Brüno is an outstanding comedy. I cried more than once simply because I laughed so hard. It is available at video stores and libraries. This is more proof that Ron Paul is a right-wing bigot, hate monger, and fascist clown, who does not believe in democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brüno
DynamicBalance
12-24-2010, 09:41 AM
Brüno is an outstanding comedy. I cried more than once simply because I laughed so hard. It is available at video stores and libraries. This is more proof that Ron Paul is a right-wing bigot, hate monger, and fascist clown, who does not believe in democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brüno
Are you saying that it is not understandable for a heterosexual man to get angry when an actor tricks him into doing an interview under false pretenses and then pulls down his pants in front of him, in order to make money for his movie? Ron Paul is not gay, and therefore he does not want gay guys hitting on him; and you're saying that makes him a bigot??? Can't say I understand your logic.
Could you please provide some examples of Ron Paul being a "hate-monger" and a "fascist clown"? Do you even know what fascism means? It sure doesn't seem like it. You say he does not believe in democracy.....but Ron Paul is a strong proponent of states' rights. Surely we, as individuals, have more influence over the laws of the state that we live in than over federal laws, do we not? When the federal government makes a law that "trumps state law", wouldn't that be anti-democracy? That would be taking away the people's right to choose for themselves. Don't you support the right of the state to legalize marijuana, or to legalize gay marriage if they so choose? Why then would you not support states' rights in general? Or do you only support the right of the people to choose when it comes to issues you agree with?
Valley Oak
12-24-2010, 04:12 PM
Quit changing the subject to your pet political "philosophy." Ron Paul is a homophobe and a reprehensible man who should never hold public office. Meanwhile, you might want to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4t185wl-0
Are you saying that it is not understandable for a heterosexual man to get angry when an actor tricks him into doing an interview under false pretenses and then pulls down his pants in front of him, in order to make money for his movie? Ron Paul is not gay, and therefore he does not want gay guys hitting on him; and you're saying that makes him a bigot??? Can't say I understand your logic.
someguy
12-24-2010, 05:00 PM
Quit changing the subject to your pet political "philosophy." Ron Paul is a homophobe and a reprehensible man who should never hold public office. Meanwhile, you might want to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4t185wl-0
I think you are a reprehensible little coward, old man. Have you no shame? Oh wait, I know the answer to that question already..... Why must you always evade inconvenient questions and lie about peoples character? Your good at being a dick behind the anonymity of a computer, but a coward when it comes to the real world and owning up to your snake-like ways. Just like you weaseled out of meeting me when Barry wanted us to work things out over a beer. You pretended you were going to take a hiatus from wacco so you could get out of meeting me, but that lasted only two days! Its pretty obvious what that was really all about. Like I said, youre a coward with nothing good to say here. Answer some tough questions or take your intolerant act somewhere else.
Oh, and don;t be a hypocrite and tell us all what youre doing to cut your fossil fuel pollution. After all you said that thread would be such a good idea. You and all the other alarmists are in for a good public scorning in my opinion......
Barry
12-24-2010, 05:41 PM
Hey folks on this thread-
Where's the Christmas Cheer?
I'm going to move this to Censored and UnCensored.
I'll have a private word :nono: with Edward/Valley Oak as well.
Barry
theindependenteye
12-25-2010, 09:01 AM
>>> ...you are a reprehensible little coward ... old man. ... Your good at being a dick ... a coward ... your snake-like ways ... youre a coward ... a hypocrite ...
Ah, takes me back to my boyhood on the playground. We used a more pungent vocabulary, but the level of thought was the same.
-Conrad
DynamicBalance
12-25-2010, 09:08 AM
>>> ...you are a reprehensible little coward ... old man. ... Your good at being a dick ... a coward ... your snake-like ways ... youre a coward ... a hypocrite ...
Ah, takes me back to my boyhood on the playground. We used a more pungent vocabulary, but the level of thought was the same.
-Conrad
>>> ....right-wing bigot ... hate monger ... fascist clown ... homophobe ... reprehensible man ...
Does this take you back to your boyhood on the playground as well? Just wondering...
