thehill.com— Reps. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced a bill late Thursday night that would freeze the automatic cost of living increase for Members in 2011, citing the ailing economy.
Dec 12, 2009View in Crawl 4
What part of "agree to disagree" do you fail to grasp? I don't support a measure to introduce the teaching of ID in public schools. What I believe is OK is that everybody has a right to their own opinion, and the right to publicly support such an opinion whenever given the chance. You automatically assume that I support this proposed measure, even when I made it crystal clear to you that I don't agree with it - I'm an atheist, for crissakes, can't you read?. You don't have to worship a politician or agree with everything he/she says in order to support them. I don't think Paul is the messiah, I just think he speaks from a much clearer position than most any other politician today. I find it amusing that you don't recall any of the Bush administration lies, they're well documented, and quite numerous. As far as Obama goes, he's already compromised or backtracked on too many issues for my liking. I don't need a "truth-o-meter" to figure this stuff out for me, really. You're absolutely right that Paul doesn't come with an "honesty guarantee", and I would never put all my money on anyone who reaches the presidency (incidentally, I don't think Paul will ever get that chance)...But I suspect that Paul would probably attempt to hold his line and stick to his words more fiercely than we've witnessed from any leader in many years - that's sort of his whole M.O.. Whether he would be able to hold that line is another story entirely - your gay marriage example, as a case in point: No one's going to able to stop the momentum forever, sooner or later I'm sure gays will be able to marry in most states, no matter who's in the white house. For their sake, I hope it's sooner rather than later.
I didn't make any apologies whatsoever, I don't see his "political ideology" as the least bit backwards at all - but I do think his positions on things like gay marriage and abortion could be considered as such. That's not a "political ideology", that's his take on particular issues, some of which I vehemently disagree with. Political ideology is a certain outlook which is applied broadly to all the issues - Paul's a constitutional conservative, which is an ideology I can agree with on most levels. Issues like abortion and gay marriage have been highly politicized, but they're basically social issues, and unlike most faux conservatives, Paul does not put issues such as this at the forefront of his platform, it's his opponents (like you) who try to insinuate that these are Paul's most important issues, not the man himself. For the most part, he would rather leave these issues to the states, as the constitution provides, which is something I agree with.Screw your statistics, I'm talking about things like Bush's "WMD's in Iraq" lie, his "small government" campaign promises, his "mission accomplished" speech, etc, etc., etc. The guy was a world-class liar, it's not my fault that you're one of the few who is still reluctant to call a spade a spade, or that you need a statistical "truth-o-meter" to spell it out for you. Obama campaigned on a promise of "change", but I don't see that occurring either, he's even more beholden to the big banks and wall street than Bush was, lining his staff with bankers and brokers from the biggest banks and brokerage houses - that may be "change", but it's certainly not for the better...I also disagree with him on Iraq, Afghanistan, Torture (which he SAID he would stop, but he hasn't), FISA/telecom immunity, and a few other pertinent issues, such as cap and trade. I'm not really contending that Obama has lied about everything like Bush did, but he's definitely done a few 180's, and backed off of some of the positions he once held that I did agree with, such as ending the west bank settlements and working towards a permanent peace agreement in Israel. He let Netenyahu bitch slap him into submissiveness on the issue, which is just as weak as Bush's "hands-off" Israeli policy. No "change" there, either.Different opinions are what make the world go around. I made it clear in my first comment why Paul's religious leanings don't deter my support - unlike most everyone else in politics, he's an open book, and he doesn't shift his platform to appease anyone. To me, that speaks of integrity. The opposition to things like banning gay marriage and abortion is far too strong for any politician to overcome, and rightfully so IMO.
Yes, Ron Paul's manager was gay, but this really doesn't mean much in the scheme of things. You can either view it as a political move or simply as an anomaly, but Ron Paul's true view of gays when not under the guise of the public is anything less than accommodating or approving.Your facts about Obama's view on Guantanamo are very skewed, and in some cases, very wrong. Guantanamo is gone, kaput, no longer in service as of December 15th, 2009. This is EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA SAID HE WOULD DO DURING HIS CAMPAIGN. So again, I don't care if you agree with him or not, but he DID WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO. And while you can say "we'll never know if there are prisoners in other secret gulags" it seems to be very disingenuous, as you'd never know if there were secret gulags under ANY president, Ron Paul or Obama. You'll never be satisfied on this issue, so arguing the point is fruitless. Furthermore, you said he explicitly said he would continue "extraordinary rendition", but this is patently false. Take a look at Obama's executive order "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations". Perhaps you dislike Obama's policies because you simply do not know what they are.As much as everyone hates the bank bailouts, it's hard to argue that the economy is doing worse because of them. In fact, all indications are that the economy is getting better, and several banks have repaid their bank bailouts (see, they were actually loans, not just free money), and are now thriving once again. I did take a good look at Obama's background and his administration. You said he LINED his staff with bankers and brokers, but all I could find was two former bankers, one which also worked under Bill Clinton. This is lined? Do you really believe any politician will not have friends or staff members you don't approve of? I'm wondering what your actually problem is; is it Obama or politics in general? I hate to be the heart-breaker here, but until you change the entire political system, Ron Paul will not be the difference you are looking for.You don't know why Obama won the election. To say that he won simply because he wasn't Bush