Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Ron Paul: The 5 Million Dollar Man
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
MessiahCarey wrote:

Eh. I prefer the idea that here in the "blue states", women can have access to abortions (with state funding as assistance, if necessary) and can concede in the more red states that they will not have that access (as fucked up as it is).



I hope I can be the first to label this perspective "blue state privilidge". Because I think that's pretty much the crux of the matter. You were fortunate enough to be born on one of the coasts bathed in liberalism and fun loving running and gunning state governments. Whereas I and many others where born in the boonies. From my perspective the federal government as bad as it is, has always been more liberal than the states in which I have lived the bulk of my life(Oklahoma and Missouri). And that can't help but color this debate for me or you.

An added benefit of doing away with states is that we could move to a popular vote instead of an electoral one, and since the population centers of the country are liberal, it would probably swing the country to the left to do so.

Why not eliminate state government and just have city and country?


"Blue state priveledge". Haha.

Well...most people, even in the population centers, oppose homosexual marriage and other things.

The "crux of the matter" to me is about people in a community, whatever that community is, being the ones that make the rule of law for their locality since it's THEM that have to live there.

There is no scenario you could present under which I would think it's a good idea to allow the liberal (for now) population centers impose their rule of law on rural conservatives for 2 reasons:

A) It's not the right to do.
B) It's not wise to do.
C) There may come a day when the "liberal population centers" will be "conservative population centers". And if I have to choose between two bullshit ideologies, liberalism wins each time.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:29 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
ecapataz wrote:
Law and truth do not have much basis in religion even today.


I dare you, I double dare you, I double dog dare you, I triple double dog dare you, I unequivocally and incontrovertibly defy you to defend this statement in a logical or rational consuetude.

As for the other doubters, it seems you are suffering from some sort of neo-nihilism. These dated ideas are so 19th century. Put tired old Bazarov to rest and get with the 21st century.


You think nihilism is outdated and want to get church back with government? You're getting mideval on our asses. We got ourselves a Holy Roman.

Ron Paul is most obviously a Patrick Buchanan on crack.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:29 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

i just wanted to say this is a really interesting read and i am particularly enjoying tommi, sham, shane, and embryo.

edit:
just noticed this:
thecontractor wrote:
cretinous sophomoric asinine drivel.

haha.... self-pwn.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:30 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
thecontractor



Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 99
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Why not eliminate state government and just have city and country?


Why not eliminate all borders and have one government? When Hitlerly takes the office by force or by fraud, we will be one more step closer.

You sound like the type who would welcome a RFID chip implanted in your body. Maybe it could tell you if you are pregnant or not. Maybe it could kill the baby so we don't have to go to a doctor. Maybe the government can choose which babies are killed and which aren't. Maybe someone else can chew your food and breathe for you.

Apologies.

I am frustrated because I am called a dissenter, yet, in fact, your comments resonate true dissent from our constitution and principles that have formulated the greatest nation in the world. Research why the people who formed this nation did so. It may surprise you to know that it wasn't just to give Indians small pox infested blankets.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:31 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Jascha



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 3936
Location: Seoul, SK
 Reply with quote  

I think it has pretty clearly been demonstrated by now that a lot of 'christian' values can be easily rationalized without having to point to some religion. Even if a lot of our morals come from a christian tradition, that does not mean you need to continue a christian tradition to keep the morals.

I dont want to get robbed so I shouldn't rob either. You know, that sort of basic stuff.


And shambhala, my reference to chamberlain was obviously a bit easy. My point is though that full-blown isolationism is not much better than full-blown imperialism. Power vacuum, status quo and whatnot.


Last edited by Jascha on Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Why not eliminate state government and just have city and country?


Why not eliminate all borders and have one government? When Hitlerly takes the office by force or by fraud, we will be one more step closer.

You sound like the type who would welcome a RFID chip implanted in your body. Maybe it could tell you if you are pregnant or not. Maybe it could kill the baby so we don't have to go to a doctor. Maybe the government can choose which babies are killed and which aren't. Maybe someone else can chew your food and breathe for you.

Apologies.

I am frustrated because I am called a dissenter, yet, in fact, your comments resonate true dissent from our constitution and principles that have formulated the greatest nation in the world. Research why the people who formed this nation did so. It may surprise you to know that it wasn't just to give Indians small pox infested blankets.




Was it because they were annoying everyone in Europe with their Holier than thou shit?

Are you feeling okay?

Cause you started out talking about Hitler and ended your rant with some nationalist "greatest nation in the world" shit.

I happen to know for a fact that the greatest nation in the world is an island somewhere in the south pacific but I won't tell you where because people like you would go fuck up the thing they got going.


Last edited by Dan Shay on Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Why not eliminate state government and just have city and country?


Why not eliminate all borders and have one government? When Hitlerly takes the office by force or by fraud, we will be one more step closer.


Is that a boring Hillary jab? Come on man...we don't let lame GW jokes go by without a lashing, are you really going to use something THAT bad as comic device? Boooooooooooooo. BOO BOO BOO BOO. That's like a GW Bush can't read joke. Lame. Easy. Boring. Boo.


Quote:

You sound like the type who would welcome a RFID chip implanted in your body. Maybe it could tell you if you are pregnant or not. Maybe it could kill the baby so we don't have to go to a doctor. Maybe the government can choose which babies are killed and which aren't. Maybe someone else can chew your food and breathe for you.


