Fascist wins Trump's Miss USA

[cindy25]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/16/2011-01-16_teresa_scanlan_wins_miss_america_2011_miss_nebr aska_slams_wikileaks_during_pagea.html?r=news

"You know when it came to that situation, it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation, we have to focus on security first and then people's right to know, because it's so important that everybody who's in our borders is safe and so we can't let things like that happen, and they must be handled properly," she said.

[olehounddog]

Pitiful just pitiful.

[Chester Copperpot]

beauty pageant winners are nice to look at but arent picked because of their brains...they aint too bright

same could be said of sara palin

[Cowlesy]

She's seventeen years old. Plenty of time to change her mind.

[Brett85]

I thought it was a good answer even though I disagree with her. I didn't figure she would even have any idea what "Wikileaks" was all about. At least she's actually informed on current events.

[pcosmar]

reminds me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

[doodle]

If notorious neocon Trump is behind this "competition", not surprising.

[forsmant]

She is a 17 year old blond girl from the panhandle of Nebraska. Her opinion is inconsequential.

[Fozz]

She's probably a dumb homophobe just like Carrie Prejean.

[jmdrake]

She's probably a dumb homophobe just like Carrie Prejean.

It's "dumb" for call Carrie Prejean a homophobe for simply saying that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. She went so far as to endorse personal choice on the matter, but stated what hers was. Ron Paul, who supports DOMA, apparently believes with Carrie. Again here's what Carrie said.

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

And here's what Ron Paul had to say on the issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

In conclusion, Mr. Prejean's comments that people can choose to marry opposite sex, or same sex, but from her PERSONAL view marriage should be between a man and a woman is 100% in line with Ron Paul's political beliefs and values. To call that being a "homophobe" is ridiculous. Homophobes are people like the members of Westboro Baptist who believe America is being "punished" for allowing gays to exist.

[jmdrake]

She's seventeen years old. Plenty of time to change her mind.

Good point! And I think sometimes people here communicate with like minded people such much that the mistake the word "misguided" for the word "stupid". Case in point we talked about WikiLeaks last semester in my Foreign Affairs law class. Everybody but me who spoke up was looking at ways to prosecute Julian Assange. In fact that's the way the professor, who generally leans left, posed the question. Of course the Mitt Romney clone* (who asked for this to be discussed) was all about how Assange should be treated as an enemy of the state. But the liberals in the class who usually argued against RomneyWannabe argued the same way. I brought up that there was no reports of any lives lost over the information. (Romney Jr. grudgingly admitted that none of the leaks were "top secret"). The professor agreed but added "But what about the damage done to our ability to conduct diplomacy"? To that I replied "This country is in a worse situation when some things are kept secret that shouldn't have been secret. For example do you think it should have been kept secret that Hillary Clinton was spying on the U.N. and stealing credit card numbers?" Here's the kicker...THE PROFESSOR HADN'T EVEN HEARD THAT STORY! After hearing it from me she added "Well I see your point. There is a cost to some information being kept secret and that has to be balanced against the cost other information being released."

So why am I telling this story? Because if law students and a professor at a top tier law school from both sides of the political spectrum can see the obvious truth about WikiLeaks, what the hell does everybody expect from some 17 year old beauty queen?

*The Mitt Romney wannabe I was talking about has a Romney like hair style, looks kind of like Romney, worked in Romney's campaign and already has connections on capital hill prior to graduation. And he's 100% statist. In that same class he said that he thought John Yoo (author of the torture memos) should be given the nations highest honor for "protecting America". Very smart people can say some very dumbass things.

[Brian4Liberty]

She has a guaranteed job at Fox News in her future...

[Brett85]

It's "dumb" for call Carrie Prejean a homophobe for simply saying that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. She went so far as to endorse personal choice on the matter, but stated what hers was. Ron Paul, who supports DOMA, apparently believes with Carrie. Again here's what Carrie said.