totally ignores Kerry's loss to Bush in the prior election. Obama won because his platforms were more appealing than McCain's. And Palin was a disaster. Again you take for granted how much power Ron Paul could wield over social issues like abortion, religion in schools, and gay marriage. If he wanted to actively combat these issues, he could it make it a lot harder for Americans to have the equal civil rights and freedom from religious authoritarianism that we espouse to acquire. I'm not willing to risk civil rights for someone who shows all their cards on the table, especially if all their cards are jokers. Also, you suggestion that people should just leave a state because it bars civil rights or choice is preposterous. People should not be made to leave their home because the majority of their state is incompetent. Should those states be allowed to put out signs "No Gays or minorities allowed!" as well? How far should we be willing to comprise the idea of unity for the hope of sectioned equality? Furthermore, how could we ever risk the education of our children, who have no say in where they live? Do you really want them to learn religion as a science? Ron Paul does.I'm tired of the empty promises that Ron Paul represents to his rabid followers. He is a non-issue in politics, and as such, can say whatever he wants and people will believe him. But give him a little power, and all of a sudden, he will fall for the same traps and pitfalls every president has. The way I view the presidency is that a candidate will say what he wants to do while campaigning, and, once president, will then do what he CAN do. There's a definite regression towards the mean once in office, and you can expect this out of any president, including Ron Paul. The people who don't realize this will claim that the president has lied, while others will recognize that true change is slow and incremental. Ron Paul might work for you, but for the majority of Americans he's a non-factor. For many Democrats, he's way too conservative on social issues. His stances on the right to choose, religion in schools, and gay equality are just like any Republican, and he will not gain traction to those who value human rights and the education of our children.You may say I'm voting with my heart above all else, but I believe this trivializes my stances. Forcing our children to learn religion as science fact is a tangible quality that lessens the educational value of our schools, and keeps us from progressing in the world-wide scientific community. Barring gay people from getting married simply because of what gender they find attractive is a nonsensical, prejudiced policy that has real-world consequences, such as keeping partners from having power of attorney, adopting children, or receiving life insurance or tax-breaks enjoyed by their straight counterparts. If you don't realize just how much this affects the lives of others, then you are ignoring Ron Paul's potentially devastating political stances because "he just seems different". To think that these issues do not affect us on a daily basis just shows that ignorance of these issues may be the crucial component in fostering support for Ron Paul, and I find that to be quite sad. The nation's economic woes are very much secondary to equal rights. Would you rather not be able to buy a new television this Christmas or would you rather see people enslaved? Which is more important to you? I know my answer...and I know Ron Paul's.
That was a rushed response, there's a few things I'd like to add:On the sixties: Let's not forget that besides civil rights and black equality, one of the biggest stories by the end of the sixties was government corruption at the highest level, which we know as "Watergate" - which pales in comparison to the levels of corruption we face today that are basically ingrained into the system."why I'm still in America": Short answer - money. If I had enough, I just might leave for greener pastures. Long answer - Although I find serious fault within the political system in this country, America still offers a quality of life which is hard to come by elsewhere. I'm proud to be from a country which was founded on the basic principles of freedom and equal rights for all, in spite of all that's been done to destroy these notions along the way. I hate to say it, but you're starting to sound like the "why do you hate America" neo-cons who bashed everyone who didn't support Bush's every move as "Un-American" or "America-haters". This isn't the first time I've run into an Obama supporter who displays the same arrogant "why don't you leave my country, then" tactic. That's not promoting equality, that's intolerance of different opinions and an unwillingness to look at everything objectively."That's a major cop-out and you know it. If I am working and my significant other is working, how exactly can I home school my child?" - Well, you really opened pandora's box with that one, let's skip past the "cop-out" part and look at the very next thing you said: "If I'm working and my significant other is working"...Do you see where I'm going with this? Is the light bulb on yet? Because I distinctly remember a time, not so long ago, when only ONE full-time wage was necessary in order to fulfill the basic needs of an American household. Of course, this was before all of that boring financial stuff I keep railing about really started escalating during the eighties...I think you're the one who's copping out, though - are you really telling me that between you and your partner, each of you couldn't find 2 hours a day apiece to tutor your own children, and maybe some extra time on your days off?....or, is it that hard to make ends meet, that you neither of you could possibly find the time, and if so, doesn't that only further exemplify the financial slavery I'm talking about in the first place?I'm 100% with you on keeping religion out of the public school system. Here in NY we don't really have this issue. My answer to everything is not to "vote with your feet", but if you live somewhere that is attempting to legally FORCE you to do things AGAINST your will, It's a no-brainer. I'm from NY, I lived FL for 7 years during the 90's, but the politics and the economy ultimately outweighed the beauty of the place for me, so I left! (just in time, the year after I left those morons voted in Jeb bush as guv)I'm sure there's more I can elaborate on, but I'm running out of time again. Just let me emphasize this - you have a whole more in common with your fellow Americans than you realize, regardless of people's opinions on the social issues. We're all in this together, the people. I just wish that more of us would set our differences aside in favor of working together to fix some of the things that really do affect us all every day.
