PDA

View Full Version : Gay group in, values groups out at CPAC




Anti Federalist
01-05-2011, 06:48 PM
Hah, "pre spin", so when Ron wins, he'll be dismissed as just having been voted for by *****s, pacifist pansies and "losertarians".


Gay group in, values groups out at CPAC

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/5/gay-group-cpac-exposes-rift-right/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Social and economic conservatives have worked together under the mantle of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan made them the core of his 1980 coalition, but the alliance may now be fraying.

Some of the nation's most prominent social conservatives are sending a message to their economic brethren by dropping out of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in response to the decision to include GOProud, a gay conservative group, as a participating organization.

"The base-line reason is that homosexuality is not a conservative value," said Bryan Fischer, the American Family Association's director of issue analysis. "It's the conservative PAC, not the libertarian PAC."

Cowlesy
01-05-2011, 06:56 PM
You know I probably agree personally more with the social conservatives ex-statist views than GOPProud, but if you asked me who the sissies were in this whole debate, I would not be looking at GOPProud.

JoshLowry
01-05-2011, 07:17 PM
Expand the base!*





*Except for muslims, *****, and libertarians.

Vessol
01-05-2011, 07:20 PM
I have a hard time imagining most of those "values voters" are in any way economically conservative.

Ask them if they support social security and public education, see what answers you get.

Sola_Fide
01-05-2011, 07:30 PM
I agree with Cowlesy. I'm conservative socially and personally, but I don't believe it is a "conservative" value to use the force of the government to restrict people's liberty.

Modern conservatives have no clue of what Liberty means anymore. Liberty is not government force. Liberty is dealing with the things you may not agree with.

Social conservatives have not learned yet that when you give the government power to police lifestyles, you may not like it when the liberal guy comes in to power and starts telling you what to eat and what to watch and how to act.

gls
01-05-2011, 07:48 PM
I have a hard time imagining most of those "values voters" are in any way economically conservative.

Ask them if they support social security and public education, see what answers you get.

You don't even have to go that far. Most of the social cons support the worldwide empire and ongoing Middle Eastern occupations, which can only be described as fiscally reckless.

specsaregood
01-05-2011, 07:58 PM
One thing is for sure, this CPAC sounds like it is gonna be the most fun CPAC ever.

speciallyblend
01-05-2011, 08:02 PM
many of these value groups are the exact problem in the gop!!

Brett85
01-05-2011, 08:03 PM
I agree with Cowlesy. I'm conservative socially and personally, but I don't believe it is a "conservative" value to use the force of the government to restrict people's liberty.

Modern conservatives have no clue of what Liberty means anymore. Liberty is not government force. Liberty is dealing with the things you may not agree with.

Social conservatives have not learned yet that when you give the government power to police lifestyles, you may not like it when the liberal guy comes in to power and starts telling you what to eat and what to watch and how to act.

I agree completely. But I would still say that the abortion issue is different then all of the other social issues, because it's a life and death issue. The government has a responsibility to protect innocent human life.

oyarde
01-05-2011, 08:06 PM
I agree completely. But I would still say that the abortion issue is different then all of the other social issues, because it's a life and death issue. The government has a responsibility to protect innocent human life.

That is an issue to avoid . States issue . Just my opinion .

oyarde
01-05-2011, 08:08 PM
many of these value groups are the exact problem in the gop!!

I say bring every group there is and remind them , Fed Govt needs restricted to Article One , Section Eight of the Constitution. They have a state rep for everything else . I want it all .

Brett85
01-05-2011, 08:12 PM
That is an issue to avoid . States issue . Just my opinion .

Right, but there's also nothing unconstitutional about a constitutional amendment.

oyarde
01-05-2011, 08:21 PM
Right, but there's also nothing unconstitutional about a constitutional amendment.

True , but I do not think there would ever be enough votes one way or the other .

Bman
01-05-2011, 08:44 PM
I agree completely. But I would still say that the abortion issue is different then all of the other social issues, because it's a life and death issue. The government has a responsibility to protect innocent human life.


Government and protect used in the same sentence.:confused: What we are talking about is labeling something a crime. Not about protecting life. Protecting the life would be convincing the woman not to have an abortion. Punishing her afterwards didn't protect anyone.

kah13176
01-05-2011, 08:54 PM
Punishing her afterwards didn't protect anyone.

Murder should be legal by that logic. Punishment has two purposes: to pay restitution to a victim(s) (community service, fines), and to deter the activity in the first place (prison, death penalty).

Whether you live in America, where the state has a monopoly over punishment, or an anarchy, where there are different punishments determined by competing legal systems, the purpose of punishment remains the same.

speciallyblend
01-05-2011, 09:04 PM
I agree with Cowlesy. I'm conservative socially and personally, but I don't believe it is a "conservative" value to use the force of the government to restrict people's liberty.

Modern conservatives have no clue of what Liberty means anymore. Liberty is not government force. Liberty is dealing with the things you may not agree with.

