It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul 5-9-12 on Obamas Gay Marriage Statement...... I Cannot Disagree With This!!

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Misoir
 


You think that bad economic policy can lead to some sort of social problem?



EDIT: Whoops looks like you might have been being sarcastic.
edit on 9-5-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)


For anyone to say such a thing while NOT being sarcastic would be, the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I must use this logic and assume it was sarcastic.


EDIT: it's looking less and less like it is, so this just might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard!
edit on 9-5-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mayabong
 


I do, but that has no relevance to anything in my post. How was my point not clear? I do not care that much about economics. Cultural and civilizational issues are most important to me. There, that is it.


I guess you are not being sarcastic?

the governments job is to enforce morality? Who's version of morality? Whoever is in charge at the time?
edit on 9-5-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Misoir
The state has the right to legally enforce the proper definition of marriage upon society.

Where does it get this right from?


It has always been the responsible of state to uphold and maintain the culture, morality, and tradition of the populace. This is the original purpose of civil government arising out of the urban centers of Mesopotamia. It was not to deal specifically with trade; those elements were infused later on.


Originally posted by Misoir
There is really only one real job of government and that is to uphold morality.

First tell me where does this right come from?
If this right doesn't come from anywhere then how was it ever Govt.'s role to do that?

What answer are you looking for? You are using the internet right now, why not do yourself a favor and research the original purpose of governance.


Originally posted by Misoir
yet it seems Paul and the lefty loonies (yes you pseudo-Conservatives and chirping sectarians, i.e. Libertarians) are getting all mad about it. I do not really care about economics to be honest, all that really matters are the social/cultural issues.

A wise man once said "99% of the world's problems derives from money"
If you don't care about economics then you barely even have an opinion i'm sorry

And all that matters to you is social issues?
Or do you mean social engineering where people are forced to agree with you?

You don't care about money and therefore people not living in povertry but you care about forcing people to agree with you?
Wow.... North Korea is too good for you then, I don't know where to send you

And you call others loonies???????????
lol
lol
lol:

Economics is a side issue, not of such importance as to form a gravitational force wherein all my political principles rotate around it. Perhaps such is the case for you, but not for me. My actual opinions on economics arise out of my cultural-religious views. But I doubt a Libertarian or whatever you are would care too much about my opinions on that subject. As for social engineering, you may call it whatever you want but I do not view the world through the same shades as you. The purpose of government is to foster an atmosphere of virtue, morality, faith, tradition, and loyalty. That is not social engineering and North Korea would definitely not fit my view of an ideal society. For even making such a suggestion shows your lack of depth into the subject of political philosophy and cultural studies.



Originally posted by Misoir
That anyone forms an opinion based upon some garbage thrown out by the media would be laughable if they did not threaten to drag us all down into their pit of insanity and disaster. I do not address the Left-Liberals because they are completely unimportant, those people are so lost any real argument about marriage would just go right over their heads because it is all about “tolerance” and some perverted version of “love”.

I really don't understand what your stance is on anything


And i'm very pro-individualism


I am a Reactionary of the Traditionalist Conservative School. And, for the record, I do not believe in individualism.


edit on 5/9/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


I really have spent too much time away from ATS, forgetting that people really have no grasp of non-relativistic concepts. Let me sum it up real simple for you; Morality arises organically out of the traditions and customs of the peoples within a nation, centered on a common faith, and directed towards a common good. This has nothing to do with opinion. Moral relativism is truly a disaster; ATS is testament to that fact. As a blogger friend of mine had stated. Proper morality is like a compass (a moral compass) and will always show the correct direction as the magnetic poll is away from he who holds the compass. When one relativizes morality, the compass only points towards he who holds it, basically defeating the purpose of a compass entirely.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
My actual opinions on economics arise out of my cultural-religious views.

You mean force?
There's nothing conservative about that sorry


Originally posted by Misoir
I am a Reactionary of the Traditionalist Conservative School. And, for the record, I do not believe in individualism.

Conservative?

There's nothing fiscally conservative with forcing others to agree with your non-conservative views

You may be too socialist for progressives in fact

You are a scary dude



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mayabong
 


I really have spent too much time away from ATS, forgetting that people really have no grasp of non-relativistic concepts. Let me sum it up real simple for you; Morality arises organically out of the traditions and customs of the peoples within a nation, centered on a common faith, and directed towards a common good. This has nothing to do with opinion. Moral relativism is truly a disaster; ATS is testament to that fact. As a blogger friend of mine had stated. Proper morality is like a compass (a moral compass) and will always show the correct direction as the magnetic poll is away from he who holds the compass. When one relativizes morality, the compass only points towards he who holds it, basically defeating the purpose of a compass entirely.


