Ron Paul.
09-11-2007, 10:53 PM
#341
1.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 464
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by rawr
You're digressing and putting words in my mouth, doing exactly the same thing that you accuse johnny of doing. You're also making assumptions about my political preference, when I've stated close to jack ---- nothing about my political leanings. I've done nothing but told you that you're forming half assed arguments and missing the point of what johnny has been telling you. I know you're going to say you're not, but you are. I know this by your lack of directly addressing the issues that he's brought up. I'm sure you're doing what you think is right, but you're just basing your argument of pure gut feeling, then spouting off every point that comes into your head at the time about the subject. It's not working out for you. You need to step back, rethink your approach and retry. If you can't make a solid argument, maybe you should rethink your stance.
What shread of an "argument" he has is as simple as this:
"It is my right to free speech that enables me to say hateful things to homosexuals and discriminate against them in the private sector."
That argument is so easily refuted it's laughable. Maybe I should take a simple appoarch this time and you might be able to follow me.
If it was in fact his right to discriminate against homosexuals it would also be his right to discriminate against anyone that is different than him in any way, this includes differing race, sex, religion, political preferance, etc. Continuing on, if it was HIS right to do so then it would EVERYONES' right to do so. That lands us back in the days of black people being slaves, immigrants being last picks for jobs, and women staying home in the kitchen rather than at the voting booth or out in the corporate world.
"I'm sorry, I don't want to hire you."
"Why not? Do I not meet the job qualifications?"
"No, you're a black female."
That would be real progess wouldn't it? That would really be benefitial to society. I'm sure the standard of living would increase ten fold.
His argument is based on the fact that he believes homosexuality is wrong. His political views are based on his religious beliefs. His elitist attitude is based on him thinking is morals are king ----. Everything else he says hangs off of that basic fact. That is why I'm STILL eagerly awaiting his explaination of why his morals are superior and why the government should pass laws based on his morals rather than someone else's.
Originally Posted by random-strike
this country didn't become the greatest ever on earth on a socialist philosophy
Originally Posted by dumbass guy
Wrong again. You don't seem to know your rights very well, you can hold beliefs that you need to slaughter all women and children - that IS protected by the constitution. This is basics, check the first Amendment again, harmful beliefs do not inhibit the freedom of others until one acts upon those beliefs.
Originally Posted by dumbass guy
So what is your response when I tell you that I'm fiercely pro-choice?
Originally Posted by dumbass guy
Did you know that females aren't allowed to enlist as infantry? I think a bigger percentage of the US are females than homosexuals male or female. Why aren't you arguing for their "rights?" Oh wait...they don't have any when it comes to entering the military.
Originally Posted by dumbass guy
You are some big ------- hypocrites, you're all about not discriminating other people but when I post two entirely valid opinions - one backed by a factual reputable source, you start screaming bloody murder because somebody doesn't agree with you.
09-11-2007, 11:04 PM
#342
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by n1ghtm0nkey
You are wrong because you said it is their RIGHT to join the military. It is NOT their RIGHT to join the military and they waive their privilege by choosing / being a homosexual. The thing that you failed to understand in my post is that I don't think they deserve special treatment at all - no - they should get equal treatment which they would NOT get in the military. If you read and understand what I said you would understand that I think they should get the same treatment, but the fact of the matter is that their treatment would be significantly WORSE than that of a heterosexual in the military. Not only that but they would also be causing morale issues for the rest of the people they are grouped with.
You never did answer me when I asked you if you would enjoy taking showers with a homosexual for 3 months or longer when it is obvious that the sight of your naked *** arouses him. Focus now, would you like that? Would that make you feel good about being in boot camp, which already sucks? What is that going to do for your morale which is already low in boot camp? Answer that, and then tell me it's still a good idea for homosexuals to be in the military.
That has nothing to do with assuming they would do something, that is a matter of whether or not the rest of the soldiers feel comfortable around him. Just as easily as you can say well they're not going to do anything and you shouldn't fear it, there's the very real possibility that they will and I can tell you from first hand experience that this type of ---- does go on in the military even though it's against the policy - and people are discharged for it. You're beating a dead horse trying to argue some ---- that is already set in stone - homosexuals are not allowed in the military and for many good reasons which I already listed for you.