Social conservatives have not learned yet that when you give the government power to police lifestyles, you may not like it when the liberal guy comes in to power and starts telling you what to eat and what to watch and how to act.

ditto and this coming from a hippie:) or should i say the ponytail wing of the gop;)

Brett85
01-05-2011, 09:24 PM
Government and protect used in the same sentence.:confused:

Yes, we have to have laws against murder. If you want anarchy I would suggest moving to Somalia.

oyarde
01-05-2011, 09:25 PM
ditto and this coming from a hippie:) or should i say the ponytail wing of the gop;)

Exactly , we need to bring in everyone and conentrate on Liberty !

jmdrake
01-05-2011, 09:28 PM
Hah, "pre spin", so when Ron wins, he'll be dismissed as just having been voted for by *****s, pacifist pansies and "losertarians".


^This. The only way to counter act that criticism is to win more than just CPAC.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 09:37 PM
Social conservatives (not mere cultural conservatives but those who want to legislate morality) are just as bad as anti-freedom as economic marxists.

PS: OUTRIGHT LIBERTARIANS FTW

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 09:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_oUcmhS1TM

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 09:42 PM
I agree completely. But I would still say that the abortion issue is different then all of the other social issues, because it's a life and death issue. The government has a responsibility to protect innocent human life.

What if a libertarian doesn't care about abortion and hopes that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers go to an island awaiting a nice nuke?

Brett85
01-05-2011, 09:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_oUcmhS1TM

What the judge doesn't seem to realize is that the government is already involved in marriage. The pro gay marriage people are the ones who want to expand the government's role in marriage and create a bigger government.

Brett85
01-05-2011, 09:48 PM
What if a libertarian doesn't care about abortion and hopes that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers go to an island awaiting a nice nuke?

If you're pro choice or don't care about abortion then you should quit supporting Ron Paul. Ron Paul has always been a staunch supporter of the unborn. He also supported the Defense of Marriage Act, by the way. He could go round with the Judge on that one.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 09:51 PM
What the judge doesn't seem to realize is that the government is already involved in marriage. The race mixers are the ones who want to expand the government's role in marriage and create a bigger government.

fixed

speciallyblend
01-05-2011, 09:53 PM
If you're pro choice or don't care about abortion then you should quit supporting Ron Paul. Ron Paul has always been a staunch supporter of the unborn. He also supported the Defense of Marriage Act, by the way. He could go round with the Judge on that one.

i agree with ron paul on abortion but he loses me on the whole marriage thing! marriage should be between 2 individuals period no ones freaking business no matter what sex you are m or female or if your both sexes!! I still have not found one church or couple that has been forced to marry against their wills to same sex or opposite sex?? so im not sure why it is anyones business what others do!!

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 09:55 PM
If you're pro choice or don't care about abortion then you should quit supporting Ron Paul. Ron Paul has always been a staunch supporter of the unborn. He also supported the Defense of Marriage Act, by the way. He could go round with the Judge on that one.

I didn't say i was pro-choice, I said i didn't care.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 09:56 PM
i agree with ron paul on abortion but he loses me on the whole marriage thing! marriage should be between 2 individuals period no ones freaking business no matter what sex you are m or female or if your both sexes!! I still have not found one church or couple that has been forced to marry against their wills to same sex or opposite sex?? so im not sure why it is anyones business what others do!!

something you should see:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

Brett85
01-05-2011, 09:56 PM
I still have not found once church or couple that has been forced to marry against their wills?? so im not sure why it is anyones business what others do!!

Gay marriage is already legal. A gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony, and they won't get arrested for it. This isn't a criminal issue the way that drug use and prostitution is. It's simply an issue where gays are trying to get special rights by having the government recognize their marriage.

Anti Federalist
01-05-2011, 09:56 PM
Expand the base!*





*Except for muslims, *****, and libertarians.

How right you are:

Now look who else is infiltrating CPAC

WASHINGTON – Another headache has emerged for the largest annual gathering of conservatives slated for next month.

With the Conservative Political Action Conference under fire for allowing participation by a homosexual activist group called GOProud and for a financial scandal in which some $400,000 was misappropriated under the watch of current leadership, Frank Gaffney, a leader of the conservative movement for the last 30 years, charges that CPAC has come under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is working to bring America under Saudi-style Shariah law.

Gaffney, deputy assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and co-author of the new book "Shariah: The Threat to America." He told WND that Islamism has infiltrated the American Conservative Union, the host of CPAC, in the person of Washington attorney and political activist Suhail Khan and a group called Muslims for America.

Khan is a member of the ACU board and, according to Muslims for America, will assist the group's presence at CPAC during the 2011 meeting Feb. 10-12.



Read more: Now look who <i>else</i> is infiltrating CPAC http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=247341#ixzz1ADy3UFES

speciallyblend
01-05-2011, 09:59 PM
something you should see:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

i cannot see this on work puter so will have to view later!!

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 10:05 PM
How right you are:

Now look who else is infiltrating CPAC

WASHINGTON – Another headache has emerged for the largest annual gathering of conservatives slated for next month.

With the Conservative Political Action Conference under fire for allowing participation by a homosexual activist group called GOProud and for a financial scandal in which some $400,000 was misappropriated under the watch of current leadership, Frank Gaffney, a leader of the conservative movement for the last 30 years, charges that CPAC has come under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is working to bring America under Saudi-style Shariah law.

Gaffney, deputy assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and co-author of the new book "Shariah: The Threat to America." He told WND that Islamism has infiltrated the American Conservative Union, the host of CPAC, in the person of Washington attorney and political activist Suhail Khan and a group called Muslims for America.