But who says you can't have a moral compass without being forced to use it? Some people have different moral compasses than others, should everyone follow yours, or one man or groups morals? Wouldn't it be more honorable to follow it by free will alone? All I know is, when government starts forcing people to live a way of life, moral or not, it leads to nothing but misery and suffering. This is what's known as an oppressive society. I'm gonna bow out of this convo, but we'll just mark it on record that I'll strongly agree to disagree on this one.


Edit: Gimme that star back on your first post! (yes, that was me)
I seriously thought that was just a well-crafted sarcastic comment, woops! haha.
edit on 9-5-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


You have no excuse for such ignorance on the subject, not while being able to use the internet – none. Do yourself a big favor and research the where Conservatism came from, its original thinkers, and its purpose. That I am even having this discussion is extremely annoying. I will even make it easy for you by providing links to everything you need to know in this post. A man can lead a horse to water but he cannot make the damn thing drink.

Traditionalist Conservatism
Free e-books on Reactionary/Traditionalist Conservative political theory
Quotations by Reactionaries/Traditionalist Conservatives



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Just like abortion, drugs and gay marriage, he doesnt personally like it but he wont make laws to change it, just decrease laws if anything. Ron Paul, a classy fellow as always.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The marriage issue will never end for the simple fact they use it as a wedge issue to energize their bases.


No...it will never end as long as American citizens are being denied certain priviledges because their relationships are seen as second to heterosexual ones. They love, they have and raise children, they share their lives and resources. There is no difference between theirs and a heterosexual relationship. Yet some want to claim their marriages will destroy society as we know it.

Nope...it will never end....



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


AT least Paul is solid


Nice Paul, you have a ball sack!



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mayabong
 


I really have spent too much time away from ATS, forgetting that people really have no grasp of non-relativistic concepts. Let me sum it up real simple for you; Morality arises organically out of the traditions and customs of the peoples within a nation, centered on a common faith, and directed towards a common good. This has nothing to do with opinion. Moral relativism is truly a disaster; ATS is testament to that fact. As a blogger friend of mine had stated. Proper morality is like a compass (a moral compass) and will always show the correct direction as the magnetic poll is away from he who holds the compass. When one relativizes morality, the compass only points towards he who holds it, basically defeating the purpose of a compass entirely.


Relativity is reality!

One determination has various implications, ignoring those implications due to
to the initial and most obvious implication is the basis for true stupidity. ATS
is over flowing with exactly that -

Killing a man is wrong

Unless he is trying to kill you

That is relative



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Paul stated his personal belief.

Obama state his personal belief.


What's the issue???


Glad you asked...

THE ISSUE is that Ron Paul has ALWAYS believed what he stated, personally and politically.

oBOMBa changed his view POLITICALLY at a very convenient time (election season).

THAT is the issue.

Any questions?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mayabong
 


I really have spent too much time away from ATS, forgetting that people really have no grasp of non-relativistic concepts. Let me sum it up real simple for you; Morality arises organically out of the traditions and customs of the peoples within a nation, centered on a common faith, and directed towards a common good. This has nothing to do with opinion. Moral relativism is truly a disaster; ATS is testament to that fact. As a blogger friend of mine had stated. Proper morality is like a compass (a moral compass) and will always show the correct direction as the magnetic poll is away from he who holds the compass. When one relativizes morality, the compass only points towards he who holds it, basically defeating the purpose of a compass entirely.


Except morality cannot be judged by a compass! Morality is a set of values one instills in them self's despite what society might have to say about it. Just because someone can follow rules doesn't make them moral or just. The concept of forced morality is absurd and shockingly hypocritical. The bible is evidence of this fact if you believe, even god gave man free will to pick his destiny! what you speak of is oppression even by people with no faith. And while i do think you are wrong I will not dismiss the fact that its an interesting topic that i do need to read up more on.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


What a legend

That news reporter is a real as*hole!
why does he look like he hates RP?
RP is a real down to earth gentlemen with REAL views and REAL peoples lives in mind

if i was American i would be proud to call him my president




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Who cares what Ron Paul or any Tom, Dick, or Harry think about this issue. I can care less. Furthermore, I really don't give a crap about North Carolina voting against gay marriage. That is their sovereign right as a state. What business is it of the Federal Government or the President for that matter. Why is the President's personal comments even relevant? I suppose the Left are going to have kick-up a firestorm as they do and throw their temper tantrums as kids do in the toy aisle when not getting their own way on a particular issue?