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

And here's what Ron Paul had to say on the issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

In conclusion, Mr. Prejean's comments that people can choose to marry opposite sex, or same sex, but from her PERSONAL view marriage should be between a man and a woman is 100% in line with Ron Paul's political beliefs and values. To call that being a "homophobe" is ridiculous. Homophobes are people like the members of Westboro Baptist who believe America is being "punished" for allowing gays to exist.

+rep.

[cindy25]

She is a 17 year old blond girl from the panhandle of Nebraska. Her opinion is inconsequential.

her opinion by itself means nothing, but she won a contest run by a presidential candidate, and Trump is as much a candidate as Romney, Huck, Paul or Palin.

[jmdrake]

her opinion by itself means nothing, but she won a contest run by a presidential candidate, and Trump is as much a candidate as Romney, Huck, Paul or Palin.

Did Trump have a "trump" over the judges voting? Anyway I'd bet a dime to a dollar that everyone you listed besides Dr. Paul feels the same way or worse than she does about WikiLeaks. Lots of people either don't understand the issue, don't care or are just plain on the wrong side.

[leipo]

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/01/17/alg_miss_america-split.jpg

Ehh, not impressed. Her body looks rather masculine.

[Fozz]

It's "dumb" for call Carrie Prejean a homophobe for simply saying that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. She went so far as to endorse personal choice on the matter, but stated what hers was. Ron Paul, who supports DOMA, apparently believes with Carrie. Again here's what Carrie said.


Please don't lecture me on this. I know that opposing gay marriage doesn't make someone a homophobe. Have you read Carrie Prejean's book? She says that homosexuality is morally wrong and thinks "homophobia" is an illegitimate label. Sounds like a homophobe to me.

And she's dumb because she thinks Sarah Palin is thoughtful and intelligent :rolleyes:

[oyarde]

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/01/17/alg_miss_america-split.jpg

Ehh, not impressed. Her body looks rather masculine.

masculine ?

[jmdrake]

Please don't lecture me on this. I know that opposing gay marriage doesn't make someone a homophobe. Have you read Carrie Prejean's book? She says that homosexuality is morally wrong and thinks "homophobia" is an illegitimate label. Sounds like a homophobe to me.

And she's dumb because she thinks Sarah Palin is thoughtful and intelligent :rolleyes:

Thinking that homosexuality is morally wrong doesn't make you a "homophobe" either. For you to imply that is proof positive that homophobia is indeed an illegitimate label. Not everyone who disagrees with a particular lifestyle is "afraid" of it. I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that Ron Paul, southern Baptist that he is, does not morally agree with homosexuality. But he doesn't want to force his morality down other people's throats. It's a shame that the pro gay crowd now seems intent on forcing their idea of morality down other people's throats.

[Anti Federalist]

Thinking that homosexuality is morally wrong doesn't make you a "homophobe" either. For you to imply that is proof positive that homophobia is indeed an illegitimate label. Not everyone who disagrees with a particular lifestyle is "afraid" of it. I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that Ron Paul, southern Baptist that he is, does not morally agree with homosexuality. But he doesn't want to force his morality down other people's throats. It's a shame that the pro gay crowd now seems intent on forcing their idea of morality down other people's throats.

I'm sure you didn't mean to do it, but you just painted a pretty shocking mental image.

Lulz

[specialK]

I'm sure you didn't mean to do it, but you just painted a pretty shocking mental image.

Lulz

A Freudian slip, if there ever was one. :-)

[jmdrake]

I'm sure you didn't mean to do it, but you just painted a pretty shocking mental image.

Lulz

http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/63650e56_138e_f50a.jpg

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/6/3/129200907046461388.jpg

[MRK]

She is a 17 year old blond girl from the panhandle of Nebraska. Her opinion is inconsequential.

Unfortunately her opinion represents that of a larger segment of society that shares similar views and will be voting in the next primaries and general election.