DynamicBalance
12-25-2010, 09:31 AM
Quit changing the subject to your pet political "philosophy." Ron Paul is a homophobe and a reprehensible man who should never hold public office. Meanwhile, you might want to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4t185wl-0
It is ironic that you are accusing me of changing the subject while simultaneously ignoring all of my questions. In fact, every single thing I said was in direct response to something you said, which could hardly be considered changing the subject. You asserted that "Ron Paul doesn't believe in democracy"; I said he does, and I provided my reasoning to back up my position. Would you care to explain how that qualifies as changing the subject?
Since you did avoid my questions, I will reiterate them:
1. Do you really think that if a man gets angry because another man tricks him into an interview, tricks him into going into a room alone that looks like a hotel room, tries to seduce him, and takes his pants off while blocking the door, that makes him a homophobe?
2. Please provide some examples of Ron Paul acting as a "hate-monger" and a "fascist clown". If you are going to make statements like this, you should be prepared to back them up with some kind of real facts.
3. Do you know what fascism means? What is your understanding of the meaning of fascism?
4. Do you think that individual citizens of this country have more of an impact on the politics of their state, or those of the federal government?
5. Do you think that it is not anti-democracy if a federal law "trumps" state law?
6. Do you think that states should only have the right to choose their own laws when those laws are things you agree with?
I'll add a couple more for good measure:
7. If it had been a married woman (or any woman for that matter) instead of Ron Paul who had been tricked into doing an interview under false pretenses, tricked into going into a "hotel room" alone with a man, only to have him try to seduce her and take his pants off in front of her, would you call her sexist for being angry and disgusted? If not, please explain how that scenario is somehow different than the one with Ron Paul.
8. Are you trying to insinuate that I am somehow not "okay" with gay people? That is not an accusation that I take lightly. Please do clarify.
If you can't answer these simple questions asking you to clarify your positions and provide documentation for your statements, I'll be forced to conclude that you aren't mature enough to carry on a real conversation. I'm not going to waste my time with someone like that.
Valley Oak
12-25-2010, 10:28 AM
Merry Christmas to you too, Laurel!
Thank you for demonstrating that you are thinking of me on Christmas Day, along with your family and friends. I feel so connected to you now and a part of your family in this way. Thank you!
Gay Love to You and Yours,
Edward
It is ironic that you are accusing me of changing the subject while simultaneously ignoring all of my questions. In fact, every single thing I said was in direct response to something you said, which could hardly be considered changing the subject. You asserted that "Ron Paul doesn't believe in democracy"; I said he does, and I provided my reasoning to back up my position. Would you care to explain how that qualifies as changing the subject?
Valley Oak
12-25-2010, 11:30 AM
Merry Christmas to you too, Brad!!!
Wow! So much Christmas spirit and love! Thank you!
Hugs and kisses to you Brad. You are such a sweetie in your own special, cute way. I love it how you get so dominant here on the list. Makes me wonder how much of a tiger you are in the bedroom!
Edward
..
DynamicBalance
12-25-2010, 11:31 AM
Merry Christmas to you too, Laurel!
Thank you for demonstrating that you are thinking of me on Christmas Day, along with your family and friends. I feel so connected to you now and a part of your family in this way. Thank you!
Gay Love to You and Yours,
Edward
I accidentally posted this message on my husband's account. Here it is again, embellished slightly:
Okay, you're clearly not willing to have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with you. To me that is the epitome of closed-mindedness and intolerance of others. How can you accuse others of changing the subject when you are the one who is doing that? Not going to waste my time with you.
Valley Oak
12-25-2010, 11:37 AM
Merry Christmas to EVERYONE! (including Ron Paul and his even more pungent son, Rand)
>>>>>> ....right-wing bigot ... hate monger ... fascist clown ... homophobe ... reprehensible man ...
>>>Does this take you back to your boyhood on the playground as well? Just wondering...
No, we never dealt with such sophisticated concepts, and Joe McCarthy was pretty popular then.
But to the point I think you're making. The above terminology isn't very illuminating either. But personally, I don't mind as much when mud is flung at public figures — in this forum it seems to me that Obama, Gore, etc., get plastered more frequently and violently than Ron Paul, and I just hit delete.
Only difference here is that the language I cited was directed at someone in this community. For some reason, that makes a difference to me. YMMV. It's been going back and forth in this arena for some time and renders it almost unreadable. I've refrained from responding to a lot of name-calling intended to encompass the whole diminishing herd of Liberals online here, because more and more it seems to be Primal Scream therapy in the guise of debate. Toss a tennis ball to my son's dog, it just keeps coming back atcha. Once in a while, with nothing better to do, I do.