The Federal Budget is a train wreck, the dollar continues to decrease in value, the economy remains on the brink of the next crisis, and we are talking about yet another special interest issue? What the heck! The house that we (gay, straight, religious and non-religious, left/right, ect.) all live in is falling apart around our heads, but lets throw a new coat of paint on it and everything will be fine. I do not see the logic in any of it. Just more side stepping and diversionary ploys by politicians who don't want to do their jobs.

As for the issue of gay marriage? Who am I say either way, and my view is irrelevant. If gays want to get married let the states and local governments decide, and lets keep the Federal Government focused on their jobs like ensuring national security, maintaining federal infrastructure like roads or the power grid, enacting responsible fiscal measures like a budget for cripes sake, and so on so forth. Just my two cents, and if I came off a little abrasive? That was not my intent, but I think there is plenty of more pressing issues to deal with at the moment.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


theres more pressing matters every day, year, decade, century!!
chill out, its not like you or me personally can do anything about said pressing matters
so like you said, every person is entitled to their views which is what everyone here is doing
i dont think any state should decide
it should be a human right
not a law governed by some stiff in a suit!


edit on 10-5-2012 by GezinhoKiko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 


Great, if it is a human right? Let the humans decide. Paul and John want to get married? Great! Let them hop over the broom, step on a wine glass, and read few biblical passages in the living room. Let them pronounce themselves whatever way they see fit, and they can even buy rings for each other. Now that is out of the way. Lets move on to the next crisis plaguing society. I am all for people deciding what they want. Apparently, the people of North Carolina decided, and the state has to honor that decision. It is the democratic process. Perhaps, in a few more years and after more debate another referendum can be held? It is what it is my friend. Thanks for your reply!
edit on 10-5-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


I would mostly disagree with you.
If the Gumment needs to keep guidlines for the listed reasons, they could go with the old rule.
First come first served.
If there is an inheritance, first or current wife, if none then first born.

My thought in general...
I am just stumped at the idea that some call basic human rights, but they are definately not.
We should call them basic straight human christian white rights.
But hey, aren't all men created equal? Darn we forgot them women again.
we'll fix that later honey.
This in my eyes is just something that should be a non issue, but is thrown into the public eye to distract us from the truth that politicians, bankers and lawyers are screwing us all, gay or straight.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Excellent response by Paul.

I mean, i'd love if the state worked that way, but changing to that idea is going to take a LOT of effort and time.

I would think that most fairly intelligent people would agree with this too. Until religious beliefs should happen to become an issue, and that's less and less these days.

This premise could clean up a ton of the garbage we deal with.

And let me gloat on Paul for a second, it's great how he isn't trying to push any personal beliefs on us. I mean imagine the response you would've gotten from Mitt Romney on this topic.. Laced with ignorance, and agenda pushing.

Can't we all just get along though? We are all suppose to be in this together.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
There should be no marriage "licenses" there should be no definition of "marriage" .. it should be a personal choice to commit yourself to another, not a legal contract overseen by the State.


It's not overseen by the state, but rather the system requires to identify individuals that "share" their income. In reality, it's a financial decision. A tax decision, decision to identify those who have children, a common, etc.

Nothing to do with the state "butting" in your private life, except on the issue of social awareness and social moral issues, where religion has and still does, play a crucial role, and the sexual issues and relation play a major role, as they are at the heart of all social disorder.

As much as I like Mr. Ron Paul on many issues, he's lying he's heart out here, just as the President is, and doesn't want to alienate voters. Mr. Ron Paul, is going for votes here.

We, as a human race, have not yet moved forward to have our moral issues unified. Our religious concept, and moral concepts are still very much divided. But one thing is unified among all, and that is that paganism and reverting to decaying social manner is not productive. Wether people like it or not, it's a social problem, and not a solution ... because society, demands social order, social awareness and morality. Politicians here, are just playing this by the ear, and pushing this down the line ... but sooner or later, it will cause conflicts, and perhaps even civil conflicts as a result.

However, he is right on one thing ... the current definition of marriage has to be redefined, but we can only do that, when we moved forward "religiously" and "morally", to unify these concepts. And that won't happen in the near future, so Mr. Obama, as well as Ron Paul, play the flute just to make it sound pretty in your ear.

edit on 10/5/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)







 
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join