[BlackTerrel]

It's "dumb" for call Carrie Prejean a homophobe for simply saying that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. She went so far as to endorse personal choice on the matter, but stated what hers was. Ron Paul, who supports DOMA, apparently believes with Carrie. Again here's what Carrie said.

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

And here's what Ron Paul had to say on the issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

In conclusion, Mr. Prejean's comments that people can choose to marry opposite sex, or same sex, but from her PERSONAL view marriage should be between a man and a woman is 100% in line with Ron Paul's political beliefs and values. To call that being a "homophobe" is ridiculous. Homophobes are people like the members of Westboro Baptist who believe America is being "punished" for allowing gays to exist.

Well said.

[jmdrake]

Unfortunately her opinion represents that of a larger segment of society that shares similar views and will be voting in the next primaries and general election.

Yeah. That just means we have our work cut out for us. But we should have already known that. How many of us have "WikiLeaks" talking points down pat? And it will be an issue since Ron Paul went on record defending Assange. (Good for Dr. Paul!) My #1 talking point is this. "One of the secrets let out from Cablegate is that a U.S. defense contractor was paying to facilitate little boys being raped in Afghanistan. Do you really think our national security is enhanced by keeping crimes like this swept under the rug?"

[Pauls' Revere]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/16/2011-01-16_teresa_scanlan_wins_miss_america_2011_miss_nebr aska_slams_wikileaks_during_pagea.html?r=news

"You know when it came to that situation, it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation, we have to focus on security first and then people's right to know, because it's so important that everybody who's in our borders is safe and so we can't let things like that happen, and they must be handled properly," she said.

Yeah, I watched it and wondered if she put any thought into it all. i.e. How are people to have the right to know if the security is so dam tight as to restrict people in thier right to know? or worse, security over media (state run media) that were all feed endless streams of misinformation?

[Pauls' Revere]

She's seventeen years old. Plenty of time to change her mind.

Yes, but in the meantime she travels the world and the country as a goodwill ambassador of sorts...

[jmdrake]

Yeah, I watched it and wondered if she put any thought into it all. i.e. How are people to have the right to know if the security is so dam tight as to restrict people in thier right to know? or worse, security over media (state run media) that were all feed endless streams of misinformation?

As a friend of mine told me today "People don't think. They react." That said, the statist defense for her position would likely be "The people's right to know is important, but it should be done through the proper channels like through a FOIA request." The rebuttal to that is "If you don't know what's there, you don't know what to ask for" coupled with "giving the government absolute power to deny FOIA requests for national security reasons is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse."

[puppetmaster]

Thinking that homosexuality is morally wrong doesn't make you a "homophobe" either. For you to imply that is proof positive that homophobia is indeed an illegitimate label. Not everyone who disagrees with a particular lifestyle is "afraid" of it. I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that Ron Paul, southern Baptist that he is, does not morally agree with homosexuality. But he doesn't want to force his morality down other people's throats. It's a shame that the pro gay crowd now seems intent on forcing their idea of morality down other people's throats.

+rep

[cindy25]

Unfortunately her opinion represents that of a larger segment of society that shares similar views and will be voting in the next primaries and general election.

then how can we expect a Ron Paul primary win?

[Promontorium]

Ron Paul Forums Dictionary

Fascist: 307. Anyone who thinks active attempts to subvert US security to achieve global anarchy is a bad idea.

[jmdrake]

then how can we expect a Ron Paul primary win?

That's just it. We can't "expect" one. If we get a win it will be because we worked our butts off and convinced enough people that either Ron Paul's position on these issues is correct or that these issues aren't as important as the issues they uniquely agree with Dr. Paul on. It's a mistake to think that Ron Paul is the only one who needs to be running an "educational campaign". All of his supporters need to do the same.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

She's a fucking Beauty Pageant contestant. The likelihood that she's dumber than a fucking bag of hammers is pretty high. She's also an unfortunate victim of our system of indoctrination (aka education). As Cowsley said, there is plenty of time to (hopefully) change her outlook.

[HazyHusky420]

Thinking that homosexuality is morally wrong doesn't make you a "homophobe" either. For you to imply that is proof positive that homophobia is indeed an illegitimate label. Not everyone who disagrees with a particular lifestyle is "afraid" of it. I'd bet you a dime to a dollar that Ron Paul, southern Baptist that he is, does not morally agree with homosexuality. But he doesn't want to force his morality down other people's throats. It's a shame that the pro gay crowd now seems intent on forcing their idea of morality down other people's throats.


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

That video is one of my favorite weapons.

OUTRIGHT LIBERTARIANS FTW

[HazyHusky420]

It's a shame that the pro gay crowd now seems intent on forcing their idea of morality down other people's throats.

What do you think of the Outright Libertarians?

[HazyHusky420]

It's "dumb" for call David Duke a racist for simply saying that he believes marriage is between members of the same race.

fixed

[Brett85]

fixed

Not this ridiculous argument again.

[Zap!]

She's probably a dumb homophobe just like Carrie Prejean.

Just because you don't believe what MTV has forced on us does not make one a "homophobe."

[HazyHusky420]

Just because you don't believe what MTV has forced on us does not make one a "homophobe."

I'm gay yet I don't watch MTV. Please clarify things for this internet-centric low-life who rarely watches TV.

[oyarde]

I'm gay yet I don't watch MTV. Please clarify things for this internet-centric low-life who rarely watches TV.

I do not watch mtv , so , I dunno .

[Zap!]

I'm gay yet I don't watch MTV. Please clarify things for this internet-centric low-life who rarely watches TV.

Just because you have a different viewpoint doesn't make you a "homophobe." MTV is the one who pushed the "it's just another normal alternative lifestyle" BS, among many, many other counter-cultural opinions to brainwashed mindless youths. Not looking to offend you, what you do is certainly none of the government's business.

[HOLLYWOOD]

FASCIST WINS... Light Porn and Enhanced Cosmetic Commercials contest

That bra top is 3 cup sizes too big for her. Everything in this country has become POLITICALLY CORRECT


http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/01/17/alg_miss_america-split.jpg

Ehh, not impressed. Her body looks rather masculine.

[HazyHusky420]

Just because you have a different viewpoint doesn't make you a "homophobe." MTV is the one who pushed the "it's just another normal alternative lifestyle" BS, among many, many other counter-cultural opinions to brainwashed mindless youths. Not looking to offend you, what you do is certainly none of the government's business.

First off you did not offend me. You have to try very hard to offend me. Maybe cause me to raise an eyebrow, but not offended. Also a little confused. I didn't know the gay lifestyle included being a head banging pothead retro gamer with the upmost disregard for current fashion, because that's my lifestyle.

Anyways, I don't see what's wrong with things counter cultural. The 60s counterculture was what gave rise to the US Libertarian Party and the modern Libertarian movement in the west which largely started at anti-vietnam war rallies in the San Francisco bay area.

[Zap!]

First off you did not offend me. You have to try very hard to offend me. Maybe cause me to raise an eyebrow, but not offended. Also a little confused. I didn't know the gay lifestyle included being a head banging pothead retro gamer with the upmost disregard for current fashion, because that's my lifestyle.

Anyways, I don't see what's wrong with things counter cultural. The 60s counterculture was what gave rise to the US Libertarian Party and the modern Libertarian movement in the west which largely started at anti-vietnam war rallies in the San Francisco bay area.

From the looks of it, we probably agree on the majority of issues, I'm just very conservative socially, and mix that with more libertarian views on other issues. I am more of a Constitution Party follower than a libertarian.

And I too am a retro gamer, as you can tell by my sig. :)

[Freedom 4 all]

Ron Paul Forums Dictionary

Fascist: 307. Anyone who thinks active attempts to subvert US security to achieve global anarchy is a bad idea.

How in the hell do you make that leap? I am not an anarchist, I am a libertarian and I support democracy. Democracy of any kind requires NO secrets. Otherwise you don't know what it is you're voting for and the whole thing is a farce. There has never been a time in history where truth has damaged freedom.

[jmdrake]

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

That video is one of my favorite weapons.

OUTRIGHT LIBERTARIANS FTW

That's nice. This "outright libertarian" said he supported DOMA, would support a state version of DOMA to prevent Texas judges from overturning gay marriage, and said that while he thought sodomy laws were a "dumb idea" he still felt that the Supreme Court overturning state sodomy bans was wrong. Dress it up all you want. Selectively look at Dr. Paul not giving a straight (no pun intended) answer to a politically charged question on a talk show all you want. But when it comes down to actual votes, Ron Paul doesn't line up with the fake libertarians who don't believe in letting people have their own personal beliefs. You want to compare Prejean to David Duke? Go right ahead. Does David Duke think that interracial marriage should be legal but he's just "personally against it"? I don't think so. But if he does he's in line with a lot of people black and white who are not racist. Someday you should educate yourself about the difference between libertarianism and political correctness.

Once again Ron Paul's words.

If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Yeah. That really sounds like someone who would compare anyone who personally thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman as some kind of "racist" or "phobic". :rolleyes:

Seriously, if someone isn't going to restrict your freedom to do whatever the hell you want, why do you care what they think about it?

[Daamien]

The title of this tread is completely inaccurate. Miss America and Miss USA are two completely different (and competing) pageant organizations. These comments were made by Miss America. Donald Trump owns the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants.

Sure, it's an easy mistake to make (and I only know this because my friend works for the Miss USA organization), but at least get the basics right before jumping to conclusions regarding individuals and organizations.

[Promontorium]

How in the hell do you make that leap? I am not an anarchist, I am a libertarian and I support democracy. Democracy of any kind requires NO secrets. Otherwise you don't know what it is you're voting for and the whole thing is a farce. There has never been a time in history where truth has damaged freedom.

You sir, are not Wikileaks. So where do you make that leap? Or do you think Miss America was talking specifically about you?

Wikileaks wants to destroy nations for global anarchy.


Honesty, is not always telling the truth. A just man won't intentionally seek to tell villains how to harm the innocent.

Everyone has secrets. Many secrets should stay secrets. It is childish, and rather totalitarian (or fascist) of you to think all secrets should be brought to light.

Wikileaks makes no moral distinctions between a secret that should be revealed (like corruption) and one that should stay a secret (like your bank account number). Please, be the first person here to stop for 5 seconds and at least consider what Wikileaks is truly trying to achieve.

[jmdrake]

Excuse me, but what bank account numbers have Wikileaks leaked? They did leak that Hillary Clinton was stealing credit card numbers, but that is leaking about corruption no? They also leaked about a U.S. contractor using tax payer dollars to pay for little boys to be raped. Do you think that should have been kept secret? Oh and Assage claims that he asked the Obama administration to clear each leak before being published and they declined. If that's true then it's the governments fault if things other than corruption got leaked.


You sir, are not Wikileaks. So where do you make that leap? Or do you think Miss America was talking specifically about you?

Wikileaks wants to destroy nations for global anarchy.


Honesty, is not always telling the truth. A just man won't intentionally seek to tell villains how to harm the innocent.

Everyone has secrets. Many secrets should stay secrets. It is childish, and rather totalitarian (or fascist) of you to think all secrets should be brought to light.

Wikileaks makes no moral distinctions between a secret that should be revealed (like corruption) and one that should stay a secret (like your bank account number). Please, be the first person here to stop for 5 seconds and at least consider what Wikileaks is truly trying to achieve.

[Freedom 4 all]

You sir, are not Wikileaks. So where do you make that leap? Or do you think Miss America was talking specifically about you?

Wikileaks wants to destroy nations for global anarchy.


Honesty, is not always telling the truth. A just man won't intentionally seek to tell villains how to harm the innocent.