You need to realize that the military is not exactly an equal opportunity employer, there are certain standards that one must live up to which NO homosexual can for the simple fact that they are homosexual. Sure they may be able to pull a trigger and talk on the radio - but that isn't even the beginning of what the military demands from a person. You have to be able to work very closely with your fellow soldiers among other things. In fact infantry is only one option and not even all jobs in the military require you to be on the field of battle.
Did you know that females aren't allowed to enlist as infantry? I think a bigger percentage of the US are females than homosexuals male or female. Why aren't you arguing for their "rights?" Oh wait...they don't have any when it comes to entering the military.
If you want to know why they are discriminated against as far as entering the military then refer to the factual information I linked on the last page, that has all the answers you're looking for and I'm not going to keep explaining it to you just because you don't think it's right.
Case closed.
Cry more please, your bleeding heart liberal tears are delicious.
You never did answer me when I asked you if you would enjoy taking showers with a homosexual for 3 months or longer when it is obvious that the sight of your naked *** arouses him. Focus now, would you like that? Would that make you feel good about being in boot camp, which already sucks? What is that going to do for your morale which is already low in boot camp? Answer that, and then tell me it's still a good idea for homosexuals to be in the military.
That has nothing to do with assuming they would do something, that is a matter of whether or not the rest of the soldiers feel comfortable around him. Just as easily as you can say well they're not going to do anything and you shouldn't fear it, there's the very real possibility that they will and I can tell you from first hand experience that this type of ---- does go on in the military even though it's against the policy - and people are discharged for it. You're beating a dead horse trying to argue some ---- that is already set in stone - homosexuals are not allowed in the military and for many good reasons which I already listed for you.
You need to realize that the military is not exactly an equal opportunity employer, there are certain standards that one must live up to which NO homosexual can for the simple fact that they are homosexual. Sure they may be able to pull a trigger and talk on the radio - but that isn't even the beginning of what the military demands from a person. You have to be able to work very closely with your fellow soldiers among other things. In fact infantry is only one option and not even all jobs in the military require you to be on the field of battle.
Did you know that females aren't allowed to enlist as infantry? I think a bigger percentage of the US are females than homosexuals male or female. Why aren't you arguing for their "rights?" Oh wait...they don't have any when it comes to entering the military.
If you want to know why they are discriminated against as far as entering the military then refer to the factual information I linked on the last page, that has all the answers you're looking for and I'm not going to keep explaining it to you just because you don't think it's right.
Case closed.
Cry more please, your bleeding heart liberal tears are delicious.
09-11-2007, 11:23 PM
#343
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,028
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by AWDstylez
What issue has he brought up? Any stupidity that has come from him as been addressed, or at least it has been addressed to the extent allowed by him failing to answer my questions. It is in fact YOU that is failing to see the issus behind this debate and that his very concept of politics, freedom, and what is and isn't protected under the constitution is flawed, thereby making his "arguments" irrelevant. It's pretty difficult to argue against someone with non-sensical arguments and an inability to even use correct grammar and punctuation. You must be on drugs if you think I'm the one without an argument. If you've forgotten oh-so-soon then allow me to remind you that this started as a thread about US forgein policy or at the least a state-of-the-union debate. Your ignorant little buddy managed to turn it into debate on homosexuality because that's the ONLY thing he could come up with against the anti war people, thus classifying all anti war people as liberals and gay people lovers. YOU need to take a step back and see who's pulling straw man arguments out of their asses and digressing from issues.
What shread of an "argument" he has is as simple as this:
"It is my right to free speech that enables me to say hateful things to homosexuals and discriminate against them in the private sector."
That argument is so easily refuted it's laughable. Maybe I should take a simple appoarch this time and you might be able to follow me.
If it was in fact his right to discriminate against homosexuals it would also be his right to discriminate against anyone that is different than him in any way, this includes differing race, sex, religion, political preferance, etc. Continuing on, if it was HIS right to do so then it would EVERYONES' right to do so. That lands us back in the days of black people being slaves, immigrants being last picks for jobs, and women staying home in the kitchen rather than at the voting booth or out in the corporate world.