But in the interests of "fair and balanced," I should say that I really cringe when people of any stripe go into direct ad hominum attacks on others who share this space directly. IQ levels plunge COLLECTIVELY. Soon we'll all be pulling legs off bugs.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
DynamicBalance
12-25-2010, 01:25 PM
Only difference here is that the language I cited was directed at someone in this community. For some reason, that makes a difference to me. YMMV. It's been going back and forth in this arena for some time and renders it almost unreadable. I've refrained from responding to a lot of name-calling intended to encompass the whole diminishing herd of Liberals online here, because more and more it seems to be Primal Scream therapy in the guise of debate. Toss a tennis ball to my son's dog, it just keeps coming back atcha. Once in a while, with nothing better to do, I do.
But in the interests of "fair and balanced," I should say that I really cringe when people of any stripe go into direct ad hominum attacks on others who share this space directly. IQ levels plunge COLLECTIVELY. Soon we'll all be pulling legs off bugs.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
I appreciate your attempt to be fair and balanced. I agree that ad hominem attacks do not add much to intelligent discussion, but I think that is true whether they are directed at a public figure or someone in our local community. After all, we are all one big Earth community, right?
On the other hand, I find it equally immature when one refuses to acknowledge anything that another person has (respectfully) said, as Valley Oak has done in this thread. Any thoughts on this?
I wish you a wonderful Christmas!
-Laurel
DynamicBalance
12-25-2010, 01:46 PM
Would anyone else like to comment on their thoughts about this whole Ron Paul/Bruno thing? I would really like hear more opinions about this.
For the record, I think Sacha Baron Cohen is very funny, and I think he is funny as Bruno. Here is one of my favorite Bruno clips: :lol2:
I also think that its quite understandable how Ron Paul reacted to Bruno's antics, given the circumstances. What does everyone else think? I would actually like to have an intelligent conversation about this topic, and I am disappointed that it has not happened.
Happy Christmas!
-Laurel
Valley Oak
12-25-2010, 03:15 PM
This is an example of what all of this anti-gay hysteria has led to:
Just to be clear, my main problem with Edward's post below was not that he made ad hominem (and inaccurate, IMO) attacks against Ron Paul, but rather it was such a blatant baiting to inspire an impassioned defense and counter-attack, far from the thoughtful dialog that I try to encourage here.
Brad (someguy) took the bait and fell into the trap. OTOH, I commend his wife, Laurel (DynamicBalance) for responding less emotionally. "The Women are Smarter! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnsCVh_RB_s)" :heart:
My tolerance for personal attacks decreases as the target comes closer to home. So that Ron Paul (like GW Bush) is afforded less protection than members of our community, IMO.
However, in this case, the slander against Ron Paul was directed against fellow community members.
... This is more proof that Ron Paul is a right-wing bigot, hate monger, and fascist clown, who does not believe in democracy....
Barry
12-25-2010, 04:10 PM
Merry Christmas to you too, Brad!!!
Wow! So much Christmas spirit and love! Thank you!
Hugs and kisses to you Brad. You are such a sweetie in your own special, cute way. I love it how you get so dominant here on the list. Makes me wonder how much of a tiger you are in the bedroom!
Edward
More Baiting...
someguy
12-25-2010, 04:22 PM
Brad (someguy) took the bait and fell into the trap.
Well, you might know that I have respectfully disagreed with VO's point of view many many times, especially lately. However, he just ignores my points and pulls his same little game on me over and over again. I felt that my post on this thread was completely justified as sometimes people who are acting like jerks need to be told so in this manner. It obviously doesn't ever work with him (VO) to be nice, so I figured I'd really let him have it. Although I will admit that it hasn't changed a thing. I don't regret the words I chose and I wholeheartedly stand by them as true observations of the mans character, or lack of. Barry, I do appreciate your open mindedness and ability to see through his shady tactics, and his inaccurate attacks on Ron Paul. Good job with the moderation! :thumbsup:
Barry
12-25-2010, 04:24 PM
This is an example of what all of this anti-gay hysteria has led to:
https://www.theonion.com/video/new-antismoking-ads-warn-teens-its-gay-to-smoke,14373Notice that this is on the Onion. This is satire, and well-done!