Khan is a member of the ACU board and, according to Muslims for America, will assist the group's presence at CPAC during the 2011 meeting Feb. 10-12.



Read more: Now look who <i>else</i> is infiltrating CPAC http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=247341#ixzz1ADy3UFES

CPAC needs to become L(as in libertarian)PAC. Besides the Westboro Baptist Church is low on members.

Brett85
01-05-2011, 10:06 PM
something you should see:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

He didn't say a word about gay marriage in this interview. He actually said that he supported Don't Ask Don't Tell. He later changed his mind on that.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 10:07 PM
Interracial marriage is already legal. Race mixers can go have their own private marriage ceremony, and they won't get arrested for it. This isn't a criminal issue the way that drug use and prostitution is. It's simply an issue where race mixers are trying to get special rights by having the government recognize their marriage.

fixed

Brett85
01-05-2011, 10:07 PM
CPAC needs to become L(as in libertarian)PAC. Besides the Westboro Baptist Church is low on members.

CPAC seems to be libertarian leaning lately. Wouldn't it be possible for libertarians to set up their own PAC? Or do they already have something like that that just isn't publicized?

Brett85
01-05-2011, 10:09 PM
fixed

Race is a genetic trait that can't be changed. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is a genetic trait. You're comparing apples to oranges. The 14th amendment was never intended to apply to homosexuals. It was created as a response to slavery.

Liberty_Mike
01-05-2011, 10:12 PM
And the religous right is at it once again.. Sad to see in 2011 so much hate still exists towards homosexuals.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 10:12 PM
CPAC seems to be libertarian leaning lately. Wouldn't it be possible for libertarians to set up their own PAC? Or do they already have something like that that just isn't publicized?

Nahh, we need to take over CPAC completely. I love the idea of YAL members ganging up on Ryan Sorba and [cut out for the forum's reputation]. That's all his books are good for anyways.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 10:18 PM
Race is a genetic trait that can't be changed. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is a genetic trait. You're comparing apples to oranges. The 14th amendment was never intended to apply to homosexuals. It was created as a response to slavery.

Ehhh, then I guess a sizable portion of left-handed people and people with counter-clockwise hair choose to be gay because those traits are common among homosexuals, all three are related to birth order (more siblings the more likely).

If you say people chose to be gay, then that means you know why every single gay person is gay. I don't remember choosing to be gay, maybe you know when I chose to be a member of one of the most socially rejected and religiously hated groups in the world.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 10:19 PM
^

More OLDER siblings the more likely

Brett85
01-05-2011, 10:36 PM
Ehhh, then I guess a sizable portion of left-handed people and people with counter-clockwise hair choose to be gay because those traits are common among homosexuals, all three are related to birth order (more siblings the more likely).

If you say people chose to be gay, then that means you know why every single gay person is gay. I don't remember choosing to be gay, maybe you know when I chose to be a member of one of the most socially rejected and religiously hated groups in the world.

I didn't say that people choose to be gay. I don't claim to know the answer to that, but I was just pointing out that there's no scientific evidence that shows that it's a genetic trait. Either way, I'm simply saying that supporting government recognition of same sex marriage is not a libertarian position. The libertarian position is that all marriage laws should be abolished, and the government should have nothing to do with marriage. Didn't you say that you're an anarchist anyway?

AlexMerced
01-05-2011, 10:41 PM
I live my life fairly conservative, but social values are pretty damn liberal as I really don't think of things as good and evil but as smart or stupid. I avoid doing stupid things like drug use and overspending, but I think other people should be allowed to be stupid as long as their stupidity doesn't prevent someone else from being stupid.

Brett85
01-05-2011, 10:46 PM
This article explains what I'm talking about in regard to opposing government sponsored gay marriage. I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to have their own private marriage ceremony.
http://www.nationalbroadside.com/?p=1739


"What the article doesn’t specify is that the libertarian approach to the issue is to oppose “government sponsored” Gay Marriage. The distinction is hugely important."

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 10:50 PM
The libertarian position is that all marriage laws should be abolished, and the government should have nothing to do with marriage. Didn't you say that you're an anarchist anyway?

Of course that's the libertarian position and yes i'm an anarchist, but it's unlibertarian if laws treat individuals differently, so as long as government is involved it should treat everyone the same. I know it infringes upon certain church's right of association but that's what you get when government is involved in marriage. Besides interracial marriage infringes upon the religious freedom of Christian Identity (white supremacist) churches.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 10:51 PM
This article explains what I'm talking about in regard to opposing government sponsored gay marriage. I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to have their own private marriage ceremony.
http://www.nationalbroadside.com/?p=1739


"What the article doesn’t specify is that the libertarian approach to the issue is to oppose “government sponsored” Gay Marriage. The distinction is hugely important."

Got another article? Sorry but if I see the name Eric Dondero I have to turn away.

Brett85
01-05-2011, 10:53 PM
Got another article? Sorry but if I see the name Eric Dondero I have to turn away.