Everyone has secrets. Many secrets should stay secrets. It is childish, and rather totalitarian (or fascist) of you to think all secrets should be brought to light.

Wikileaks makes no moral distinctions between a secret that should be revealed (like corruption) and one that should stay a secret (like your bank account number). Please, be the first person here to stop for 5 seconds and at least consider what Wikileaks is truly trying to achieve.

I'm not saying we should let Al Queda have our nuclear arming codes or anything like that, but from my understanding that's not what wikileaks is about. Can you point out a leak that actually damaged security in any way? From what I could tell it was all either a) international embarrasment or b) whistleblowing corruption. The former I could care less about but the latter absolutely must come to light.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I'll just try to steer this thread back on topic by commenting that I cannot believe this girl is seventeen. She honestly looks like she's in her thirties. Not good.

[libertarian4321]

She is a 17 year old blond girl from the panhandle of Nebraska. Her opinion is inconsequential.

Careful.

Little air-heads small towns can grow up to be big air-heads with power:

http://thetruthwins.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Sarah-Palin-150x150.jpg

[HazyHusky420]

That's nice. This "outright libertarian" said he supported DOMA

You have obviously never heard of Outright Libertarians.


who don't believe in letting people have their own personal beliefs.

I never understood why people accuse others of being against their right to free speech just because they disagree. Sure people can believe what they want, but that also means I can bash those beliefs with a cartoonishly large metaphorical mallet =P


Does David Duke think that interracial marriage should be legal but he's just "personally against it"? I don't think so.

He believes in government funded press and trade regulations so I wouldn't be surprised.


Someday you should educate yourself about the difference between libertarianism and political correctness.

I laugh when i'm accused of being politically correct. I happen to be extremely profane. So profane I even got a warning for it. Just because I don't like dehumanization and collectivism does not mean i'm "politically correct".

[Promontorium]

You are a fascinating creature jmdrake. Completely cool with violating government security. And anti-gay. My problem with Wikileaks is that they have no respect for anyone. This isn't a law issue, but neither was the question to Miss America. It is a moral assessment. I do not magically become a "neocon" or a fascist because I think Wikileaks is run by douchebags.

Would your ideal constitution consist of minarchism with the only exception being that homosexuals be executed? Science is not a philosophy. Sexuality is not a lifestyle. It is genetic. You seriously need to get educated.

And you are grasping at straws trying to figure me out politically when I have it painted over 1,000 posts?

[jmdrake]

You are a fascinating creature jmdrake. Completely cool with violating government security. And anti-gay. My problem with Wikileaks is that they have no respect for anyone. This isn't a law issue, but neither was the question to Miss America. It is a moral assessment. I do not magically become a "neocon" or a fascist because I think Wikileaks is run by douchebags.


You are a fascinating creature Promontorium. You claim to be pro freedom, yet you don't want others to have the freedom to have express a different view on homosexuality than the one you have even if they aren't going to force that view on others. Your statist view on being against "anti gay" thought crimes completely jives with your statist view on Wikileaks. You'd make a great socialist. Oh, and as for Wikileaks "not having respect for anyone" What part of Assange asked the Obama administration to screen the leaks beforehand do you not understand?



Would your ideal constitution consist of minarchism with the only exception being that homosexuals be executed? Science is not a philosophy. Sexuality is not a lifestyle. It is genetic. You seriously need to get educated.


Saying that someone who personally does not approve of gay marriage but is ok with gays having the right to marry isn't a homophobe is not the same as saying homosexuals should be executed. For you to make such a ridiculous leap only proves how weak your whole argument is. Oh and I suppose you didn't get the memo from the American Psychological Association, but they have rejected the theory that sexuality is strictly genetic. What you are engaging in is what is known in legal circles as "trans-science". In other words twisting science to fit a political viewpoint.

Read this from the APA's own website.

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Now, just about ANY behavior is a "complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. There has been no "gay gene" found.