"If you don't think that saying such things betrays deeper feelings, you're fooling yourself." - I'm not going to say that you don't have a valid point, but I might like to add that there's probably a bit of a "fear factor" (homophobia) for most hetero males when being accosted homosexually, and Paul's an older fellow, kind of stoic, to boot...It's my take that this could have more to do with his verbal reaction - not to mention how insulted he must have felt, being led on some wild gay goose chase...Like I said, it's not that what you're saying doesn't have a ring of truth to it, but I think there's mitigating factors, as there would be in any analysis of an exchange like this. I think his spur-of-the-moment reaction may well have opened up his inner feelings to an extent, especially in the moment - but I don't personally believe that it's because he has hatred in his heart. This forced, staged incident isn't conclusive enough for me to make a solid judgment either way."Gay marriage MUST be instituted at the civil level in order to guarantee gays the same rights straights have." - I don't believe that's true. Gays live, work, vote, pay taxes, and die just like the rest of us. There's no "straights only" restrooms, there's nobody telling gays to "get to the back of the bus", etc, etc. Gays/lesbians come in all shapes, sizes and colors and reside amongst everyone else. I completely understand where you're coming from, I even have second-hand experience, my GF was a paralegal on a ground-breaking estate case where the deceased left the vast majority of his estate to his partner, and the family fought like hell to cut the guy out, they tried every dirty trick in the book, but ultimately, I believe the deceased's partner won most everything back in the end. I think the case may even have set precedent here in NY.I understand that gays want to marry, and I support them - but I just don't see getting every state on board right away - I see tremendous potential for legal and social backlash from forcing every state to accept it right away. I think it would be a lot easier, and a whole lot more effective if it was put to a state ballot - the trick is, gay-rights groups would have to lobby and campaign intensely and intelligently in order to win in a majority of states, which IMO could definitely be done. If gays want to get this done, they need to do exactly what MLK did - organize a unified front that won't take no for an answer. Once there is a majority, then I could possibly see the Fed intervening and standardizing the laws for every state. What I do not want to see is the fed politicians milking this issue for campaign money they way they do with abortion - we don't another cash cow issue. "There have been studies that have looked at the rate of homosexuality in children of gay parents. They are no more likely to turn out gay then in straight couples" - I haven't personally seen this, but I don't doubt you. It's not a big deal, I like I said I don't necessarily oppose the idea - my reservations have to do with influence, I don't think it would be fair to induce homosexuality, intentional or otherwise, which is the same way I feel about inducing heterosexuality. People should be free to make their own choice...but if it were found that children of gay couples are more likely to be gay, it's just as unfair to the child as if he/she were forced to be straight. If what you're saying is true, then we really don't have anything to worry about, which is basically how I felt about it in the first place. That's all I have for now, out of time again....holidays are so damn busy!! Maybe I'll have the chance to catch up later or over the holiday weekend. Merry Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Festivus!!!!
Oh, I forgot to ask you this: Besides all of your opposition to Paul's stance on the social issues, you don't actually oppose this measure to rescind house pay raises, do you? Just curious...
For some reason, again, my reply was posted at the bottom of the thread. So here's my first one:"I think his spur-of-the-moment reaction may well have opened up his inner feelings to an extent, especially in the moment - but I don't personally believe that it's because he has hatred in his heart."I disagree. I believe that was a moment he was most candid. Like you said, he's an older fellow. Although I do not believe that should be an excuse to hate gay people, it certainly can be a contributing factor."Gays live, work, vote, pay taxes, and die just like the rest of us."Ah, in a perfect world these things would be true. But here in America, no way. First of all, gays are BARRED from military service. That is a government sanction against gays. Utterly ridiculous. Furthermore, sexual orientation is not covered under the civil rights act. This means that if two gay people applied for housing, the landlord could deny them a room because they are gay, and it is not against the law. As far as taxes go, gay people are not allowed to receive the tax benefits afforded by marriage, except for in a few states. This is all government sanction discrimination, and there is no denying this." If gays want to get this done, they need to do exactly what MLK did - organize a unified front that won't take no for an answer. Once there is a majority, then I could possibly see the Fed intervening and standardizing the laws for every state."There are plenty of gay rights groups out there, but no way should we wait for the majority of America to approve of gays just so they can get equal rights. The civil rights of the minorities should not be dictated by the majority."I don't think it would be fair to induce homosexuality, intentional or otherwise, which is the same way I feel about inducing heterosexuality. "This just doesn't happen. If gays only came from gay families, or were "influenced" to be gay by other gay people, why are there so many gay people coming from common, every-day heterosexual families? I hope you do not think that being gay is a choice, because you seem rather erudite, and that would be an extraordinarily archaic misconception. No one can be influenced or forced to be gay or straight.Happy Holidays!
"Besides all of your opposition to Paul's stance on the social issues, you don't actually oppose this measure to rescind house pay raises, do you?"As long as it's rooted in sound logic, and it sounds like it is, I'm not against it.