Conservatives Warn Quick Sex Change Only Barrier Between Gays, Marriage:
Click here for news video (https://www.theonion.com/video/conservatives-warn-quick-sex-change-only-barrier-b%2C14341/)
theindependenteye
12-26-2010, 03:09 PM
>>>Would anyone else like to comment on their thoughts about this whole Ron Paul/Bruno thing? I would really like hear more opinions about this. ,,, I also think that its quite understandable how Ron Paul reacted to Bruno's antics, given the circumstances. What does everyone else think? I would actually like to have an intelligent conversation about this topic, and I am disappointed that it has not happened.
Hi, Laurel--
I didn't see the video that sparked this thread, so just looked at various "Bruno" clips on Youtube.
It's a matter of taste, I guess. To me, his work is funny, but in a very sick, slick, sleazy way, like the Jerry Springer sort of thing: inducing people to show their very worst side, ridiculing them for it, making us all feel superior but secretly thankful that we're not the ones who've been had. Maybe, being a comedy writer most of my life, I'm envious that someone can get laughs just by a quirky skill in seducing other people to show their asses to us without showing his own. I see comments calling him "courageous" -- no, I'd call him "impervious."
The whole "Bruno" character, to me, is a pretty disgusting gay stereotype. Hard to imagine that gays wouldn't find it repulsive, except that being gay doesn't necessarily exempt one from being stupid. Certainly, "camp" itself is a kind of reverse-spin cooption-of-stereotype that can be seen to be politically kosher & clever, but for me personally, it's just adolescent self-armoring.
Inevitably, the question comes up: well, do I see Michael Moore's confrontational tactics in the same light? I don't. Certainly I wouldn't like him as much if he were a right-winger, and also I think it's a gimmick whose time is past — he's a good enough filmmaker to not have to rely on the same schtick he used so effectively in "Roger and Me." But for me, when he's confronting corporate shills or NRA figureheads or Congressmen, he's confronting people in power about issues directly, not just dropping his pants. It's outrageous because these people are, by their position, insulated from our asking the simplest questions, and whatever our political stance, the questions themselves are valid. IMHO.
As for Ron Paul, no comment. There are more important questions raised, I think, than whether he's a homophobe or a racist or a fascist, whatever. I think I understand the logic of libertarianism, but I can't agree that government is our biggest threat. Bringing up these catchwords is doing the same thing that the dirty-jokes accusations against Clarence Thomas did in his hearings: setting up a straw man that diverted attention from the fact (IMO) that he was utterly unqualified for confirmation. The ascendancy of libertarianism, it seems to me, will mean that instead of having to spend tons of money buying politicians, the multinational corporations will simply BE the government, and we'll maintain our God-given freedom to get poisoned, exploited, impoverished and hung up to dry — by our betters. Oops, I digress: I said "no comment."
Re. Bruno: funny stuff, sadly.
Peace & joy anyway--
Conrad
someguy
12-26-2010, 07:10 PM
*deleted*
DynamicBalance
12-26-2010, 07:12 PM
Hi Conrad,
Thanks for sharing your views. Here's the video of Ron Paul with Bruno: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ
Hi Conrad,
Thanks for sharing your views. Here's the video of Ron Paul with Bruno: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/)https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png
And here's Ron Paul's reaction later on, and his take on Bruno: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHVnDQOsOic (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/)https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png
I would have to agree with you, and Ron Paul, that this kind of comedy is a pretty sad reflection of our culture. Personally, I would not feel good about myself putting people in the kinds of situations that Sacha Baron Cohen does, misleading people, taking advantage of them and making money off it. While I do think he is quite funny, I definitely wouldn't call him "courageous". As far as the gay stereotype he is embodying, I also find it pretty obnoxious. Most of the gay people I know are just ordinary people who happen to have a different sexual preference. Nothing like Bruno.
I think the Libertarian point of view is that if we limit the government's power (specifically, to the powers outlined in the Constitution), then whether the corporations are buying off the politicians or simply act as the government themselves, they will be limited in the scope of their power over the people. I do not consider myself a Libertarian or a member of any political party, but I definitely think this aspect of Libertarianism makes a lot of sense.
