The Political Discussion Thread

[s09119]

Ronald Reagan is the "in" now, and it has been for the past few decades. Anything remotely reaganist would hardly be new.

These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland. They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.

Oh, you mean Reagan ideas like that? Funny how things work out.

Side note; Foley, how exactly do liberal ideas date to antiquity when conservative ideas ("traditional" ring a bell?) are apparently the new take on the world in your mind?

[Col.Foley]

Oh, you mean Reagan ideas like that? Funny how things work out.

Side note; Foley, how exactly do liberal ideas date to antiquity when conservative ideas ("traditional" ring a bell?) are apparently the new take on the world in your mind?

You assume that I agre with Regan on everything, apparently....I do not. And also Regan did do things to Government unions, if memory serves might have to look up this to make sure, to remove their collective barganing and generally come down against them. And he was right.

But the same can also be said of FDR for instance and even certain Union labor activists.

Also you assume I am talking abotu Conservative ideas, I am not. I am merely talking about some ideas by a single Conservative who is the most recent and a relativively well known example of some of the ideas I am talking about. I could also mention Hayek, Rand, Paul, or almost anyone else whose ideas I also might think that some of them are of merit and worth talking about and considering escaping to get us out of our current dificulties.

[Joachim]

But how would it would be "out-of-the-box", if ultimately its the exact same thinking that got us to where we are now? that built this box around us to begin with?

[Galileo_Galilee]

I want to know what this new way of thinking is.

[Col.Foley]

Anyone else watch the debates tonight? I will be soon but just curious.

[s09119]

Anyone else watch the debates tonight? I will be soon but just curious.

It made for an entertaining watch. We had popcorn.

[Col.Foley]

It made for an entertaining watch. We had popcorn.

oh good idea.

[lordofseas]

Though Minnesota politicians voted to put a gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2012 yesterday, the eloquent words of one of the measure's detractors have caught the nation's attention.

What are your thoughts? Not only on the idea of Gay Marriage, but on people voting on minorities rights?

Personally, I do not believe that people should be allowed to vote on the rights of anyone.

[s09119]

Though Minnesota politicians voted to put a gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2012 yesterday, the eloquent words of one of the measure's detractors have caught the nation's attention.

What are your thoughts? Not only on the idea of Gay Marriage, but on people voting on minorities rights?

Personally, I do not believe that people should be allowed to vote on the rights of anyone.

The man deserves an award. He's absolutely right; the forces behind gay marriage bans are almost (if not entirely) based in religion, and it's writing religious dogma into U.S. laws. Like he said, how many gays does God need to send to Earth before people realize that if he doesn't make mistakes, they must be fine the way they are.

[Col.Foley]

LOS: First of all you are dead wrong and your argument starts in the rears when you are talking about Minority Rights. Minorities do not have any special rights over anyone else and least of all over the minority. Second of all while I generally agree we should not vote on the rights of someone else, but first of all that is the only way Gay Marriage will become a right is through the vote. Unless you advocate the courts do it, which is a vote, and an abuse of their power. And the founders voted on the creation of our rights in the fist place they voted they created, and came together to draft a Bill of RIGHTS. And all amendments since then to the US Constitution, including rights, have been voted upon by the general populace. (Most of them anyways.)

S: You mean like the religious laws that our founding fathers used as a basis for our liberty that you currently enjoy?

And, I am no means a religious expert, (and i am not sure that this is the place) But the idea that God has placed Gays on the planet and keeps on doing so I would imagine most people who are religious experts would find full of holes. I do not think that is how that works. Which that suggests first of all that gays is a genetic condition or you are 'born' gay which that theory is far from being proven.

Oh and as an aside throughout a great majority of human history Marriage is a religious cermony.

[squirrely1]

I have to agree.....that God Does NOT "create" gay people... I do NOT believe that at all....so to even start there....throws out that entire debate in my mind.

[Col.Foley]

This whole argument can best be summed up by saying 'Well God keeps on sending us these terrorists people, therefor He Supports Terrorism, and therefor we must tolerate them.' No God does not create terrorism or that stuff, people do, people make choices based on politics or just so they can all the time.

And you have every right to make the choices that you want to make, but do not expect that every single individual, group, or society in general to support you, agree with you, and depending on your choices...if you make a choice that takes someones liberty from them in total. You should be punished for it, for instance.

You have every right to be gay if you want and then go take that to God to be judged or whatever, but you do not have the right for marriage.

[s09119]

S: You mean like the religious laws that our founding fathers used as a basis for our liberty that you currently enjoy?

The majority of the founding fathers, especially the big ones, were deists. They weren't particular fond of the Church or its dogma, and the laws they wrote were far more influenced by the secular Enlightenment than the Bible.

And, I am no means a religious expert, (and i am not sure that this is the place) But the idea that God has placed Gays on the planet and keeps on doing so I would imagine most people who are religious experts would find full of holes. I do not think that is how that works. Which that suggests first of all that gays is a genetic condition or you are 'born' gay which that theory is far from being proven.

Well as the man said, it's a religious argument. It shouldn't be entered into the debate at all.

Oh and as an aside throughout a great majority of human history Marriage is a religious cermony.

That's actually not true. Marriage as a modern religious institution began in the Middle Ages under the Catholic Church. Prior to that it was either a pagan or secular affair.

[s09119]

This whole argument can best be summed up by saying 'Well God keeps on sending us these terrorists people, therefor He Supports Terrorism, and therefor we must tolerate them.' No God does not create terrorism or that stuff, people do, people make choices based on politics or just so they can all the time.

And you have every right to make the choices that you want to make, but do not expect that every single individual, group, or society in general to support you, agree with you, and depending on your choices...if you make a choice that takes someones liberty from them in total. You should be punished for it, for instance.

You have every right to be gay if you want and then go take that to God to be judged or whatever, but you do not have the right for marriage.

And you have every right to make the choices that you want to make, but do not expect that every single individual, group, or society in general to support you, agree with you, and depending on your choices...if you make a choice that takes someones liberty from them in total. You should be punished for it, for instance.

^ I could apply that in full to you and other religious people who. You want your specific choices to control millions of people regardless of whether they agree with you or not, and you're knowingly choosing to deny others the liberty to be equal under the law as laid out in the 14th Amendment. You should be punished for it.

[Col.Foley]

The majority of the founding fathers, especially the big ones, were deists. They weren't particular fond of the Church or its dogma, and the laws they wrote were far more influenced by the secular Enlightenment than the Bible.



Well as the man said, it's a religious argument. It shouldn't be entered into the debate at all.



That's actually not true. Marriage as a modern religious institution began in the Middle Ages under the Catholic Church. Prior to that it was either a pagan or secular affair.

Not true. Some were deists, some were atheists, most very much believed in God, and Jesus Christ. I will say they were not big fans of the dogma aspect or the Big churches but look at what the churches represented back then. They were firmly entrenched in the Government and were stifling freedom and just generally the whole process. No one, back then, was using their religion for enlightenment or liberty. Not till George Witfield and eventually a large majority of the founding fathers in one form or another.

Which the enlightenment was a highly religious, and scientific affair they had gotten it right. We have lost that...balance...

Interesting opinion.

Paganism happens to be a religion.