Heh. While I definitely tend to see Sarah's liberal leanings as FAR too pro-government insinuation, I think she would oppose all of those things that you mentioned. You're going off the deep end.


Quote:

I am frustrated because I am called a dissenter, yet, in fact, your comments resonate true dissent from our constitution and principles that have formulated the greatest nation in the world.


The last part is arguable. "Greatest" based on what criteria? Besides...who cares? If you there was only two cakes in the world. One made out of Drain-o and caulking and another with peanut butter and frosting...would you not add chocolate to the latter just because it's already the "greatest cake in the world?" The fuck outta here. You and I would be discussing politics over a g-ddamned chocolate peanut butter cake and you KNOW IT.


Quote:

Research why the people who formed this nation did so. It may surprise you to know that it wasn't just to give Indians small pox infested blankets.


Obviously not, but that doesn't mean that the world isn't dynamic and that society hasn't changed a GREAT DEAL since they penned the Constitution 200 years ago. They even knew how intense the changes were going to be then and allowed mechanisms to change the laws accordingly...and it still fails.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

Hey you guys ever put the blanket over your head and fart just to smell it? Me too.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

All the time.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

Shane had to go and fuck my head all up...

"chocolate peanut butter frosting cake"

God damn that sounds good. I'm going to go hunt down some yodels.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

your comments resonate true dissent from our constitution and principles that have formulated the greatest nation in the world.


"Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Your retarded.

Oh, wait...

I cannot believe how you cannot wrap your head around that idea.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BR



Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 775
Location: SAN DIEGO
 Reply with quote  

i still can't figure out if contractor is for real or not. bernard?
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19363
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
MessiahCarey wrote:

Eh. I prefer the idea that here in the "blue states", women can have access to abortions (with state funding as assistance, if necessary) and can concede in the more red states that they will not have that access (as fucked up as it is).



I hope I can be the first to label this perspective "blue state privilidge". Because I think that's pretty much the crux of the matter. You were fortunate enough to be born on one of the coasts bathed in liberalism and fun loving running and gunning state governments. Whereas I and many others where born in the boonies. From my perspective the federal government as bad as it is, has always been more liberal than the states in which I have lived the bulk of my life(Oklahoma and Missouri). And that can't help but color this debate for me or you.

An added benefit of doing away with states is that we could move to a popular vote instead of an electoral one, and since the population centers of the country are liberal, it would probably swing the country to the left to do so.

Why not eliminate state government and just have city and country?


"Blue state priveledge". Haha.

Well...most people, even in the population centers, oppose homosexual marriage and other things.

The "crux of the matter" to me is about people in a community, whatever that community is, being the ones that make the rule of law for their locality since it's THEM that have to live there.

There is no scenario you could present under which I would think it's a good idea to allow the liberal (for now) population centers impose their rule of law on rural conservatives for 2 reasons:

A) It's not the right to do.
B) It's not wise to do.
C) There may come a day when the "liberal population centers" will be "conservative population centers". And if I have to choose between two bullshit ideologies, liberalism wins each time.


I'm for whichever one benefits me the most in my lifetime.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

You cant throw away states because doing so would totally shit on the entire basis for forming our country. In effect we have been states longer than we have been a country. The experiment of the United States was founded on the idea that smaller communities (states) with different values could unite in order to protect their common interest. The purpose of the federal government was to provide security for each state and deal with interstate matters.

What you are proposing is so antithetical to the idea of what America is, that you would be creating an entirely new country, based on one set of ideas of what is wrong or right, sort of like England in the 1700's. I could not disagree with you more.

While it sounds bullshit and corny, the United States is supposed to be a place where people with different sets of values can live in separate, yet united communities and have their own laws, which are a reflection of those values.

Not to mention the fact that the United States is a huge place and trying to manage it with one massive federal government would create a bureaucracy that would rival the former Soviet Union's.

Is "wrap your head around an idea" not the proper idiom? I just googled it, and it looks like something that people say. How is it a linguistic foible?

thecontractor's vocabulary is intense. I sincerely hope that he/she is real.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
Embryo wrote:
The founders were, by and large, deists and atheists. Many of them felt that if there had been a God, he had set things in motion and long been gone, not interested in human affairs or wellbeing. It's important to remember that both rights (invented by liberal thought) and God are social constructions.


While I LOVE the notion that this is true, reading biographies on some of the founders showed me that the "deists", while doubtful, were still involved in the churches of their communities. That would definitely cause the confusion as to whether or not the founders were or weren't operating on "christian principles".



Absolutely -- Church was the backbone of American community, and since its decline nothing has yet replaced it that I can see, in terms of bringing people together and articulating shared ideals. But that's just the thing -- whether or not people knew it, church wasn't really about GOD at all, it was about sharing worship, sharing ideals, sharing reverence of things that even the most devout athiests consider to be important.

And many of the churches they went to were Unitarian. And I think today they would probably still be Unitarians, or possibly members of the United Church of Christ, which is the most liberal protestant faith that still considers itself Christian (i.e., other than Unitarianism, which isn't really Christian anymore). Barack Obama, incidentally, is a member of the United Church of Christ.
Post Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:03 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon