[QUOTE=MercZ;32000112]"Sodomy" was still illegal in some states up until 2003 when a Supreme Court ruling ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas]Lawrence V. Texas[/url] made the laws unconstitutional. However some states still continue to have laws that basically see 'homosexual' activities as illegal, and the Texas GOP for that matter has as part of their platform support for making sodomy illegal and other things they feel tie into homosexuality. [/QUOTE]
insert joke about republicans all being repressed homosexuals. Just fuck right off you tossers, go back to church and leave everyone alone
[QUOTE=TBFundy;31996915]i don't know if we have the same view of civil rights considering it seems like you think sexting and underage sex is fine[/QUOTE]
Yeah, lets restrict normal human actions, not like that doesn't make sense or anything. No siree
[editline]29th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31998561]Voting for parties is restricting. Voting for individuals is liberating.[/QUOTE]
Parties are likeminded indivduals. Take your 18th century shit out of here.
I'll be surprised if he replies.
Underage sex is fine as long as a condom or birth control is used, punishing the kids for being humans and acting on human instinct is bullshit. However, sexting is a little more dangerous because nude pictures tend to circulate pretty fast to lots of different people. In the end it could result in self-harm or negative attitudes for everyone because of the fact they have had their body taken advantage of and shown to hundreds of people.
[QUOTE=amute;32000615]
Parties are likeminded indivduals. Take your 18th century shit out of here.[/QUOTE]
Are you claiming Ron Paul is like the rest of the Republicans? Dislike him if you will, but he is not likeminded to the rest.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;32002926]Are you claiming Ron Paul is like the rest of the Republicans? Dislike him if you will, but he is not likeminded to the rest.[/QUOTE]
On economic and military matters I'd say he is set apart from the GOP but with social issues? Standard Republican through and through
[QUOTE=Roanapur;32003585]On economic and military matters I'd say he is set apart from the GOP but with social issues? Standard Republican through and through[/QUOTE]
On social issues, he keeps whatever personal thoughts out of his politics in order for state's rights to go through. He may be a Christian and such but he doesn't let those effect his politics unlike other GOP candidates who would turn the United States into a Christian theocracy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;32003785]On social issues, he keeps whatever personal thoughts out of his politics in order for state's rights to go through.[/QUOTE]
which is incredibly ignorant because it's proven to not work
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;32003801]which is incredibly ignorant because it's proven to not work[/QUOTE]
Yeah, when was the last time state's rights actually got proper reform done? Sure in some states you have gay marriage or medicinal marijuana, but what good is that when someone who doesn't live in those states is deprived of those rights?
Can someone just give me a clear, unbiased, and completely straight summary of basically what each of the "big" candidates is trying to do?
From what I can tell, Ron Paul's trying to de-federalize a lot of services, remove the Federal Reserve and reinstitute the gold standard, and leave social issues up to the states (which already puts me off because of the fact that US History class taught us what happened when the states had more power than the federal government). He also wants to legalize drugs, which would theoretically end the drug war by causing criminal drug dealers to simply lose their target market. (My question: Why is he even running for the Republicans when half of the GOP hates his ideas?)
I'm still reading up on the others, but it's a little complicated, at least for me. I know I can't even vote until I get naturalized, but I figured it's just proper to know who could potentially be in charge. It might be easier if there's a website that quickly summarizes this.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31998561]Voting for parties is restricting. Voting for individuals is liberating.[/QUOTE]Vote for independents, then. They don't need to show loyalty to any parties.
[QUOTE=itak365;32004023]I'm still reading up on the others, but it's a little complicated, at least for me. I know I can't even vote until I get naturalized, but I figured it's just proper to know who could potentially be in charge. It might be easier if there's a website that quickly summarizes this.[/QUOTE]
Well right now here's the basic plot:
Obama's wants to do a big (public maybe) works program involving infrastructure building, with things like roads and bridges, as well as give tax incentives to hiring companies.
Bachmann and Perry pretty much endorse the same ideas, but in different ways. Tax cuts for the rich, cutting social service spending, etc. Pretty much the usual GOP mantra.
Paul wants to privatize industries and leave social issues up to the states, as you said.
People like Romney and Huntsman (both GOP) are more moderate, but aren't doing very well in the polls.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31997973]Wow you seem to have jumped to conclusions all over the place as what the fuck I mean but you're okay with that i'm sure.
There's a difference between having laws about violence and over legislating sexuality you dolt. How the fuck can you even get that mixed up. The difference is however is that while yes, we DO need laws to protect kids from adults, we don't need laws to protect kids from kids anymore so than we have now. Obviously rape is rape and assault is assault but a 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old IS criminal in some areas and shouldn't be.
And if you've never seen a "abstinence only" or a like wise minded seminar in your life, count yourself lucky because A LOT of other people never got any other picture painted for them and while you may like to assume they did, that's not helping them out at all.
How the fuck you get "don't stop kids from fucking kids" and turn that into "YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT OKAY FOR ADULTS TO FUCK KIDS?!" is beyond me. And by making a laws telling kids it's illegal for them to fuck each other basically paints the picture that it's a "wrong" or "evil" thing to do in a lot of peoples minds.
I jumped to those conclusions justly it seems.
I don't like you either but hey, maybe don't read into what I say so much.
[/QUOTE]
you're purposely misconstruing what I'm saying
the quote about the violence wasn't meant to correlate violence and legislating sex, it's the mindset that some people have that says "why have a law against something if they aren't going to follow the law in the first place?" it's not really something you perpetuated directly but i've seen it in an alarming amount of posts in SH
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31997973]How the fuck you get "don't stop kids from fucking kids" and turn that into "YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT OKAY FOR ADULTS TO FUCK KIDS?!" is beyond me. And by making a laws telling kids it's illegal for them to fuck each other basically paints the picture that it's a "wrong" or "evil" thing to do in a lot of peoples minds. [/QUOTE]
you never said in your post "don't stop kids from fucking kids", you just said "you're not going to stop kids from fucking"
i'm not jumping to a conclusion because you didn't even specify who they are having sex with at all
it's a silly thing to harp about but I read for that shit before I make my posts
perhaps if you weren't so keen on shitting on someone else's opinions and being an opinionated asshole then it wouldn't be a problem
[editline]29th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31998518]Because why argue about what's relevant when you can just talk about irrelevancies[/QUOTE]
you started the argument in the first place, I was simply stating my differences with megafanx13
Simple summary: America - going further down the shitter
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;32009475]Simple summary: America - going further down the shitter[/QUOTE]
it's really sad when people like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are even considered as anything more than lunatics when it comes to politics
what's even worse is that I thought the WASP-y conservative generation of politicians would have died out soon but instead they had children with just as much vigor as them
how is bachmann so high up there? she's a fucking lunatic.
welp, better pack my bags for bulgaria. at least we have a 2 bedroom apartment there.
but that won't last long for with introduction of the euro coming soon. at least the lev works..
[QUOTE=TBFundy;32009173]you started the argument in the first place, I was simply stating my differences with megafanx13[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I'd make the argument that you shouldn't legislate it because you won't stop it, but I'd say that it still isn't worth legislating.
If you have say a 15 year old having sex with a 16 year old, or sexting between them, or whatever it is, what is legislation going to accomplish? You going to arrest one of the kids? Fine the parents? Arrest all parties involved? There's just no way to do it that's smart, and even if there were, what's the point? If they want to have sex, I say let them, and if they end up with a pregnancy and want it aborted, you better believe I want my tax dollars ensuring that they have the right to deal with the situation in a safe way.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32010092]I don't know if I'd make the argument that you shouldn't legislate it because you won't stop it, but I'd say that it still isn't worth legislating.
