jinxy

Idiots like you can't comprehend that Johnny saying "******* are disgusting" is his freedom as a ------- american. As are living in trailer parks and going to baptist church if you damn so feel obligated.

AWDstylez

It's my freedom as an American to go shout NIGG@R as loud as I can at a meeting of black WWII veterans, does that mean it's the right thing to do?

It's my freedom to go to the retirement home and tell the old people I hope they die soon and burn in hell, does that make it the right thing to do?

It's my freedom to go yell that the Pope is a child molester outside the nearest Catholic church, does that make it right?

With freedom comes responsibility and it's people responsibility to not abuse those freedoms. It's because of elitest, worthless ******** like him that the entire world hates Americans. Oh and let's not forget that little thing called breach of peace. Freedom of speech only goes so far and when you start getting disruptive and offensive, you've crossed the line.

jinxy

If that meeting is on public property, yes it is your right. You may face consequences for it, but you shouldn't face any legal consequences, unless what you did constitutes a hate crime in that specific area.

No, it's not and you can be arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct.

If you so feel inclined to do so, by all means.

Your argument still sucks and that "academic paper" you posted is full of logical fallacies.

J-SMITH69

awdstylez has no clue, he has not rebutted any point i've made.

every thing ive said is true and commonm knowledge.

this guy is a clown. he is a socialist, he does not believe in freedom.

notice his typical liberal arguements?

he says its wrong and discriminatory to say queers are disgusting and wrong, but he then proceeds to spout off a rant about white trash, rednecks, trailers, etc...

he has not said one thing in this thread as a rebuttal or to prove a point

quoting an knowning artical with a phoney political spectrum that puts a socialist as the far right is retarded at best. because your leftist professor cockinmouth says hilter was right wing doesn't make it true.

he was a socialist tried and true.

the far right is liberatarism, the far left is communism.

J-SMITH69

key phrase here.

this guy does not believe in the constitution, he does not believe in the right to free speech.

this guy is a socialist at best, and a communist are worst.

john_anderson_ii

This is by far the most liberal statement of this entire conversation. Random-strike, if you cannot see the reason, I highly suggest you drop all pretense of being conservative or libertarian and go register as a democrat. You claimed earlier in this thread to be a libertarian. Do you know what the libertarian platform stands for? Since you obviously don't know, you can read it here. You just said, in so many words, that the government of the United States has the authority to steal wealth and resources from the nation's people, and use that wealth to participate in wars solely on the prefect that the Executive has decided that it is noble to do so. That is a disgusting belief to have, and that road leads to dictatorship.

Uh, how about that Mexican American war? Also, it is perfectly possible to be an imperialist nation without conquering lands, all one needs to do is control a foreign government. For instance, we do a lot of controlling of Saudi Arabia's government. Every wonder why those Saudi's hate the U.S. so much.

I am proud of our nation and what we have accomplished as a people. But too many Americans, like you, think we can base our foreign policy off that blind pride. The attitude that the world owes us something is preposterous. We fought the ****'s because they delcared war on us. We fought the Japanese imperialists because they attacked our fleet in Hawaii. Don't even presume to throw that fight in with the likes of Korea and Vietnam. Korea and Vietnam were fought, and lost because the executive wanted to do something noble, and didn't bother to make sure the people were on board with it!

MustangC.

ever hear of a private school or home schooling? your kids go to a public school paid for by some form of government, so they can push whatever policies they want. if you dont want your kid to be subjected to it, then you can send them elsewhere and pay for it yourself.

and last time i checked, they werent forcing any type of religion on kids in school. i never once had a teacher talk about god or force us to beielive in any type of god. Atheist's are people who dont beleive in god. the school teaches atheism because they DONT want to push any type of religion on someone. and i have never heard of a school teaching kids its ok to be gay. they teach kids not to discriminate against people who are "different" which can mean gay, black, disabled etc.

and FYI do i think you should be forced to like *******? no hate them all you want, but dont cry about it when the Govt expects you to accept it/not discriminate against them. but really i would like to know what you mean by "private entities should be able to". should be able to do what?

N1ghtM0nkey

There is a reason they cannot serve in the military, and a very real - tangible - reason.

http://dont.stanford.edu/casestudy/appendixF.pdf

Do you think homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military? If so, I would venture to guess that you haven't served or been through any kind of military training.

Somewhere in the mess of this thread I believe you admitted that you think homosexuals are disgusting and you personally wouldn't want them doing their buttsex thing around you.

So...how would you feel if you had to share a shower with them in close quarters for 3 months or longer?

However, a homosexual CAN enter the military - and it DOES happen. In fact, during my time in boot camp I remember there being two of them in RSP (recruit separation platoon) because they were caught in the act in the barracks. They can pursue happiness just as well as anybody else, however in order to pursue happiness in the military they must suppress their homosexuality.

Also, you talk about defining marriage and even joke that a bunch of bible thumpers came up with the idea of marriage and gave it the definition that it has...which is a joining of a MAN and a WOMAN.

Where do you think marriage came from in the first place? Seriously. Is Bush responsible for that one too? The fact that marriage is recognized by the government at all kinda blows my mind since the 1st Amendment says that the government will pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. While it's hard to speculate the exact origin of marriage, I would wager that the first ceremony was a religious one as marriage is generally a religious tradition.

That's just a point, I'm not against heterosexual PROPER marriage by any means at all. I am however against homosexual "marriage." The state and the government may eventually realize "gay marriage," however it will never have a place in my household and my children will be taught early and often that no matter what their teachers may say - "gay marriage" is bullshit....and ------ the word.

All that said...

Random-strike '08.