"I disagree. I believe that was a moment he was most candid." - Fair enough, I made my opinion clear enough, and so have you. We see it differently. I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt unless I can see clearly enough otherwise, but you have a right to your opinion."Ah, in a perfect world these things would be true. But here in America, no way." - As I've tried to explain, I fully understand the LEGAL implications behind the fight for gay marriage, and I'm not denying that any of the things you cite as discrimination against gays are legitimate - what I'm trying to convey is that for the most part, gays generally do get to live the same life as the rest of us, complete with all of the benefits and deficits of American society. What they're fighting for is essentially a handful of legal recognitions - Which again, I will state I feel they are fully entitled to. I'm sorry, but I just can't abide by the invocation of Black repression as an analogy and the idea that gays are somehow so horribly discriminated against that they live in perpetual suffrage as most African-Americans did for so many decades. It's an over-blown analogy, especially looking at it from where I'm sitting, here in NY."There are plenty of gay rights groups out there, but no way should we wait for the majority of America to approve of gays just so they can get equal rights."- Ask MLK's family if they think that the majority of America actually supported him in his fight for Black equality, even when he finally got the US government to take action. What I'm saying is that if gays were to apply a UNIFIED front instead of "plenty of gay rights groups out there", and campaign state by state cohesively and intelligently, they could form a solid consensus among most states that gays deserve equal rights, at which point it would be a lot easier to convince the Fed to do something. I'm not talking about waiting, I'm talking about unified action with a purpose. So far, all we've got is a smattering of "plenty of gay rights groups out there", without a unified front, message, or campaign. Just because I see a different side of the sixties than you do, doesn't mean I don't understand and appreciate the knowledge gained and the lessons learned from the era. Gays need to unify and lobby/campaign for real, and It's just my opinion that going after the states first is the path of least resistance in this case. "I hope you do not think that being gay is a choice, because you seem rather erudite, and that would be an extraordinarily archaic misconception. No one can be influenced or forced to be gay or straight."To be honest, It's my position that for some people, there is a point where being gay is absolutely a choice. Stay with me here - I'm not saying this is true for everyone, I personally know people who never had to think twice about it, but I also know a few folks who definitely found themselves "in-between", if you will, and there was definitely a point where they made a conscious decision one way or the other...or in some cases, a conscious decision to not decide, if you will. There are definitely some gray areas for some people when it comes to homosexuality. That being said, I still understand and respect your point about influence generally not being a factor, all I'm saying in rebuttal is that I don't fully support the idea that it's something that's decided at birth, or by genetics - at least not that we've been able to prove as of yet, but that could very well change as we learn more and more about DNA. I'm sure that most gay couples could probably provide a healthy environment for adopted children, at least as much as most straight couples can."The problem with this is when it's a federal ban or imposition, you cannot simply move to another state or county to be rid of the problem." "I was simply asking why you suggested that others leave places that the laws do not favor them, and yet you did not take your own advice." - There is no support for federal law in the works that will enforce the teaching of ID in schools. If by some strange chance it were to be imposed locally, you could move to the next county or state, or you could home-school - both of which fall under "voting with your feet". I'm hardly an opponent of fighting legislation such as this, it's your right and your duty as an American to do so. I'm just saying that when all else fails, f**k 'em, just take care of yourself and your own and go somewhere more favorable, and I'm also saying that sometimes if more people were willing to vote with their feet, government would have to take notice. As far as the context of gay marriage goes, there is no federal ban, but a lack of federal recognition. Most gays can't "vote with their feet" on this one unless they want to move to one or two particular states at this point - so you're right in this context, they are trapped within a discriminatory system and should concentrate on changing the system from within one way or the other.I provided an example of a time when I did follow my own advice, to the letter. I moved back to NY from Fl because the politics and the economy sucked, let alone the police state those people allow themselves to live in. I had other personal reasons for coming back as well, but were it not for my utter disdain and contempt for the place on so many levels, I probably wouldn't have made the permanent move."I believe the feminist movement was a positive, necessary step, and the outcome has benefited women nationwide, and continues to provide opportunities, regardless of whether it has altered our somewhat archaic conception of the ideal nuclear family."- I concur, but that doesn't negate some of the negative effects on society as a whole. There's a whole lot more single parents, male and female, struggling to make ends meet since the feminist movement changed things - don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people should stay involved in miserable, failed, or abusive relationships, and I'm not a proponent of male-dominated society, I'm just looking at the whole picture for what it is. There will always be a place for real "family values" that stimulate and perpetuate positive social structures in society - although nowadays "family values" is almost synonymous with religious social and political intolerance, unfortunately. "Wow, conspiracy theories, really? No thanks."- Hey, I don't make this stuff up - Gloria and some of her sixties cohorts are the ones feeding this theory, with their own statements and admissions in more recent times. There's also some testimony from a well-known, well-regarded film producer (Aaron Russo) regarding statements made by his then-acquaintance, John Rockefeller, about the feminist movement being a cover for getting the other half of the US population on the tax rolls. There was definitely a legitimate and honest purpose for the feminist movement, this I do not dispute - I just wouldn't put it past the Rockefellers and the CIA to find a way to exploit it for ulterior motives."Under Ron Paul there is always a chance that his more extreme right-wing views will be supported in congress, and I am not willing to take that chance." - Again, fair enough. I don't support anyone's extreme right-wing views on anything, especially when religion is involved. I just see a lot more potential for real positive change based on the majority of Paul's positions, that is why he has my support."Many current injustices are due to religious dogma that was standard multiple decades ago. It's time to move on from these biases, but instituting the polices of someone similar to Ron Paul would not be moving on."I don't know where you live, but it sounds like you're stuck in Utah or something...lol. No, really though - I agree that we as Americans still cling too tightly to some kind of Victorian-era ideal, at least publicly, and that this backwards-looking idealism has a terribly negative effect on society as a whole. I also agree that instituting some of Paul's ideas might not be in everybody's best interest. It's a shame that Paul falls on the "religious right" side of some issues, yet manages to be perfectly "progressive/liberal" on issues like the "War on drugs", which is a sham. IMO what we really need a is guy/gal who is like Paul on the political/fiscal end, but more like Kucinich or some of the other decent "progressive/liberal" politicians on the social end. There's no real sign of this perfect merger to be found on either side of the aisle - which at this point I feel is a deliberate result of the two-party oligarchy. "Well when our own government divides us through law, many of us will not have the same available weapons or motivation to fight the enemies that would like to "conquer" us"Another valid point, but you have to remember that we, the people, are ALLOWING ourselves to be divided by the government, the politicians, and the media. We are being played like a cheap dime-store fiddle every day. This is why I say maybe we should set some of our real differences aside in favor of finding common ground we can all stand on for now. The people in charge are literally petrified of a unified American populace, which is why they work tirelessly to split us up into groups, and this is why when enough of us get together in the streets and in the halls of power, they are powerless to stop us from changing the course of history. Problem is, we're at the point where we see each other as our worst enemy, when in most cases nothing could be further from the truth. "As long as it's rooted in sound logic, and it sounds like it is, I'm not against it."Good for you, I'd hate to see you let your opposition cloud your better judgment. Right on.
andrewdbDec 13, 2009
Sure. And a snowball has a chance in hell too.