If you have say a 15 year old having sex with a 16 year old, or sexting between them, or whatever it is, what is legislation going to accomplish? You going to arrest one of the kids? Fine the parents? Arrest all parties involved? There's just no way to do it that's smart, and even if there were, what's the point? If they want to have sex, I say let them, and if they end up with a pregnancy and want it aborted, you better believe I want my tax dollars ensuring that they have the right to deal with the situation in a safe way.[/QUOTE]
i think we both want it legislated actually
i don't really mind if 15 year olds have sex with eachother, it's just when it goes into the younger preteens is where shit gets wonky because they don't understand the ramifications of the matter
the perfect law would obviously be something that keeps predatory adults from preying on young kids but also lets young adults have sex freely
but until then I'd guess 16 would be the best age where you can have unrestricted sex, I really wouldn't see the point in getting in a huff because you have to wait a year to have sex with a 15 year old, and i'd think you would agree that most 14 year olds aren't mature enough to have sex at all (again, a magical maturity gain doesn't happen, but most people at 16 can handle it)
the sexting thing again isn't a matter of child pornography or civil rights with me, it's more of a harassment thing and "copyright" thing
[QUOTE=TBFundy;32010669]i think we both want it legislated actually
i don't really mind if 15 year olds have sex with eachother, it's just when it goes into the younger preteens is where shit gets wonky because they don't understand the ramifications of the matter
the perfect law would obviously be something that keeps predatory adults from preying on young kids but also lets young adults have sex freely
but until then I'd guess 16 would be the best age where you can have unrestricted sex, I really wouldn't see the point in getting in a huff because you have to wait a year to have sex with a 15 year old, and i'd think you would agree that most 14 year olds aren't mature enough to have sex at all (again, a magical maturity gain doesn't happen, but most people at 16 can handle it)
the sexting thing again isn't a matter of child pornography or civil rights with me, it's more of a harassment thing and "copyright" thing[/QUOTE]
Overall I'd say the most important thing is to look at it on a case-by-case basis.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32011102]Overall I'd say the most important thing is to look at it on a case-by-case basis.[/QUOTE]
I agree
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;32002926]Are you claiming Ron Paul is like the rest of the Republicans? Dislike him if you will, but he is not likeminded to the rest.[/QUOTE]
He is like 98% the exact same as any other Republican. He just likes to tack on the phrase state rights to his ideals.
[editline]29th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;32003785]On social issues, he keeps whatever personal thoughts out of his politics in order for state's rights to go through. He may be a Christian and such but he doesn't let those effect his politics unlike other GOP candidates who would turn the United States into a Christian theocracy.[/QUOTE]
He's against gay marriage and abortion, but he wants the States to make it illegal as opposed to his office. There is no difference, stop fucking pretending there is.
[QUOTE=amute;32000615]
Parties are likeminded indivduals. Take your 18th century shit out of here.[/QUOTE]
NOT WHEN THERE ARE ONLY TWO
[editline]30th August 2011[/editline]
Ron Paul:
I don't agree with all these things on a federal level!
Wow those sounds really reasonable, gee maybe I should vote for Ron Pa-
I support them on the state level!
ron paul is like, 100 years old... why would you vote for someone who will probably have a heart attack if he finds out he won? he probably has alzheimers too
Leaving human rights issues to the states will effectively fuck over 50% of the population.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;32003785]On social issues, he keeps whatever personal thoughts out of his politics in order for state's rights to go through. He may be a Christian and such but he doesn't let those effect his politics unlike other GOP candidates who would turn the United States into a Christian theocracy.[/QUOTE]
Well in my opinion basic rights like a womans right to choose and ones right to marry who they wish shouldn't be taken away by either the federal or state government. It doesn't make me feel one bit better if Paul passes the buck to the states to remove our rights instead of the feds doing it. Paul likes to speak of liberty but apparently it takes a back seat to states rights. I prefer peoples rights myself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