HondaTuner

I'm not going to jump too far into this -----flinging-fest, but I just want to say I think RS meant that Atheism is a religious stance and is therefore a religious entity in itself.

Also, this quote:

= win.

john_anderson_ii

Just saw this! Sweet, I can now tout the reason behind some of these issues and hope they make sense to some of you.

Abortion:

Dr. Paul is a OB/GYN, he's delivered 4,000 babies himself. Of course he would be pro-life. However, he doesn't want to outlaw abortion. The problem with the abortion issue is Roe Vs. Wade. In this instance the supreme court passed a law for all practical purposes. Isn't that the job of the Congress? Dr. Paul wants the Federal government to stay the heck out the abortion issue. He wants to see it dragged out on every state's political forum and be throughly discussed and debated. He believes life begins at conception, and people have the right to life. He wants debate on the issue! He wants the people of the several states to decide for themselves.

Federal Use of Capital Punishment:

If several states execute convicted criminals for offenses against the state, then what is wrong with the U.S. Government executing criminals for offenses against the United States? He's talking about war criminals and the like. That is what Federal capital punishment means. Not just randomly killing people.

NAFTA & the WTO

Extremely good reasons. NAFTA & the WTO are international organizations that define policies that the U.S., due to membership, are subject to. The people of the U.S. have no direct representation in these processes. In effect, we are subject to laws and we don't have any say in the process. That is a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States and The People. In essence, even if the U.S. Law were to miraculously abolish copyright, the Canadian RIAA counterpart could still enforce WTO policies on U.S. citizens within the borders of the U.S. Any international organization that trumps U.S. law is a direct threat to U.S. sovereignty.

The income tax:

Let everyone live for free? We need to pay the government to live? Income Tax is slavery. Any tax on incomes is a decree that the government owns the fruit of your labor. The only question is how much they let you keep. With the end of the income tax comes the gradual and merciful end of entitlements (welfare). Private charity does a much better job at taking care of the truly poor. When the government steals from the rich to give to the poor, it's still stealing, and it leads to a welfare state the likes of which are unsustainable. This is a much deeper discussion that involves the theory of fiat money, redistribution of wealth, and in the end comes socialism. It's too in depth to go into in this post, but I'm here to discuss it if you want to know more.

Know this: The income tax amounts to about 33% of the federal budget. If we reduce the size and scope of the government & entitlements, and reduce our imperialism overseas, we can easily afford to cut out the income tax.

The REAL ID act

Papers Please? The REAL ID act embodies the most bold move ever undertaken by the U.S. government to usurp the rights and liberties of the people. Period.

Universal Health Care

When an M.D. speaks on socialized medicine, especially a 20 term Congressman M.D., it would behoove you to listen up. You want government medicine? Go to a VA hospital and poke around. That should cure you. This is more redistribution of wealth, and more socialism. The government simply cannot do a better job of providing health care than the free market. Government regulation of the health insurance industry is what is driving the high costs of health care today! The patients aren't happy, the doctors aren't happy, and yet there is more and more pressure from the left side of the fence to introduce more regulation into the health care market? Everyone wants a free ride. I guess some people just don't realize how much that ride really costs.

Federal War on Drugs

Is a wasteful lost cause. How does one wage a war on an inanimate object? Why can't the states decide their own drug policies? Because a War on Drugs uses language appropriate to boil the emotions of the masses, and that's just about it. I'm not for legalization of all drugs, but I don't give a ---- who smokes weed. As long as they don't drive high. Why can't it be regulated by the states, with their own laws applied to it's use and distribution. Just like alcohol. In reality there is no war on drugs, there is a war on personal liberty.

Federal Regulation of Marriage

Don't know much about this stance. I'm willing to bet Dr. Paul doesn't want the Federal government to even think about regulating marriage in any way what so ever. It's simply not a issue that requires the attention of the Federal government. That's an issue for ones community or state.

Foreign Aid

We don't receive foreign aid, and we've already established that we don't need an income tax to live. Think about this: The government owns nothing, not a thing! it only has what it takes from the people, either via a gift given freely or coercion. What right does the state department have to redistribute the wealth of the American working class to a foreign power? None, zilch, nadda. In the American society we are not slaves. We keep what we work for. If you feel inclined to help out in an impoverished foreign nation, do so through a private charity, with your own money. Don't take mine, and your neighbors to do so. What if I don't agree with what my money is being spent on? If foreign aid weren't governmentally enforced, I would donate money to causes I choose, not causes the government has chosen for me.

Withdrawal from NATO & U.N.

No, we are fucked by staying in these organizations, see NAFTA and WTO above. It's the same thing, only this time it's our military that's committed to be controlled by a power that is not representative of the people! Don't you see how dangerous that is! As it stands now, if President Bush decided tomorrow to eliminate the Congress, and pronounce himself dictator, and The People organized an armed resistance and revolution, NATO and U.N. troops very well could show up to "keep the peace" on American soil because a U.N. backed resolution said so. That is a very scary thought indeed.

Education

Federalized education is a joke. Ask any teacher about the "No child left behind", or more appropriately, the "no child gets ahead" act. Teachers hate it, parents hate it, it's complete bullshit. Why should the Federal government be involved in education. Their curriculum is nothing but the propaganda du jour, Their benchmarks are something to joke about. Seriously, look at how screwed up American education is now compared to what it was before the Federal government got involved.



In short, read the articles of the constitution and then the 10th amendment. The constitution puts the federal government in a cage. It dictates what the federal government can do, not what it can't do. It's a deny unless allowed policy. It's that way for a reason. These blanket laws that are supposed to serve the entire nation, are only serving special interest in this nation.