And you are grasping at straws trying to figure me out politically when I have it painted over 1,000 posts?

LOLZ. No. You are grasping at straws for falsely claiming that I want gays executed. That would be Theocrat. I totally disagree with his position and have said so publicly. But calling someone a "homophobe" just because they still believe in the traditional form of marriage is just plain stupid. If someone thinks marriage shouldn't extent to more than two people are they "polygaphobes" even if they don't agree with polygamy being criminalized?

Oh, and how do you rationalize supporting a presidential candidate who is on record saying that he not only thinks states should be exempt from the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution when it comes to gay marriage, but he also things that state judges should be able to "force a new definition of marriage" on the people of Texas? If Ron Paul had his way the only way gay marriage would ever be legal in Texas is if either the state legislature passed it or the voters passed it. That's not likely to happen in the lifetime of anybody reading this forum. You want to hate on me but from a law point of view Ron Paul is harder on gays than I am. And I sincerely doubt that Ron Paul would call all of these voters in Texas that he's trying to "protect" from "rogue judges" homophobes. Ron Paul also thinks that Lawrence v. Texas was the wrong decision. Sure he said sodomy laws were stupid, but he was against the federal government stopping states from having such laws. I disagree. Some things are fundamental rights and the states shouldn't be able to interfere. While I believe in states rights I'm not a states rights purist. But blocking state judges from "imposing a new definition of marriage" isn't even a states rights position. I don't know if he would try to block state judges from barring sodomy laws. (I hope not).

[jmdrake]

You have obviously never heard of Outright Libertarians.

That would be true. I assumed you meant "real libertarians". What does it mean then? Gay libertarians? Gay rights libertarians?

Anyway, I'll ask you the same question I asked Promotorium. How do you rationalize supporting a presidential candidate who is on record saying that he not only thinks states should be exempt from the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution when it comes to gay marriage, but he also things that state judges should be able to "force a new definition of marriage" on the people of Texas? If Ron Paul had his way the only way gay marriage would ever be legal in Texas is if either the state legislature passed it or the voters passed it. That's not likely to happen in the lifetime of anybody reading this forum. You want to hate on me but from a law point of view Ron Paul is harder on gays than I am. And I sincerely doubt that Ron Paul would call all of these voters in Texas that he's trying to "protect" from "rogue judges" homophobes. Ron Paul also thinks that Lawrence v. Texas was the wrong decision. Sure he said sodomy laws were stupid, but he was against the federal government stopping states from having such laws. I disagree. Some things are fundamental rights and the states shouldn't be able to interfere. While I believe in states rights I'm not a states rights purist. But blocking state judges from "imposing a new definition of marriage" isn't even a states rights position. I don't know if he would try to block state judges from barring sodomy laws. (I hope not).

Oh, and you can "bash other people's opinions" all you want. Just be honest about it. Calling someone who simply disagrees with gay marriage on a person level a "homophobe" is dishonest. The word "phobia" means fear. You can disagree with something without being afraid of it, wanting it illegal, wanting to see the people who engage in it "executed" or whatever. (And I know you didn't make the "execution" accusation. That would be Promontorium. But that just shows the danger in such careless use of the English language).

[jmdrake]

I'm not saying we should let Al Queda have our nuclear arming codes or anything like that, but from my understanding that's not what wikileaks is about. Can you point out a leak that actually damaged security in any way? From what I could tell it was all either a) international embarrasment or b) whistleblowing corruption. The former I could care less about but the latter absolutely must come to light.

He can't because nothing that was leaked was top secret. It was all just "secret". Your assessment of the leaks are 100% accurate. The only way someone can make a "national security" claim is by taking the "If foreign diplomats realize that we can't keep secrets then they will be less likely to tell our ambassadors that they think Amadinejad is a doo doo head" argument. Yeah, and maybe they'll be careful not to leave their credit cards around where Hillary Clinton can steal the information.