paul supports.

And I think that is largely because of their political party, and how you view it, and not their individual interests in supporting the rights and freedoms of homosexuals.

Quote:

---

You may have noticed that I referred to both Santorum and Paul. Is there any part of that quote you believe Paul would disagree with? Although, one wonders if there is much in that quote even Obama would disagree with :bulb:

---

You may have noticed that I only referenced Paul.

To be honest, it sounds like you're taking issue with how our government was fundamentally designed. That's not to say it's not a valid criticism, just an acknowledgment that it's more of a structural question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

His role - again - is that the government should play no role in what does or doesn't constitute a marriage, and what does or doesn't constitute a marriage contract.

---

Well, in consequence, marriage would lose it's legal status, or should the government enforce something on which it doesn't have a say? That doesn't really makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Wow, Santorum won Colorado despite being down 10-14% there as of two days ago.

---

Must be a late result of the Madrid bombings. How else we could explain such a shift?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Well, in consequence, marriage would lose it's legal status, or should the government enforce something on which it doesn't have a say? That doesn't really makes sense to me.

---

No, it would become a private contract, and when issues arose it could be mediated in the courts - like any other contract.

The government defines for other contracts as well if they are legal or not. There is no difference there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

The government defines for other contracts as well if they are legal or not. There is no difference there.

---

Okay?

Generally it is law that defines what parameters constitute a valid contract, and who are capable of entering into them. If you are trying to argue the logcial tautology that illegal contracts are illegal, you'll get no disagreement from me. That's not what we were discussing though, and I'm struggling to see the relevance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Generally it is law that defines what parameters constitute a valid contract, and who are capable of entering into them.

---

So, same as in marriage. By law there are several different kind of contracts, marriage is one of them. It's just churches that think they have a say on that special kind of contract, but actually they haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

So, same as in marriage. By law there are several different kind of contracts, marriage is one of them. It's just churches that think they have a say on that special kind of contract, but actually they haven't.

---

Churches of voters. And they do have a say as long as they vote. The thing is, what gets them out to vote?

The voters have a say, not the churches. At least I hope that - like here - in the US only natural persons have a vote an not legal persons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

The voters have a say, not the churches. At least I hope that - like here - in the US only natural persons have a vote an not legal persons.

---

This is more a of personal experience, but I have yet to experience a church where they don't hand out pamphlets (or devote an entire sermon) suggesting what the pastor/god would consider the more holy option for each and every question on the ballot.

and church folk can get mighty weird when it comes to absolutely not questioning the word of their leaders.

Any organization I know does that. If you mean that by "have a say" than anyone who has an opinion and the means to spread it has a say. I thought we speak about "have a say" in they can vote on the issue (directly, themselves)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

So, same as in marriage. By law there are several different kind of contracts, marriage is one of them. It's just churches that think they have a say on that special kind of contract, but actually they haven't.

---

I'm sorry, I'm really not understanding the thrust of your argument here. I support removing a single definition of marriage, and opening it up to anyone and everyone. If two guys/girls want to get married, that's their prerogative. If six guys and two girls want to get married and start a giant, blended family, that's their own choice. I don't believe any institution, be it government, religious, or other can or should dictate who or how private individuals associate with each other.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ian/yesyes.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm sorry, I'm really not understanding the thrust of your argument here. I support removing a single definition of marriage, and opening it up to anyone and everyone. If two guys/girls want to get married, that's their prerogative. If six guys and two girls want to get married and start a giant, blended family, that's their own choice. I don't believe any institution, be it government, religious, or other can or should dictate who or how private individuals associate with each other.

---

I don't see how the government dictates how people associate with each other. Well with some exceptions (children, animals, non consent). IIRC there are some states who actually forbid sex in some cases even it is consent but if that is the case, what does it bother you.

The government only dictates the rules of marriage if you want to have your marriage accepted by the government and I think that is very valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

I don't see how the government dictates how people associate with each other. Well with some exceptions (children, animals, non consent). IIRC there are some states who actually forbid sex in some cases even it is consent but if that is the case, what does it bother you.

The government only dictates the rules of marriage if you want to have your marriage accepted by the government and I think that is very valid.

---

You don't see how the government banning same sex marriage is dictating how people are associating with each other? How about laws on the books regarding polygamy? Are you really arguing that you don't see how that constitutes an unnecessary, and onerous intrusion into the personal lives of individual citizens? Why should the government have any say in whether or not you have one wife, or three husbands?

You have to know you talk to a person which don't have any feelings forwards marriage, I still have a partner though. I know this state of living together doesn't give me the same rights as a married couple. The point is the government does allow me to live that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

You have to know you talk to a person which don't have any feelings forwards marriage, I still have a partner though. I know this state of living together doesn't give me the same rights as a married couple. The point is the government does allow me to live that way.

---

Relevent information in bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Not really, his Social Sucking Up to the ultra right wing will scare away then Independents right back to Obama.

We could get a brokered convention however if Gingy/Suck Up/Paul siphon away 50% of the delegates.

---

Depends on the economy. There is every indication that will be the #1 issue come election day. If the economy gets unemployment around 7% ish we could be looking at a Obama re-election. If 8% or higher it almost doesn't matter who the GOP nomine is. That said... I'd rather have Romney or Newt before Santorum but even Santorm (or Paul) would be better then Obama.