If the people really wanted to stop being poisoned, for example, they would educate themselves about the many poisons ubiquitous in our environment, water, and food supply, and how to avoid them. They would educate themselves about, say, detoxification pathways of the liver and how to support them so they could learn how to defend their bodies against what they are exposed to. And above all, they would stop giving their hard earned dollars to the very people who are poisoning them, to the extent that they possibly could. These multinational corporations don't get their money out of nowhere, after all. They don't put a gun to our heads and force us to buy their products. Public awareness and understanding is what brings about real change, not government. Giving the government power to regulate poisons in the food supply has clearly done nothing to alleviate the actual problem. Instead, we end up with the regulators labeling real foods like raw milk as dangerous, and raiding small farmers to put them out of business so they won't compete with the corporate dairy industry's profits. Meanwhile, food processors can label their products as "trans fat free" when they clearly do contain trans fat, as evidenced by the ingredient list, and the FDA turns a blind eye. Nearly all of our processed food is full of MSG, hidden with names like hydrolyzed soy protein, with not a peep from the FDA. Trans fat definitely qualifies as a poison, and MSG is used to induce obesity in lab rats (do a PubMed search for "MSG-induced obesity").
So relying on the government to save us (and expanding their powers in the process) is clearly not working. What people need to do, in my opinion, is to start relying on themselves and not just trust what the government and the corporate media tells them. We all have brains, and by God, we should use them! Both of the poisons that I mentioned are very easy to avoid if we are willing to do a little research, start reading labels, and change our eating habits somewhat, all small prices to pay to avoid poisoning ourselves and our families. We don't need the government to do that for us.
I hope I didn't bore you with my food industry spiel. I'm pretty passionate about food, so its kind of my thing. Have an enjoyable evening!
-Laurel
Valley Oak
12-27-2010, 12:33 AM
All of this arguing is about to make me cry. Let us all come together and be one and share in the majiq of love. The following video best represents how I feel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4upn3M4jtQY
Valley Oak
12-28-2010, 08:35 AM
Laurel, I have posted my reply to your message about states rights in a new thread in waccotalk called I fear States' Rights because.... (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?75108-I-fear-States-Rights-because...)I hope you have the tenacity to respond.
Edward
Hi Conrad,
Thanks for sharing your views...
-Laurel
someguy
12-28-2010, 09:25 AM
Laurel, I have posted my reply to your message about states rights in a new thread in waccotalk. I hope you have the tenacity to respond.
Edward
Oh so you expect others to respond to what you write but not the other way around????? What a silly way of being.
Valley Oak
12-28-2010, 12:47 PM
Maybe so, but I wrote that message because Barry started a new thread in WaccoTalk called, "States Rights (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?75108-I-fear-States-Rights-because...)" (a spinoff from this one) and I didn't want you to miss out on all the fun, especially considering that both Mr. and Mrs. Someguy have already contributed so much to the original thread. Participation, of course, is always an option.
;0)
Oh so you expect others to respond to what you write but not the other way around????? What a silly way of being.
Barry
12-28-2010, 08:20 PM
Maybe so, but I wrote that message because Barry started a new thread in WaccoTalk called, "States Rights" (a spinoff from this one) and I didn't want you to miss out on all the fun, especially considering that both Mr. and Mrs. Someguy have already contributed so much to the original thread. Participation, of course, is always an option.
;0)I changed the name to "I fear States' Rights because... (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?75108-I-fear-States-Rights-because...)"
DynamicBalance
12-28-2010, 08:26 PM
Laurel, I have posted my reply to your message about states rights in a new thread in waccotalk. I hope you have the tenacity to respond.
Edward
Hi Edward,
I don't feel any obligation to respond to you, seeing as you are replying to a message that was not directed at you, and you still have not responded to a single one of my questions. You have given me no reason to have even so much as a shred of respect for you. I don't enjoy having one-sided conversations. If you would be so kind as to respond to the questions I have posed to you, I promise to give my response to your states rights spiel.
-Laurel
Barry
12-28-2010, 08:30 PM
I moved the Laurel's very thoughtful posts about Libertarianism into a new thread in WaccoTalk called: I think the Libertarian point of view is...
(https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?75148-I-think-the-Libertarian-point-of-view-is...&p=126890#post126890)
Valley Oak
12-29-2010, 07:57 AM
The only reason I addressed you at all was because a new thread was started. If the current thread had continued, I would have been content with your not responding and I would not have said anything. Just wanted to make sure people knew that the discussion had gone somewhere else.