Closed AccountDec 15, 2009
The Ron Paul spammers are back !
zzekeDec 16, 2009
What part of "agree to disagree" do you fail to grasp? I don't support a measure to introduce the teaching of ID in public schools. What I believe is OK is that everybody has a right to their own opinion, and the right to publicly support such an opinion whenever given the chance. You automatically assume that I support this proposed measure, even when I made it crystal clear to you that I don't agree with it - I'm an atheist, for crissakes, can't you read?. You don't have to worship a politician or agree with everything he/she says in order to support them. I don't think Paul is the messiah, I just think he speaks from a much clearer position than most any other politician today. I find it amusing that you don't recall any of the Bush administration lies, they're well documented, and quite numerous. As far as Obama goes, he's already compromised or backtracked on too many issues for my liking. I don't need a "truth-o-meter" to figure this stuff out for me, really. You're absolutely right that Paul doesn't come with an "honesty guarantee", and I would never put all my money on anyone who reaches the presidency (incidentally, I don't think Paul will ever get that chance)...But I suspect that Paul would probably attempt to hold his line and stick to his words more fiercely than we've witnessed from any leader in many years - that's sort of his whole M.O.. Whether he would be able to hold that line is another story entirely - your gay marriage example, as a case in point: No one's going to able to stop the momentum forever, sooner or later I'm sure gays will be able to marry in most states, no matter who's in the white house. For their sake, I hope it's sooner rather than later.
zzekeDec 16, 2009
I didn't make any apologies whatsoever, I don't see his "political ideology" as the least bit backwards at all - but I do think his positions on things like gay marriage and abortion could be considered as such. That's not a "political ideology", that's his take on particular issues, some of which I vehemently disagree with. Political ideology is a certain outlook which is applied broadly to all the issues - Paul's a constitutional conservative, which is an ideology I can agree with on most levels. Issues like abortion and gay marriage have been highly politicized, but they're basically social issues, and unlike most faux conservatives, Paul does not put issues such as this at the forefront of his platform, it's his opponents (like you) who try to insinuate that these are Paul's most important issues, not the man himself. For the most part, he would rather leave these issues to the states, as the constitution provides, which is something I agree with.Screw your statistics, I'm talking about things like Bush's "WMD's in Iraq" lie, his "small government" campaign promises, his "mission accomplished" speech, etc, etc., etc. The guy was a world-class liar, it's not my fault that you're one of the few who is still reluctant to call a spade a spade, or that you need a statistical "truth-o-meter" to spell it out for you. Obama campaigned on a promise of "change", but I don't see that occurring either, he's even more beholden to the big banks and wall street than Bush was, lining his staff with bankers and brokers from the biggest banks and brokerage houses - that may be "change", but it's certainly not for the better...I also disagree with him on Iraq, Afghanistan, Torture (which he SAID he would stop, but he hasn't), FISA/telecom immunity, and a few other pertinent issues, such as cap and trade. I'm not really contending that Obama has lied about everything like Bush did, but he's definitely done a few 180's, and backed off of some of the positions he once held that I did agree with, such as ending the west bank settlements and working towards a permanent peace agreement in Israel. He let Netenyahu bitch slap him into submissiveness on the issue, which is just as weak as Bush's "hands-off" Israeli policy. No "change" there, either.Different opinions are what make the world go around. I made it clear in my first comment why Paul's religious leanings don't deter my support - unlike most everyone else in politics, he's an open book, and he doesn't shift his platform to appease anyone. To me, that speaks of integrity. The opposition to things like banning gay marriage and abortion is far too strong for any politician to overcome, and rightfully so IMO.
datdamonfooDec 21, 2009
Yes, Ron Paul's manager was gay, but this really doesn't mean much in the scheme of things. You can either view it as a political move or simply as an anomaly, but Ron Paul's true view of gays when not under the guise of the public is anything less than accommodating or approving.Your facts about Obama's view on Guantanamo are very skewed, and in some cases, very wrong. Guantanamo is gone, kaput, no longer in service as of December 15th, 2009. This is EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA SAID HE WOULD DO DURING HIS CAMPAIGN. So again, I don't care if you agree with him or not, but he DID WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO. And while you can say "we'll never know if there are prisoners in other secret gulags" it seems to be very disingenuous, as you'd never know if there were secret gulags under ANY president, Ron Paul or Obama. You'll never be satisfied on this issue, so arguing the point is fruitless. Furthermore, you said he explicitly said he would continue "extraordinary rendition", but this is patently false. Take a look at Obama's executive order "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations". Perhaps you dislike Obama's policies because you simply do not know what they are.As much as everyone hates the bank bailouts, it's hard to argue that the economy is doing worse because of them. In fact, all indications are that the economy is getting better, and several banks have repaid their bank bailouts (see, they were actually loans, not just free money), and are now thriving once again. I did take a good look at Obama's background and his administration. You said he LINED his staff with bankers and brokers, but all I could find was two former bankers, one which also worked under Bill Clinton. This is lined? Do you really believe any politician will not have friends or staff members you don't approve of? I'm wondering what your actually problem is; is it Obama or politics in general? I hate to be the heart-breaker here, but until you change the entire political system, Ron Paul will not be the difference you are looking for.You don't know why Obama won the election. To say that he won simply because he wasn't Bush totally ignores Kerry's loss to Bush in the prior election. Obama won because his platforms were more appealing than McCain's. And Palin was a disaster. Again you take for granted how much power Ron Paul could wield over social issues like abortion, religion in schools, and gay marriage. If he wanted to actively combat these issues, he could it make it a lot harder for Americans to have the equal civil rights and freedom from religious authoritarianism that we espouse to acquire. I'm not willing to risk civil rights for someone who shows all their cards on the table, especially if all their cards are jokers. Also, you suggestion that people should just leave a state because it bars civil rights or choice is preposterous. People should not be made to leave their home because the majority of their state is incompetent. Should those states be allowed to put out signs "No Gays or minorities allowed!" as well? How far should we be willing to comprise the idea of unity for the hope of sectioned equality? Furthermore, how could we ever risk the education of our children, who have no say in where they live? Do you really want them to learn religion as a science? Ron Paul does.I'm tired of the empty promises that Ron Paul represents to his rabid followers. He is a non-issue in politics, and as such, can say whatever he wants and people will believe him. But give him a little power, and all of a sudden, he will fall for the same traps and pitfalls every president has. The way I view the presidency is that a candidate will say what he wants to do while campaigning, and, once president, will then do what he CAN do. There's a definite regression towards the mean once in office, and you can expect this out of any president, including Ron Paul. The people who don't realize this will claim that the president has lied, while others will recognize that true change is slow and incremental. Ron Paul might work for you, but for the majority of Americans he's a non-factor. For many Democrats, he's way too conservative on social issues. His stances on the right to choose, religion in schools, and gay equality are just like any Republican, and he will not gain traction to those who value human rights and the education of our children.You may say I'm voting with my heart above all else, but I believe this trivializes my stances. Forcing our children to learn religion as science fact is a tangible quality that lessens the educational value of our schools, and keeps us from progressing in the world-wide scientific community. Barring gay people from getting married simply because of what gender they find attractive is a nonsensical, prejudiced policy that has real-world consequences, such as keeping partners from having power of attorney, adopting children, or receiving life insurance or tax-breaks enjoyed by their straight counterparts. If you don't realize just how much this affects the lives of others, then you are ignoring Ron Paul's potentially devastating political stances because "he just seems different". To think that these issues do not affect us on a daily basis just shows that ignorance of these issues may be the crucial component in fostering support for Ron Paul, and I find that to be quite sad. The nation's economic woes are very much secondary to equal rights. Would you rather not be able to buy a new television this Christmas or would you rather see people enslaved? Which is more important to you? I know my answer...and I know Ron Paul's.
zzekeDec 22, 2009
That was a rushed response, there's a few things I'd like to add:On the sixties: Let's not forget that besides civil rights and black equality, one of the biggest stories by the end of the sixties was government corruption at the highest level, which we know as "Watergate" - which pales in comparison to the levels of corruption we face today that are basically ingrained into the system."why I'm still in America": Short answer - money. If I had enough, I just might leave for greener pastures. Long answer - Although I find serious fault within the political system in this country, America still offers a quality of life which is hard to come by elsewhere. I'm proud to be from a country which was founded on the basic principles of freedom and equal rights for all, in spite of all that's been done to destroy these notions along the way. I hate to say it, but you're starting to sound like the "why do you hate America" neo-cons who bashed everyone who didn't support Bush's every move as "Un-American" or "America-haters". This isn't the first time I've run into an Obama supporter who displays the same arrogant "why don't you leave my country, then" tactic. That's not promoting equality, that's intolerance of different opinions and an unwillingness to look at everything objectively."That's a major cop-out and you know it. If I am working and my significant other is working, how exactly can I home school my child?" - Well, you really opened pandora's box with that one, let's skip past the "cop-out" part and look at the very next thing you said: "If I'm working and my significant other is working"...Do you see where I'm going with this? Is the light bulb on yet? Because I distinctly remember a time, not so long ago, when only ONE full-time wage was necessary in order to fulfill the basic needs of an American household. Of course, this was before all of that boring financial stuff I keep railing about really started escalating during the eighties...I think you're the one who's copping out, though - are you really telling me that between you and your partner, each of you couldn't find 2 hours a day apiece to tutor your own children, and maybe some extra time on your days off?....or, is it that hard to make ends meet, that you neither of you could possibly find the time, and if so, doesn't that only further exemplify the financial slavery I'm talking about in the first place?I'm 100% with you on keeping religion out of the public school system. Here in NY we don't really have this issue. My answer to everything is not to "vote with your feet", but if you live somewhere that is attempting to legally FORCE you to do things AGAINST your will, It's a no-brainer. I'm from NY, I lived FL for 7 years during the 90's, but the politics and the economy ultimately outweighed the beauty of the place for me, so I left! (just in time, the year after I left those morons voted in Jeb bush as guv)I'm sure there's more I can elaborate on, but I'm running out of time again. Just let me emphasize this - you have a whole more in common with your fellow Americans than you realize, regardless of people's opinions on the social issues. We're all in this together, the people. I just wish that more of us would set our differences aside in favor of working together to fix some of the things that really do affect us all every day.
zzekeDec 24, 2009
"If you don't think that saying such things betrays deeper feelings, you're fooling yourself." - I'm not going to say that you don't have a valid point, but I might like to add that there's probably a bit of a "fear factor" (homophobia) for most hetero males when being accosted homosexually, and Paul's an older fellow, kind of stoic, to boot...It's my take that this could have more to do with his verbal reaction - not to mention how insulted he must have felt, being led on some wild gay goose chase...Like I said, it's not that what you're saying doesn't have a ring of truth to it, but I think there's mitigating factors, as there would be in any analysis of an exchange like this. I think his spur-of-the-moment reaction may well have opened up his inner feelings to an extent, especially in the moment - but I don't personally believe that it's because he has hatred in his heart. This forced, staged incident isn't conclusive enough for me to make a solid judgment either way."Gay marriage MUST be instituted at the civil level in order to guarantee gays the same rights straights have." - I don't believe that's true. Gays live, work, vote, pay taxes, and die just like the rest of us. There's no "straights only" restrooms, there's nobody telling gays to "get to the back of the bus", etc, etc. Gays/lesbians come in all shapes, sizes and colors and reside amongst everyone else. I completely understand where you're coming from, I even have second-hand experience, my GF was a paralegal on a ground-breaking estate case where the deceased left the vast majority of his estate to his partner, and the family fought like hell to cut the guy out, they tried every dirty trick in the book, but ultimately, I believe the deceased's partner won most everything back in the end. I think the case may even have set precedent here in NY.I understand that gays want to marry, and I support them - but I just don't see getting every state on board right away - I see tremendous potential for legal and social backlash from forcing every state to accept it right away. I think it would be a lot easier, and a whole lot more effective if it was put to a state ballot - the trick is, gay-rights groups would have to lobby and campaign intensely and intelligently in order to win in a majority of states, which IMO could definitely be done. If gays want to get this done, they need to do exactly what MLK did - organize a unified front that won't take no for an answer. Once there is a majority, then I could possibly see the Fed intervening and standardizing the laws for every state. What I do not want to see is the fed politicians milking this issue for campaign money they way they do with abortion - we don't another cash cow issue. "There have been studies that have looked at the rate of homosexuality in children of gay parents. They are no more likely to turn out gay then in straight couples" - I haven't personally seen this, but I don't doubt you. It's not a big deal, I like I said I don't necessarily oppose the idea - my reservations have to do with influence, I don't think it would be fair to induce homosexuality, intentional or otherwise, which is the same way I feel about inducing heterosexuality. People should be free to make their own choice...but if it were found that children of gay couples are more likely to be gay, it's just as unfair to the child as if he/she were forced to be straight. If what you're saying is true, then we really don't have anything to worry about, which is basically how I felt about it in the first place. That's all I have for now, out of time again....holidays are so damn busy!! Maybe I'll have the chance to catch up later or over the holiday weekend. Merry Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Festivus!!!!
zzekeDec 28, 2009
Oh, I forgot to ask you this: Besides all of your opposition to Paul's stance on the social issues, you don't actually oppose this measure to rescind house pay raises, do you? Just curious...
datdamonfooJan 2, 2010
For some reason, again, my reply was posted at the bottom of the thread. So here's my first one:"I think his spur-of-the-moment reaction may well have opened up his inner feelings to an extent, especially in the moment - but I don't personally believe that it's because he has hatred in his heart."I disagree. I believe that was a moment he was most candid. Like you said, he's an older fellow. Although I do not believe that should be an excuse to hate gay people, it certainly can be a contributing factor."Gays live, work, vote, pay taxes, and die just like the rest of us."Ah, in a perfect world these things would be true. But here in America, no way. First of all, gays are BARRED from military service. That is a government sanction against gays. Utterly ridiculous. Furthermore, sexual orientation is not covered under the civil rights act. This means that if two gay people applied for housing, the landlord could deny them a room because they are gay, and it is not against the law. As far as taxes go, gay people are not allowed to receive the tax benefits afforded by marriage, except for in a few states. This is all government sanction discrimination, and there is no denying this." If gays want to get this done, they need to do exactly what MLK did - organize a unified front that won't take no for an answer. Once there is a majority, then I could possibly see the Fed intervening and standardizing the laws for every state."There are plenty of gay rights groups out there, but no way should we wait for the majority of America to approve of gays just so they can get equal rights. The civil rights of the minorities should not be dictated by the majority."I don't think it would be fair to induce homosexuality, intentional or otherwise, which is the same way I feel about inducing heterosexuality. "This just doesn't happen. If gays only came from gay families, or were "influenced" to be gay by other gay people, why are there so many gay people coming from common, every-day heterosexual families? I hope you do not think that being gay is a choice, because you seem rather erudite, and that would be an extraordinarily archaic misconception. No one can be influenced or forced to be gay or straight.Happy Holidays!
datdamonfooJan 2, 2010
"Besides all of your opposition to Paul's stance on the social issues, you don't actually oppose this measure to rescind house pay raises, do you?"As long as it's rooted in sound logic, and it sounds like it is, I'm not against it.