Lol. I don't know anything about him. It was just an article I found that talked about how some libertarians oppose "government sponsored" gay marriage.

amy31416
01-05-2011, 11:04 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SbqLWX6CpYA/Ru3d-5jNxsI/AAAAAAAAAS8/2yrfBFpLy0U/s400/dondero_stud.jpg

Don't worry TC, he's not gay (as it says), he's just a vile pro-war, anti-Paul (because he got fired by Paul) alleged libertarian...

He, like so many other "family values" folks, is an absolutely, 100% flaming heterosexual.

If you're against gays having state-recognized marriage with all the benefits that straight folks get, I hope you plan on forgoing a state marriage yourself, based on principle. That I can respect. Taking a benefit that is denied to others, based on choices that harm nobody else, is unethical.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:04 PM
Lol. I don't know anything about him. It was just an article I found that talked about how some libertarians oppose "government sponsored" gay marriage.

He's an ex-employee of Ron Paul. He was fired for being lazy and having bad hygiene. Now he trolls libertarian sites claiming non-interventionist libertarians (true libertarians) are socialists and that being a libertarian is the same as being a neocon. In 2007/2008 he went around claiming Rudy Giuliani was a libertarian (just because he's pro-choice and has an R next to his name). Now he goes around claiming that the vast majority of libertarians are Palin supporters as well as claiming that Palin is a libertarian.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:06 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SbqLWX6CpYA/Ru3d-5jNxsI/AAAAAAAAAS8/2yrfBFpLy0U/s400/dondero_stud.jpg

He just needs to trim his mustache a little and put on a nice black hat.

Bman
01-05-2011, 11:07 PM
Yes, we have to have laws against murder. If you want anarchy I would suggest moving to Somalia.

lol. What a bunch of bullshit. I think there are times someone should get the death penalty. I think there are times someone should be put in a barrel and kicked down the street. Now that I've been honest, pleas, please, please tell me. What type of punishment do you want to see for women who get abortions.

Thanks in advance since I'm not going to get an answer. At least I never have.

amy31416
01-05-2011, 11:08 PM
He just needs to trim his mustache a little and put on a nice black hat.

But then he'd just be a giant turd with a trimmed mustache and a black hat....nobody wants that!

Brett85
01-05-2011, 11:11 PM
lol. What a bunch of bullshit. I think there are times someone should get the death penalty. I think there are times someone should be put in a barrel and kicked down the street. Now that I've been honest, pleas, please, please tell me. What type of punishment do you want to see for women who get abortions.

Thanks in advance since I'm not going to get an answer. At least I never have.

There's already laws on the books against women killing their own babies. I wouldn't mess with those laws. I would add a law that makes it illegal for abortion doctors to kill the unborn. Considering that abortion doctors have committed mass murder and have killed more people then even serial killers, I would support the death penalty for abortionists.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:12 PM
But then he'd just be a giant turd with a trimmed mustache and a black hat....nobody wants that!

Not what I hand in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of another loud mouth with a mustache, except this loud mouth spoke German and had a small strip-like mustache.

Legend1104
01-05-2011, 11:13 PM
Of course that's the libertarian position and yes i'm an anarchist, but it's unlibertarian if laws treat individuals differently, so as long as government is involved it should treat everyone the same. I know it infringes upon certain church's right of association but that's what you get when government is involved in marriage. Besides interracial marriage infringes upon the religious freedom of Christian Identity (white supremacist) churches.

I personally am a Christian and do think that being gay is a sin, but that is beside the point. I understand your view and there is truth in that fact about the government treating each other the same, but that is the real problem. The government uses issues like gay marriage to divide people into little groups based on issues that they will never budge on. I would never accept gay marriage, and you probably would never accept the opposition of gay marriage on a personal level. That, in most peoples minds, would be the end all for supporting each others views. You and I would probably share a lot of our views about the role of government, but or religious and/or moral views are probably much different. I would never argue for gay marriage, but rather for ending government sponsored marriage. Voting for or opposing gay marriage keeps the divide up and continues their divide and conquer game, and it causes me to sacrifice my own personal beliefs. I would only support ending the teather that ties morality and government together. In the end ultimately the liberty side of me says that gay marriage should be held to the same standards as regular marriage and the Christian side of me is adamently opposed to it. It is not fair for the government to put it's people into such a situation as to have to choose between their morality and their other beliefs.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:17 PM
@Bman

Death penalty? Only fascist, communist and otherwise authoritarian governments have death penalties, and how can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

Bman
01-05-2011, 11:21 PM
@Bman

Death penalty? Only fascist, communist and otherwise authoritarian governments have death penalties, and how can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

Who the hell said I was pro-life?

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:22 PM
Who the hell said I was pro-life?

Sorry. Judging by your comment quoted by "Traditional Conservative" and his response I thought you were in the same boat as him.

Bman
01-05-2011, 11:23 PM
There's already laws on the books against women killing their own babies. I wouldn't mess with those laws. I would add a law that makes it illegal for abortion doctors to kill the unborn. Considering that abortion doctors have committed mass murder and have killed more people then even serial killers, I would support the death penalty for abortionists.

Thank you. I actually like your answer. Although I don't see how pro-life and death penalty ever walk hand in hand.

Sola_Fide
01-05-2011, 11:25 PM
Ehhh, then I guess a sizable portion of left-handed people and people with counter-clockwise hair choose to be gay because those traits are common among homosexuals, all three are related to birth order (more siblings the more likely).