But more to the point, you are simply dodging grapeshot. Everything else you've said is merely pretext. Your ridiculous states' rights "arguments," neo-Libertarian, quasi-Tea Party, essentially Republican crackpot ideology does not stand up to good reasoning, historical facts, or even basic humanity. Shame on you.
Oh, and by the way, you should try to be a little more honest about your true feelings regarding LGBTQQI sexuality: you and your husband are also homophobic but society will no longer tolerate your hateful bigotry. That is why people such as yourselves and Ron Paul hide your hatred behind states' rights arguments, so that you can legally discriminate against gays and other minorities.
That's the whole truth, out in the open, in a nutshell. That is essentially what you are all about, instituting hatred, discrimination, and bigotry by cloaking it in the law, democracy, and freedom. And the only way you can achieve all that is by heralding states' rights.
Democracy is also about protecting the rights of minorities against the abuses of the majority; the framers of the US Constitution understood this fundamental principle over two centuries ago, which is why they designed those protections into the laws of the land when they founded the Republic.
Edward
Hi Edward,
I don't feel any obligation to respond to you, seeing as you are replying to a message that was not directed at you, and you still have not responded to a single one of my questions. You have given me no reason to have even so much as a shred of respect for you. I don't enjoy having one-sided conversations. If you would be so kind as to respond to the questions I have posed to you, I promise to give my response to your states rights spiel.
-Laurel
Barry
12-29-2010, 11:21 AM
...
Oh, and by the way, you should try to be a little more honest about your true feelings regarding LGBTQQI sexuality: you and your husband are also homophobic but society will no longer tolerate your hateful bigotry. That is why people such as yourselves and Ron Paul hide your hatred behind states' rights arguments, so that you can legally discriminate against gays and other minorities.
That's the whole truth, out in the open, in a nutshell. That is essentially what you are all about, instituting hatred, discrimination, and bigotry by cloaking it in the law, democracy, and freedom. And the only way you can achieve all that is by heralding states' rights.... :barfonu:Jeez, Edward. Your paranoia is quite misplaced. I don't doubt there are people who fit your accusation, but Brad and Laurel are certainly not among them, nor are the "mainstream libertarians". In fact they would be the first ones to argue for gay rights, but also not impose them on anyone else. Everybody gets to do what they want, whether it be marrying someone of the same sex, or not serving them because they did.
Your post above would get you banned in any other forum, but since your are already banned to Censored and Uncensored, the next stop may be a user title of "I'm Gay & Paranoid".
Valley Oak
12-29-2010, 11:41 AM
Sorry for flying off the handle again, Barry. I figured that being in the Censored and Uncensored category I could do that but I'll keep your reply in mind.
If I'm not mistaken, the Libertarian/Tea Party/Ron Paul/Republican/etc groups do not want a US Supreme Court ruling forcing same-sex marriage down their throats in all 50 states. Boo for the Ron Paul crowd. Here's why:
Loving v. Virginia (1967), US Supreme Court decision legalized marriage for interracial couples, forcing this decision down the throat of the State of Virginia, all Virginians, and all 50 states, whether they liked it or not. And that is the way it needs to be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Exceptions to fundamental human rights cannot be made with a states' rights argument, which is what Brad, Laurel, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul are advocating. States' rights clearly violate human rights and this has to be kept under control by the federal government. Otherwise, we will go back to bans on interracial marriages and not serving African Americans in public establishments (which is what Rand Paul publicly endorsed while he was running for US Senator for Kentucky and won), not to mention many other rights, such as abortion, etc.
This is not an exaggeration, it is historical fact. By having the federal government engage in an insane "devolution" of powers back to the states we will have homosexuality become a crime again in many states, abortion as well, and many other fundamental individual rights will be stripped away just like Proposition 8 did in California.
Just ask Laurel and Brad what they think of the passage of Proposition 8. They will tell you that it was the right thing because that is what the majority of California voters wanted. This is completely unacceptable. Democracy is also about protecting minorities' rights against the abuses of the majority, a fact that the Ron Paulers will never admit to.