"I'm sorry, I don't want to hire you."
"Why not? Do I not meet the job qualifications?"
"No, you're a black female."
That would be real progess wouldn't it? That would really be benefitial to society. I'm sure the standard of living would increase ten fold.
His argument is based on the fact that he believes homosexuality is wrong. His political views are based on his religious beliefs. His elitist attitude is based on him thinking is morals are king ----. Everything else he says hangs off of that basic fact. That is why I'm STILL eagerly awaiting his explaination of why his morals are superior and why the government should pass laws based on his morals rather than someone else's.
Tell me honestly, does it get more ignorant than that? The greatest ever on earth. That's what these kids really believe. It's sad. I guess when your entire concept of history starts at the revolution and only includes events that happened involving this country, then that's the sort of horrificly ignorant opinion you come up with.
Which is exactly what he wants to do you dumbass. :hammer:
You're a baby murdering hypocrite.
Females have physical limitations as well as feminine issues that would make it unwise. Gay men are usually in better shape than most fat, straight, redneck slobs and not matter how feminine they act, they'll never have a menstrual cycle to deal with.
We're against discrimination. Your opinion is discriminatory. We're against your opinion. There is nothing hypocritical about that. No one told you that you can't have an opinion, but if you choose to voice it then you also choose to expose it to being shot down hard.
What shread of an "argument" he has is as simple as this:
"It is my right to free speech that enables me to say hateful things to homosexuals and discriminate against them in the private sector."
That argument is so easily refuted it's laughable. Maybe I should take a simple appoarch this time and you might be able to follow me.
If it was in fact his right to discriminate against homosexuals it would also be his right to discriminate against anyone that is different than him in any way, this includes differing race, sex, religion, political preferance, etc. Continuing on, if it was HIS right to do so then it would EVERYONES' right to do so. That lands us back in the days of black people being slaves, immigrants being last picks for jobs, and women staying home in the kitchen rather than at the voting booth or out in the corporate world.
"I'm sorry, I don't want to hire you."
"Why not? Do I not meet the job qualifications?"
"No, you're a black female."
That would be real progess wouldn't it? That would really be benefitial to society. I'm sure the standard of living would increase ten fold.
His argument is based on the fact that he believes homosexuality is wrong. His political views are based on his religious beliefs. His elitist attitude is based on him thinking is morals are king ----. Everything else he says hangs off of that basic fact. That is why I'm STILL eagerly awaiting his explaination of why his morals are superior and why the government should pass laws based on his morals rather than someone else's.
Tell me honestly, does it get more ignorant than that? The greatest ever on earth. That's what these kids really believe. It's sad. I guess when your entire concept of history starts at the revolution and only includes events that happened involving this country, then that's the sort of horrificly ignorant opinion you come up with.
Which is exactly what he wants to do you dumbass. :hammer:
You're a baby murdering hypocrite.
Females have physical limitations as well as feminine issues that would make it unwise. Gay men are usually in better shape than most fat, straight, redneck slobs and not matter how feminine they act, they'll never have a menstrual cycle to deal with.
We're against discrimination. Your opinion is discriminatory. We're against your opinion. There is nothing hypocritical about that. No one told you that you can't have an opinion, but if you choose to voice it then you also choose to expose it to being shot down hard.
09-11-2007, 11:42 PM
#344
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,028
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by AWDstylez
Which is exactly what he wants to do you dumbass. :hammer:
You're a baby murdering hypocrite.
Females have physical limitations as well as feminine issues that would make it unwise. Gay men are usually in better shape than most fat, straight, redneck slobs and not matter how feminine they act, they'll never have a menstrual cycle to deal with.
We're against discrimination. Your opinion is discriminatory. We're against your opinion. There is nothing hypocritical about that. No one told you that you can't have an opinion, but if you choose to voice it then you also choose to expose it to being shot down hard.
You're a baby murdering hypocrite.
Females have physical limitations as well as feminine issues that would make it unwise. Gay men are usually in better shape than most fat, straight, redneck slobs and not matter how feminine they act, they'll never have a menstrual cycle to deal with.