If you say people chose to be gay, then that means you know why every single gay person is gay. I don't remember choosing to be gay, maybe you know when I chose to be a member of one of the most socially rejected and religiously hated groups in the world.


You have a government-centric mindset. Social rejection happens to every group of people, increasingly Christian people (actually, I don't know how you can make the case anymore that homosexuality is rejected in America).

If there were no government endorsement of marriage, then the argument of social rejection would exist purely in the free market of ideas (where it should be). Government involvement is the problem.

Brett85
01-05-2011, 11:25 PM
@Bman

Death penalty? Only fascist, communist and otherwise authoritarian governments have death penalties, and how can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

It has to do with the difference between innocence and guilt. The government has the duty to protect innocent babies that aren't capable of defending themselves. It also has the duty to establish justice, which means that people who brutally murder others have to pay a penalty for their crime. The penalty has to fit the crime, and the only penalty that would fit the crime in the case of murder is the death penalty.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:29 PM
It has to do with the difference between innocence and guilt. The government has the duty to protect innocent babies that aren't capable of defending themselves. It also has the duty to establish justice, which means that people who brutally murder others have to pay a penalty for their crime. The penalty has to fit the crime, and the only penalty that would fit the crime in the case of murder is the death penalty.

That had nothing to do with abortion. The thought of a government killing people sickens me. When I think of the death penalty I think of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

and again I don't care about abortion.

Bman
01-05-2011, 11:30 PM
It has to do with the difference between innocence and guilt. The government has the duty to protect innocent babies that aren't capable of defending themselves. It also has the duty to establish justice, which means that people who brutally murder others have to pay a penalty for their crime. The penalty has to fit the crime, and the only penalty that would fit the crime in the case of murder is the death penalty.

See the problem I see with this is that you are saying murder isn't justified, unless you think it is justified. I believe that is called a contradiction.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:33 PM
You have a government-centric mindset. Social rejection happens to every group of people, increasingly Christian people (actually, I don't know how you can make the case anymore that homosexuality is rejected in America).

If there were no government endorsement of marriage, then the argument of social rejection would exist purely in the free market of ideas (where it should be). Government involvement is the problem.

1. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. How the hell can I have a government-centric mindset if i'm an anarchist?

2. You totally failed to see my point on social rejection. I know social rejection will always exist. My point was why would I want to choose to be a part of one of the most socially rejected groups on the planet?

Brett85
01-05-2011, 11:35 PM
See the problem I see with this is that you are saying murder isn't justified, unless you think it is justified. I believe that is called a contradiction.

There's a difference between "murder" and "killing." Of course murder is wrong, but killing isn't always wrong. For example, if somebody comes into your house and tries to rob your belongings, you would have the legal right to kill that person. Killing would not be wrong in that situation. The death penalty is an example of killing, not murder. It's just an example of the penalty fitting the crime.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:39 PM
There's a difference between "murder" and "killing."

Uh oh thought crimes!

Brett85
01-05-2011, 11:42 PM
Uh oh thought crimes!

What do you mean by that?

Bman
01-05-2011, 11:44 PM
There's a difference between "murder" and "killing." Of course murder is wrong, but killing isn't always wrong. For example, if somebody comes into your house and tries to rob your belongings, you would have the legal right to kill that person. Killing would not be wrong in that situation. The death penalty is an example of killing, not murder. It's just an example of the penalty fitting the crime.

It's the whole pro-life mantra. I think you guys would be better served being called anti-abortion. Although I can't imagine to many people would consider themselves pro-abortion so I think that needs to be better described and that's where a real conversation can begin to at least reduce some abortions.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:45 PM
What do you mean by that?

Killing is killing. Killing should only be permitted in self-defense. What motivates killing shouldn't matter because otherwise it's a thought crime.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:47 PM
What motivates killing shouldn't matter because otherwise it's a thought crime.

Again unless it's self-defense.

Brett85
01-05-2011, 11:48 PM
Killing is killing unless it's in self-defense.

Killing is self defense or establishing justice. Murder is taking the life of an innocent human being by an act of aggression. Also, did you realize that Ron supported the death penalty up until three years ago? Rand still supports the death penalty as well.

cavalier973
01-05-2011, 11:49 PM
I have a hard time imagining most of those "values voters" are in any way economically conservative.

Ask them if they support social security and public education, see what answers you get.

Bryan Fischer on Obamacare: http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147500495
"Bottom line: the involuntary transfer of wealth is fundamentally immoral. The voluntary transfer of wealth, on the other hand, is noble and compassionate. Donald Berwick of involuntary transfer infamy is promoting a profoundly wrongheaded and un-American political philosophy, and deserves every last bit of grilling he might get today."

This is Bryan Fischer on Federal spending: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/080410 (he mainly quotes Walter Williams in this article)

And here is an American Family Association (the organization for which Fischer works) article on privatizing Social Security: http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147498350

I listen to AFR, and I've heard more references to Mises and Hayek there than I've heard on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Lars Larson COMBINED. I couldn't say for sure, but I bet Mises is discussed about as much on Crane Durham's show than he is on Free Talk Live. Crane usually has a couple of people from the CATO institute as guests on his show each week.