zzekeJan 3, 2010
"I disagree. I believe that was a moment he was most candid." - Fair enough, I made my opinion clear enough, and so have you. We see it differently. I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt unless I can see clearly enough otherwise, but you have a right to your opinion."Ah, in a perfect world these things would be true. But here in America, no way." - As I've tried to explain, I fully understand the LEGAL implications behind the fight for gay marriage, and I'm not denying that any of the things you cite as discrimination against gays are legitimate - what I'm trying to convey is that for the most part, gays generally do get to live the same life as the rest of us, complete with all of the benefits and deficits of American society. What they're fighting for is essentially a handful of legal recognitions - Which again, I will state I feel they are fully entitled to. I'm sorry, but I just can't abide by the invocation of Black repression as an analogy and the idea that gays are somehow so horribly discriminated against that they live in perpetual suffrage as most African-Americans did for so many decades. It's an over-blown analogy, especially looking at it from where I'm sitting, here in NY."There are plenty of gay rights groups out there, but no way should we wait for the majority of America to approve of gays just so they can get equal rights."- Ask MLK's family if they think that the majority of America actually supported him in his fight for Black equality, even when he finally got the US government to take action. What I'm saying is that if gays were to apply a UNIFIED front instead of "plenty of gay rights groups out there", and campaign state by state cohesively and intelligently, they could form a solid consensus among most states that gays deserve equal rights, at which point it would be a lot easier to convince the Fed to do something. I'm not talking about waiting, I'm talking about unified action with a purpose. So far, all we've got is a smattering of "plenty of gay rights groups out there", without a unified front, message, or campaign. Just because I see a different side of the sixties than you do, doesn't mean I don't understand and appreciate the knowledge gained and the lessons learned from the era. Gays need to unify and lobby/campaign for real, and It's just my opinion that going after the states first is the path of least resistance in this case. "I hope you do not think that being gay is a choice, because you seem rather erudite, and that would be an extraordinarily archaic misconception. No one can be influenced or forced to be gay or straight."To be honest, It's my position that for some people, there is a point where being gay is absolutely a choice. Stay with me here - I'm not saying this is true for everyone, I personally know people who never had to think twice about it, but I also know a few folks who definitely found themselves "in-between", if you will, and there was definitely a point where they made a conscious decision one way or the other...or in some cases, a conscious decision to not decide, if you will. There are definitely some gray areas for some people when it comes to homosexuality. That being said, I still understand and respect your point about influence generally not being a factor, all I'm saying in rebuttal is that I don't fully support the idea that it's something that's decided at birth, or by genetics - at least not that we've been able to prove as of yet, but that could very well change as we learn more and more about DNA. I'm sure that most gay couples could probably provide a healthy environment for adopted children, at least as much as most straight couples can."The problem with this is when it's a federal ban or imposition, you cannot simply move to another state or county to be rid of the problem." "I was simply asking why you suggested that others leave places that the laws do not favor them, and yet you did not take your own advice." - There is no support for federal law in the works that will enforce the teaching of ID in schools. If by some strange chance it were to be imposed locally, you could move to the next county or state, or you could home-school - both of which fall under "voting with your feet". I'm hardly an opponent of fighting legislation such as this, it's your right and your duty as an American to do so. I'm just saying that when all else fails, f**k 'em, just take care of yourself and your own and go somewhere more favorable, and I'm also saying that sometimes if more people were willing to vote with their feet, government would have to take notice. As far as the context of gay marriage goes, there is no federal ban, but a lack of federal recognition. Most gays can't "vote with their feet" on this one unless they want to move to one or two particular states at this point - so you're right in this context, they are trapped within a discriminatory system and should concentrate on changing the system from within one way or the other.I provided an example of a time when I did follow my own advice, to the letter. I moved back to NY from Fl because the politics and the economy sucked, let alone the police state those people allow themselves to live in. I had other personal reasons for coming back as well, but were it not for my utter disdain and contempt for the place on so many levels, I probably wouldn't have made the permanent move."I believe the feminist movement was a positive, necessary step, and the outcome has benefited women nationwide, and continues to provide opportunities, regardless of whether it has altered our somewhat archaic conception of the ideal nuclear family."- I concur, but that doesn't negate some of the negative effects on society as a whole. There's a whole lot more single parents, male and female, struggling to make ends meet since the feminist movement changed things - don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people should stay involved in miserable, failed, or abusive relationships, and I'm not a proponent of male-dominated society, I'm just looking at the whole picture for what it is. There will always be a place for real "family values" that stimulate and perpetuate positive social structures in society - although nowadays "family values" is almost synonymous with religious social and political intolerance, unfortunately. "Wow, conspiracy theories, really? No thanks."- Hey, I don't make this stuff up - Gloria and some of her sixties cohorts are the ones feeding this theory, with their own statements and admissions in more recent times. There's also some testimony from a well-known, well-regarded film producer (Aaron Russo) regarding statements made by his then-acquaintance, John Rockefeller, about the feminist movement being a cover for getting the other half of the US population on the tax rolls. There was definitely a legitimate and honest purpose for the feminist movement, this I do not dispute - I just wouldn't put it past the Rockefellers and the CIA to find a way to exploit it for ulterior motives."Under Ron Paul there is always a chance that his more extreme right-wing views will be supported in congress, and I am not willing to take that chance." - Again, fair enough. I don't support anyone's extreme right-wing views on anything, especially when religion is involved. I just see a lot more potential for real positive change based on the majority of Paul's positions, that is why he has my support."Many current injustices are due to religious dogma that was standard multiple decades ago. It's time to move on from these biases, but instituting the polices of someone similar to Ron Paul would not be moving on."I don't know where you live, but it sounds like you're stuck in Utah or something...lol. No, really though - I agree that we as Americans still cling too tightly to some kind of Victorian-era ideal, at least publicly, and that this backwards-looking idealism has a terribly negative effect on society as a whole. I also agree that instituting some of Paul's ideas might not be in everybody's best interest. It's a shame that Paul falls on the "religious right" side of some issues, yet manages to be perfectly "progressive/liberal" on issues like the "War on drugs", which is a sham. IMO what we really need a is guy/gal who is like Paul on the political/fiscal end, but more like Kucinich or some of the other decent "progressive/liberal" politicians on the social end. There's no real sign of this perfect merger to be found on either side of the aisle - which at this point I feel is a deliberate result of the two-party oligarchy. "Well when our own government divides us through law, many of us will not have the same available weapons or motivation to fight the enemies that would like to "conquer" us"Another valid point, but you have to remember that we, the people, are ALLOWING ourselves to be divided by the government, the politicians, and the media. We are being played like a cheap dime-store fiddle every day. This is why I say maybe we should set some of our real differences aside in favor of finding common ground we can all stand on for now. The people in charge are literally petrified of a unified American populace, which is why they work tirelessly to split us up into groups, and this is why when enough of us get together in the streets and in the halls of power, they are powerless to stop us from changing the course of history. Problem is, we're at the point where we see each other as our worst enemy, when in most cases nothing could be further from the truth. "As long as it's rooted in sound logic, and it sounds like it is, I'm not against it."Good for you, I'd hate to see you let your opposition cloud your better judgment. Right on.