Edward
:barfonu:Jeez, Edward. Your paranoia is quite misplaced. I don't doubt there are people who fit your accusation, but Brad and Laurel are certainly not among them, nor are the "mainstream libertarians". In fact they would be the first ones to argue for gay rights, but also not impose them on anyone else. Everybody gets to do what they want, whether it be marrying someone of the same sex, or not serving them because they did.
Your post above would get you banned in any other forum, but since your are already banned to Censored and Uncensored, the next stop may be a user title of "I'm Gay & Paranoid".
someguy
12-29-2010, 12:16 PM
Just ask Laurel and Brad what they think of the passage of Proposition 8. They will tell you that it was the right thing because that is what the majority of California voters wanted. This is completely unacceptable. Democracy is also about protecting minorities' rights against the abuses of the majority, a fact that the Ron Paulers will never admit to.
Edward
If you look up the definition of Democracy, you will not find that it is about protecting minorities rights against the abuses of the majority. It is about giving the power to the people to elect the government they want. So fundamentally you are wrong about what a democracy is.
Here is websters definition:
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vest%5B1%5D) in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/election)
Personally I would have voted against prop 8 as I think gay people should have the right to marry. Although who am I force my point of view down the throats of an unwilling population? Do you really think that if you pass a law it changes the way people think and feel? No! This reminds me of an episode of South Park where the boys joined the boy scouts... The leader of the group was Big Gay Al, an obviously gay man. The parents of the boys were so put off by this man that they ratted on him to the elders of the club and they kicked him out for being gay, despite how awesome of a scout leader he was. The replacement however was a straight man, but a pedophile, and took naked pictures of the boys, something that Big Gay Al would have never done. So the boys went on a crusade to get Big Gay Al back in scouts so that he could be their leader again, because he was wayyyy better than this asshole pedophile. They even got some big wig lawyer to take their case all the way to the supreme court and they won. They succeeded in forcing the leaders of the scouts to reinstate Big Gay Al! Yay, right! Wrong. Big Gay Al himself realized that it wasn't right to force this private club to accept him, because they didn't really accept him, they were just forced to. He thought it was great to be allowed to do what he loves to do, but he also realized that passing a law was not the right way to go about it. The right way to go about it is to teach those who don;t like gays why they are wrong. That way the society will actually change, not just superficially, but actually. It might be a hard road to travel to change people's hearts and minds, but it is much more worthwhile than taking a shortcut. Because in the end, when you take that shortcut all you are doing is creating animosity between those feeling forced to do something and those who don't actually feel accepted.
You can watch this episode of South Park here: (it's one of my favorites)
So to call me homophobic is stupid and wrong. I lived with a lesbian, worked as a caregiver for an elderly gay man, currently we live next door to a gay couple, I have worked as a supervisor for many gays, my previous boss's were a gay couple who are still my good friends, I lived in Guerneville (a place I love, full of people I love), etc.... I could go on.... It doesn't matter though. I know for a fact that I'm not homophobic and neither is my wife. We do know who the bigot is around here though..... But that's okay, its up to us to change that certain bigots heart and mind on a profound level. That is the essence of personal responsibility and that is the only way we will ever be able to truly change the world. One douche at a time.:wink:
DynamicBalance
12-29-2010, 04:49 PM
Brad, that last post was righteous! Way to go! That is one of my favorite episodes of South Park too, and I encourage everyone to check it out and take to heart what Big Gay Al says at the end.
I also am not homophobic, and I am 100% ok with gay people (or any other sexuality), with gay people getting married, and with whatever else gay people choose to do with themselves. I have been 100% honest about the way I feel about this. I would never support Prop 8 or anything resembling it. The fact that I agree with the concept of states' rights (and actually, I would really prefer that most laws were handled on the local level, so that each person could have the maximum say and impact on the laws of their community) does not mean that I have to agree with every decision made by every state. That would be literally impossible! I think that if the people of California are not ready to accept gay marriage yet, they should not be forced to. Like Brad said, it is our duty to educate others when they hold views that are anti- personal freedom. But we can't force people to change their minds. That just creates resentment. It goes back to the golden rule; if you don't want someone to impose their views on you, don't impose yours on them!
On the other hand, there are of course certain principles which should be exempt from the concept of states' rights, and those are the principles upon which our country was founded. Namely, that all men are created equal and that no state should create laws that infringe on one's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. That is why it was great for the federal government to abolish slavery, and to outlaw institutionalized racism, because those were clear violations of our fundamental rights as human beings. Sadly, the federal government has far overstepped its bounds by creating their own laws (such as making drugs illegal on a federal level) which infringe on these fundamental rights.