HazyHusky420
01-05-2011, 11:59 PM
Also, did you realize that Ron supported the death penalty up until three years ago? Rand still supports the death penalty as well.

*sighs* Yes I know that. The economy and foreign policy are my main concerns. As much as I disagree with Pat Pukecannon i'll take him over the war mongering Keynesian dynasty any day, and you know i'm not a Rand supporter so you just wasted bandwidth with that extra text.

HazyHusky420
01-06-2011, 12:05 AM
Bryan Fischer on Obamacare: http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147500495
"Bottom line: the involuntary transfer of wealth is fundamentally immoral. The voluntary transfer of wealth, on the other hand, is noble and compassionate. Donald Berwick of involuntary transfer infamy is promoting a profoundly wrongheaded and un-American political philosophy, and deserves every last bit of grilling he might get today."

This is Bryan Fischer on Federal spending: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/080410 (he mainly quotes Walter Williams in this article)

And here is an American Family Association (the organization for which Fischer works) article on privatizing Social Security: http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147498350

I listen to AFR, and I've heard more references to Mises and Hayek there than I've heard on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Lars Larson COMBINED. I couldn't say for sure, but I bet Mises is discussed about as much on Crane Durham's show than he is on Free Talk Live. Crane usually has a couple of people from the CATO institute as guests on his show each week.

Which would he vote for?

A. a pot smoking homosexual furry who's a strict adherent to the Austrian school

B. a fundamentalist evangelist with marxist economic views

i'm inclined to think he would choose candidate b

Brett85
01-06-2011, 12:06 AM
*sighs* Yes I know that. The economy and foreign policy are my main concerns. As much as I disagree with Pat Pukecannon i'll take him over the war mongering Keynesian dynasty any day, and you know i'm not a Rand supporter so you just wasted bandwidth with that extra text.

Yeah I know, but many people here still support Rand despite his socially conservative views. But we certainly agree that we should end the wars and the empire and bring our troops home. I'd also like to abolish about 80% of the federal government. I'm sure you want it to be 100%.

HazyHusky420
01-06-2011, 12:14 AM
Yeah I know, but many people here still support Rand despite his socially conservative views. But we certainly agree that we should end the wars and the empire and bring our troops home. I'd also like to abolish about 80% of the federal government. I'm sure you want it to be 100%.

My opposition to Rand isn't about his culturally conservative outlook it's about his views on foreign policy.

Sola_Fide
01-06-2011, 12:18 AM
My opposition to Rand isn't about his culturally conservative outlook it's about his views on foreign policy.

*facepalm*

HazyHusky420
01-06-2011, 12:19 AM
*facepalm*

because I don't like his hawkish attitude towards Iran or his views on gitmo both of which contradict his father's?

Brett85
01-06-2011, 09:15 AM
because I don't like his hawkish attitude towards Iran or his views on gitmo both of which contradict his father's?

I think at the end of the day Rand will vote against going to war with Iran, will vote against any war funding bill that adds to the deficit, will support rolling back the empire, etc. I think he just uses hawkish rhetoric to appeal to neocons when he goes on their shows.

jmdrake
01-06-2011, 09:53 AM
Don't worry TC, he's not gay (as it says), he's just a vile pro-war, anti-Paul (because he got fired by Paul) alleged libertarian...

He, like so many other "family values" folks, is an absolutely, 100% flaming heterosexual.

If you're against gays having state-recognized marriage with all the benefits that straight folks get, I hope you plan on forgoing a state marriage yourself, based on principle. That I can respect. Taking a benefit that is denied to others, based on choices that harm nobody else, is unethical.

Well, I agree with Ron Paul on this. It's a state issue and it's best to keep the federal government as far away from marriage as possible.

That said, the best way to disentangle this is to reduce the current federal footprint on marriage. The “Let's give marriage to gays” or “let's get rid of marriage” arguments are false choices IMO. Here are a few ways to move forward.

1) Get rid of the marriage tax penalty / benefit. The best way to do this would be to get rid of the income tax. Barring that, any two (or more?) adult wage earners sharing living expenses should be able to choose to file jointly. It shouldn't matter if they are romantically involved or not. Let's take the TV show “Will and Grace” as an example. It's a gay man with a straight woman roommate. Would their income and expenses really change that much if Will had an epiphany, realized he really wasn't gay and started sleeping with Grace? Forget for a moment if that could really happen (it is a fictional TV show after all). My point is that from an accounting standpoint it matters not economically whether two people living under the same roof sleep in the same bed.

2) Give the health insurance tax benefit to the individual instead of the employer. Imagine if every individual could deduct the cost of health insurance dollar for dollar. Then instead of employers offering “Cadillac” insurance plans, employers would simply offer more money. Under this system employees could shop for the plan that best suits them the way people now shop for car insurance. Under those circumstances I'm certain that all sorts of insurance companies would pop up that offered benefits for gay partners. That would also solve the “portability” problem once and for all. After all you don't lose your car insurance when you change jobs. Preexisting conditions? With enough people with preexisting conditions able to directly shop for insurance rather than having to go through their employers that problem would be instantly solved too. Oh, and there would probably be some plan that would naturally evolve to let parents cover their adults kids if they were willing to pay the additional fee.