We're against discrimination. Your opinion is discriminatory. We're against your opinion. There is nothing hypocritical about that. No one told you that you can't have an opinion, but if you choose to voice it then you also choose to expose it to being shot down hard.
How am I a baby murdering hypocrite, and what about murdering babies makes me a hypocrite. Hypocrite just sounds nice to you doesn't it, because it doesn't mean anything in what you said. Try again.
The physical limitations are not the only reason they aren't allowed to serve as infantry. You're making a horrible poor generalization saying gay men are in better shape than most other men - and you must be forgetting that there are strict weight/size limits and requirements you must meet in order to enter the military, so your physical shape doesn't really matter as long as you're within the parameters.
My opinion is that I don't approve of gay marriage. I'm not a judge/pastor/etc so I don't have the ability to discriminate against homosexuals. My opinion on homosexuals in the military is backed up by factual information which you cannot disprove no matter how hard you try. In fact it's not even my opinion, it's just fact, and I linked you the reason why homosexuals can't be in the military - all I did was try to explain it to you thick headed bleeding heart turd burglers.
I will continue to voice my opinion as you have yet to shoot it down, let alone shoot it down hard.
I don't care that you guys argue against my opinion, it's your right to do that - however the ---- talking and generally being an ------- is entirely uncalled for.
09-11-2007, 11:57 PM
#345
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 828
Re: Ron Paul.
Kind of a touchy subject isn't this?
I think ( i have no religious affiliations so i guess that makes me an atheist if you are wondering) that the entire concept of Marriage is a tradition established by the church quite some time ago, and should then be the churches decision on exactly whom can be allowed to become married, since the constitution specifically prohibits the government from enacting laws pertaining to religion this should not even be an issue decided in a courtroom but between two people and their pastor.
Also the bible makes a few references to homosexuality, one of them being leviticus chapter 18 vs 22 where god says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination" this was one of several ordinances passed down to moses. So from my perspective the entire aurgument of whether it is right or wrong to be gay is entirely a theological one, but its not my place to say that something is wrong just because thats the way i feel about it, but just to present the facts and let the individual formulate their own opinions as is the intent with a free thinking society.
I think ( i have no religious affiliations so i guess that makes me an atheist if you are wondering) that the entire concept of Marriage is a tradition established by the church quite some time ago, and should then be the churches decision on exactly whom can be allowed to become married, since the constitution specifically prohibits the government from enacting laws pertaining to religion this should not even be an issue decided in a courtroom but between two people and their pastor.
Also the bible makes a few references to homosexuality, one of them being leviticus chapter 18 vs 22 where god says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination" this was one of several ordinances passed down to moses. So from my perspective the entire aurgument of whether it is right or wrong to be gay is entirely a theological one, but its not my place to say that something is wrong just because thats the way i feel about it, but just to present the facts and let the individual formulate their own opinions as is the intent with a free thinking society.
09-12-2007, 01:40 AM
#346
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
everyone is missing the point. and by reading awdstylez posts, you can clearly see he is a socialist at best, and most likely a communist.
he does not believe in the constitution and bill of rights.
he thinks it should be illegal to think being gay is wrong, or to think anything that goes against his socialist ideals.
he is wrong and everyone should see this very clearly.
i believe in freedom, i believe everyone is free to do what they want as long as it does not affect someone else.
being a queer, is fine. just don't force it on other peoiple. no one is forcing you not to be gay.
liberals do not believe in freedom, they are not tolerant. liberals are the most intolerant people in this country. if you do not believe the same way as they do, they call you a racist, or a bigot, or a homophobe, or a redneck, or a hillbilly, or whatever.
doesn't anyone else find it interesting that liberals version of tolerance doesn't including religion, or rednecks. or hillbillies, or anything that they don't believe in?
liberals are terrible, and they cause the downfall of societies, look at rome, look at europe, look at the soviet union...
he does not believe in the constitution and bill of rights.
he thinks it should be illegal to think being gay is wrong, or to think anything that goes against his socialist ideals.
he is wrong and everyone should see this very clearly.
i believe in freedom, i believe everyone is free to do what they want as long as it does not affect someone else.
being a queer, is fine. just don't force it on other peoiple. no one is forcing you not to be gay.
liberals do not believe in freedom, they are not tolerant. liberals are the most intolerant people in this country. if you do not believe the same way as they do, they call you a racist, or a bigot, or a homophobe, or a redneck, or a hillbilly, or whatever.
doesn't anyone else find it interesting that liberals version of tolerance doesn't including religion, or rednecks. or hillbillies, or anything that they don't believe in?
liberals are terrible, and they cause the downfall of societies, look at rome, look at europe, look at the soviet union...