3) Offer a standard form contract to everyone that sets all of the default conditions people normally associate with marriage such as inheritance, joint property, durable power of attorney etc. 99% of the time when you hear of “horror stories” where some gay partners “rights” were violated, it's because they didn't take the responsibility to take easy steps to legally define their status. So to end this confusion, the government can just offer the contract for free. The government shouldn't have to do that. People could easily do that on their own. But, sadly, many don't. So make it as easy as possible for people to take what should be an obvious step.

Do these three things and all of a sudden “gay marriage” isn't that big of a deal anyway.

jmdrake
01-06-2011, 09:57 AM
because I don't like his hawkish attitude towards Iran or his views on gitmo both of which contradict his father's?

Rand took a strategic step to get past the KY GOP primary. With regards to Gitmo it really doesn't matter where these men are held, just that they are treated fairly. And most people don't know this (including some law professors), but in some ways defendants get more rights in a military tribunal than in a civilian court. For instance in a military tribunal defendants are not allowed to plead guilty to a capital crime. You may ask why that's helpful to defendants? Well it means nobody can be coerced into "voluntarily" accepting the death penalty. That's why the Obama administration was so sure they could convict KSM in a civilian trial. He was ready to plead guilty. In a military tribunal they could still lose the case. (Which is why the Obama administration has now announced that they aren't going to try to try him at all.)

Pericles
01-06-2011, 10:14 AM
Well, I agree with Ron Paul on this. It's a state issue and it's best to keep the federal government as far away from marriage as possible.

That said, the best way to disentangle this is to reduce the current federal footprint on marriage. The “Let's give marriage to gays” or “let's get rid of marriage” arguments are false choices IMO. Here are a few ways to move forward.

1) Get rid of the marriage tax penalty / benefit. The best way to do this would be to get rid of the income tax. Barring that, any two (or more?) adult wage earners sharing living expenses should be able to choose to file jointly. It shouldn't matter if they are romantically involved or not. Let's take the TV show “Will and Grace” as an example. It's a gay man with a straight woman roommate. Would their income and expenses really change that much if Will had an epiphany, realized he really wasn't gay and started sleeping with Grace? Forget for a moment if that could really happen (it is a fictional TV show after all). My point is that from an accounting standpoint it matters not economically whether two people living under the same roof sleep in the same bed.

2) Give the health insurance tax benefit to the individual instead of the employer. Imagine if every individual could deduct the cost of health insurance dollar for dollar. Then instead of employers offering “Cadillac” insurance plans, employers would simply offer more money. Under this system employees could shop for the plan that best suits them the way people now shop for car insurance. Under those circumstances I'm certain that all sorts of insurance companies would pop up that offered benefits for gay partners. That would also solve the “portability” problem once and for all. After all you don't lose your car insurance when you change jobs. Preexisting conditions? With enough people with preexisting conditions able to directly shop for insurance rather than having to go through their employers that problem would be instantly solved too. Oh, and there would probably be some plan that would naturally evolve to let parents cover their adults kids if they were willing to pay the additional fee.

3) Offer a standard form contract to everyone that sets all of the default conditions people normally associate with marriage such as inheritance, joint property, durable power of attorney etc. 99% of the time when you hear of “horror stories” where some gay partners “rights” were violated, it's because they didn't take the responsibility to take easy steps to legally define their status. So to end this confusion, the government can just offer the contract for free. The government shouldn't have to do that. People could easily do that on their own. But, sadly, many don't. So make it as easy as possible for people to take what should be an obvious step.

Do these three things and all of a sudden “gay marriage” isn't that big of a deal anyway.
You make too much sense.

Laws = willingness to let a government entity use force. Liberty means keeping the number of those laws to the absolute minimum. Every law should balance the need for force against the loss of liberty. When the natural rights of a person are violated, then there is a good case for some law to be made (murder, theft) with a proportionate punishment.

Laws can not force people to be good - that is the job of religion, to promote moral and ethical behavior. Freedom means that not every bad deed will be punished by the state. To use the power of government to try to force people to be good will not prevent evil, and will lead to the loss of liberty.

Values voters of the right, left, Christian, Muslim, etc. really need to understand this. Some do understand this, and are perfectly happy to have a dictatorship, as long as they are in charge. The real measure of commitment to liberty is whether one believes in liberty for others in addition to one's self.

JoshLowry
01-06-2011, 10:26 AM
Nahh, we need to take over CPAC completely. I love the idea of YAL members ganging up on Ryan Sorba and sodomizing him with copies of his own books. That's all his books are good for anyways.

This is over the top and is in violation of our forum guidelines.

People who post like this do not last here.

Please tone it down for our guests and younger members immediately.

Thanks.

cavalier973
01-06-2011, 12:00 PM
Which would he vote for?

A. a pot smoking homosexual furry who's a strict adherent to the Austrian school

B. a fundamentalist evangelist with marxist economic views

i'm inclined to think he would choose candidate b

Or C. Write in a candidate's name/sit out the election/run for office himself/move to another state.

I guess you would have a point if there weren't so many people who run for office who believe more or less the same as Bryan Fischer. I doubt it will ever come down to the two choices you hypothesize. The point is that most of those in the conservative evangelical fundamentalist Christian sphere are pro-market to some extent. If they are not Misesians at present, it is probably because they have never been introduced to the Austrian theories, because the ABCT is more compatible with Christian theology than the Chicago school is.