09-12-2007, 02:00 AM
#347
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,028
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by random-strike
liberals do not believe in freedom, they are not tolerant. liberals are the most intolerant people in this country. if you do not believe the same way as they do, they call you a racist, or a bigot, or a homophobe, or a redneck, or a hillbilly, or whatever.
doesn't anyone else find it interesting that liberals version of tolerance doesn't including religion, or rednecks. or hillbillies, or anything that they don't believe in?
liberals are terrible, and they cause the downfall of societies, look at rome, look at europe, look at the soviet union...
doesn't anyone else find it interesting that liberals version of tolerance doesn't including religion, or rednecks. or hillbillies, or anything that they don't believe in?
liberals are terrible, and they cause the downfall of societies, look at rome, look at europe, look at the soviet union...
09-12-2007, 02:25 AM
#348
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
MSLSD (MSNBC) is replaying their coverage of 9/11 right now. and there is people at the pentagon on camera saying they saw a plane hit it.
so much for those conspiracy theories.
so much for those conspiracy theories.
09-12-2007, 02:39 AM
#349
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: Ron Paul.
anyone read the news today?
the liberals in LA are trying to limit the number of fast food resturants in LA because they say it makes people fat.
so much for free market, and freedom of choice...
forcing their morals on others.
the liberals in LA are trying to limit the number of fast food resturants in LA because they say it makes people fat.
so much for free market, and freedom of choice...
forcing their morals on others.
09-12-2007, 11:41 AM
#350
1.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 464
Re: Ron Paul.
Originally Posted by random-strike
MSLSD (MSNBC) is replaying their coverage of 9/11 right now. and there is people at the pentagon on camera saying they saw a plane hit it.
so much for those conspiracy theories.
so much for those conspiracy theories.
Originally Posted by random-strike
everyone is missing the point. and by reading awdstylez posts, you can clearly see he is a socialist at best, and most likely a communist.
he does not believe in the constitution and bill of rights.
he thinks it should be illegal to think being gay is wrong, or to think anything that goes against his socialist ideals.
he is wrong and everyone should see this very clearly.
i believe in freedom, i believe everyone is free to do what they want as long as it does not affect someone else.
being a queer, is fine. just don't force it on other peoiple. no one is forcing you not to be gay.
liberals do not believe in freedom, they are not tolerant. liberals are the most intolerant people in this country. if you do not believe the same way as they do, they call you a racist, or a bigot, or a homophobe, or a redneck, or a hillbilly, or whatever.
doesn't anyone else find it interesting that liberals version of tolerance doesn't including religion, or rednecks. or hillbillies, or anything that they don't believe in?
liberals are terrible, and they cause the downfall of societies, look at rome, look at europe, look at the soviet union...
he does not believe in the constitution and bill of rights.
he thinks it should be illegal to think being gay is wrong, or to think anything that goes against his socialist ideals.
he is wrong and everyone should see this very clearly.
i believe in freedom, i believe everyone is free to do what they want as long as it does not affect someone else.
being a queer, is fine. just don't force it on other peoiple. no one is forcing you not to be gay.
liberals do not believe in freedom, they are not tolerant. liberals are the most intolerant people in this country. if you do not believe the same way as they do, they call you a racist, or a bigot, or a homophobe, or a redneck, or a hillbilly, or whatever.
doesn't anyone else find it interesting that liberals version of tolerance doesn't including religion, or rednecks. or hillbillies, or anything that they don't believe in?
liberals are terrible, and they cause the downfall of societies, look at rome, look at europe, look at the soviet union...