Brian4Liberty
01-06-2011, 01:52 PM
This thread is starting to smell...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LXxSHtFuqSo/TFe5yKgzbAI/AAAAAAAAANw/3HtNLHPCYo4/s1600/RedHerring.jpg

cayton
01-06-2011, 01:54 PM
I went to CPAC last year (first time) and had no idea who or what gopproud was, and had never heard of them.

Some young guy got on the main stage and during his speech; tried to pick a fight with the CFL group, and basically said he condemned CPAC for bringing these people in. He used some very harsh and intolerant words. I was surprised at seeing that in such a forum.

Later I went over and talked to gopproud and talked to them, they said it was a net positive for them because of so many people learning who they are and what they are about, and telling them that the views the GOP gets a "name" for are not the real views of everyone.

Overall, everyone I met from the group was very professional and realistic about what they hoped to achieve. I'm personally glad they are bringing these people in in favor of social conservatives.

jmdrake
01-06-2011, 02:25 PM
Interracial marriage is already legal. Race mixers can go have their own private marriage ceremony, and they won't get arrested for it. This isn't a criminal issue the way that drug use and prostitution is. It's simply an issue where race mixers are trying to get special rights by having the government recognize their marriage.
fixed

Actually when interracial marriage was illegal there were criminal penalties. So even assuming that sexuality is a "fixed trait" (and there's no scientific evidence that it is) you're still making an apples and orangutans comparison. Now polygamists, unlikes gays, can be arrested even for having a private wedding ceremony with no government involvement. That's freedom for ya. Anyway, disentangle the government from marriage and the whole issue goes away.

K466
01-06-2011, 02:29 PM
We just need to get the message out that we are not pro-gay or anti-gay when it comes to politics. Liberty is neutral.

That makes wedge issues- like this one- a non-issue, which seems like a great way to expand the voter base.

TheTyke
01-06-2011, 02:34 PM
We just need to get the message out that we are not pro-gay or anti-gay when it comes to politics. Liberty is neutral.

That makes wedge issues- like this one- a non-issue, which seems like a great way to expand the voter base.

Quoted for agreement. This isn't our fight, and it only serves other interests to involve us.

HazyHusky420
01-06-2011, 02:48 PM
This is over the top and is in violation of our forum guidelines.

People who post like this do not last here.

Please tone it down for our guests and younger members immediately.

Thanks.

I tried looking at the faq and I can't find any specifics. Assuming you're a mod you could probably tell me what they are. I never spell out profanity and try to modify any "offensive" words so it can't be said I said that word (like sh1t instead of something else). I personally don't see the harm in FANTASIZING of harming an opponent of libertarians. It's not like i'm saying i'm going to kill somebody like some guy on InfoWars did, but whatever.

HazyHusky420
01-06-2011, 02:52 PM
I went to CPAC last year (first time) and had no idea who or what gopproud was, and had never heard of them.

Some young guy got on the main stage and during his speech; tried to pick a fight with the CFL group, and basically said he condemned CPAC for bringing these people in. He used some very harsh and intolerant words. I was surprised at seeing that in such a forum.

Later I went over and talked to gopproud and talked to them, they said it was a net positive for them because of so many people learning who they are and what they are about, and telling them that the views the GOP gets a "name" for are not the real views of everyone.

Overall, everyone I met from the group was very professional and realistic about what they hoped to achieve. I'm personally glad they are bringing these people in in favor of social conservatives.

Ryan Sorba. Fanatical authoritarian statist. Accused libertarians of "working for the left" (like that hasn't been said before). Loved by the nazis at "FreeRepublic" (how can a nazi site have such a libertarian name?) Some say the initial booer was Mike Shanklin. He posts alot of good YouTube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/mikeshanklin

Sola_Fide
01-06-2011, 02:58 PM
I tried looking at the faq and I can't find any specifics. Assuming you're a mod you could probably tell me what they are. I never spell out profanity and try to modify any "offensive" words so it can't be said I said that word (like sh1t instead of something else). I personally don't see the harm in FANTASIZING of harming an opponent of libertarians. It's not like i'm saying i'm going to kill somebody like some guy on InfoWars did, but whatever.

He said tone it down. Can you do that? It's possible for you to use some rational arguments that don't include rape and sodomy, right?

Quit being an ass...you know what he means.

JoshLowry
01-06-2011, 03:01 PM
I tried looking at the faq and I can't find any specifics. Assuming you're a mod you could probably tell me what they are. I never spell out profanity and try to modify any "offensive" words so it can't be said I said that word (like sh1t instead of something else). I personally don't see the harm in FANTASIZING of harming an opponent of libertarians. It's not like i'm saying i'm going to kill somebody like some guy on InfoWars did, but whatever.

Forum guidelines: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

I don't really mind profanity if it is used in expressing emotion.

Your words represent this forum. Please represent it well.

HazyHusky420
01-06-2011, 03:09 PM
Forum guidelines: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

I don't really mind profanity if it is used in expressing emotion.

Your words represent this forum. Please represent it well.

Thank you sir. I will tone it down from here on out. I'll even gut a recent post I made just for the sake of image.