At any rate, it is clear to me that intolerant attitudes towards gay people are changing rapidly in our society, and it surely won't be long before gay and straight couples are seen as equals deserving of all of the same rights.
Valley Oak
12-30-2010, 06:24 PM
Hello Brad,
Central Issue:
You are ultimately saying that when California voters passed Proposition 8 (amending the California State constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman) that Californians were right in doing so and that the law should be respected and kept. And that this amendment to the Constitution of California should be repealed only by another statewide initiative, like the one that put it there in the first place. Is that right? Please correct me if I’m wrong because I’m still trying to learn how to apply, specifically, your political philosophy to Proposition 8. And that, therefore, nor the California State legislature, nor US Congress, nor any court, including the US Supreme Court, should be able to overturn Proposition 8? Is that it?
If that is your position then you are wrong and here’s why:
Regarding federal laws, US Congress might have a tougher time trumping Proposition 8, but even if that happened, which I very seriously doubt that it ever will, the issue would inevitably end up before the US Supreme Court.
This is because the US Constitution is very clear about issues like Proposition 8 in the ‘Equal Protection Clause,’ Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (one of the 3 Civil War amendments), which reads as follows:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”The Equal Protection Clause was put there to help insure that whatever laws existed, federal or state, they would be applied equally to everyone, regardless. Notwithstanding, because of stubborn violations by various states and people like you, Congress has had to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Add to this the long list of legal cases that went to the US Supreme Court regarding those laws and the Constitution, among which are Brown v. Board, 1954 and Loving v. Virginia, 1967.
It is the obligation of all courts to intervene whenever the Constitutional rights of US citizens are violated. This includes whenever a state(s) or the majority have voted to strip away those rights from a minority. It is the law of the land; it is written into the federal Constitution, which takes precedence over any state law or state constitution, whether that law was passed by the state’s legislature or by popular referendum, or upheld by a state supreme court.
Laws like Proposition 8 clearly violate the Constitutional rights of the LGBT community and it is the duty of the courts to correct the will of the majority of California voters, or any state, whether it is same-sex marriage, equal access to education for African-Americans, or any other concern.
It is the only, possible right thing to do: to correct the will of the majority when that majority violates the rights of others. That is the law; it is in the US Constitution; it is the law of the land. To do otherwise, despite your arguments that the majority’s wishes should be respected, would not only be completely unconscionable but also completely illegal. And that is what you are still not getting. (And this is indeed part of the democratic process and your dictionary citation does not contradict this fact.)
We, the LGBT community, will defeat the State of California, its majority, and millions of people like you and Ron Paul when Perry v. Schwarzenegger reaches the US Supreme Court. Proposition 8 will be overturned, and once again people of the same gender will be able to marry not only in California, but in all 50 states. Your ideology (whatever that might be) is outside of the law and the democratic institutions of the United States of America. People have a legal right to a redress of grievances and can challenge and overturn Proposition 8.
By the way, I voted NO on Proposition 8. How about you?
As an aside, I do not rely on cartoons to educate me about my Constitutional rights. For my education, I read university textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about Political Science, and earn As and Bs in my graduate Political Science courses at an accredited school; Sonoma State University.
You might want to stop watching cartoons someday like your “South Park conservative” friends so that you can get a grip on reality and the adult world.
Edward
Personally I would have voted against prop 8...
someguy
12-30-2010, 10:50 PM
Hello Brad,
Central Issue:
Please correct me if I’m wrong because I’m still trying to learn how to apply, specifically, your political philosophy to Proposition 8. And that, therefore, nor the California State legislature, nor US Congress, nor any court, including the US Supreme Court, should be able to overturn Proposition 8? Is that it?
We, the LGBT community, will defeat the State of California, its majority, and millions of people like you and Ron Paul
By the way, I voted NO on Proposition 8. How about you?
As an aside, I do not rely on cartoons to educate me about my Constitutional rights. For my education, I read university textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about Political Science, and earn As and Bs in my graduate Political Science courses at an accredited school; Sonoma State University.
Edward
Of course the supreme court or any court for that matter can overturn prop 8 and I would welcome that decision. You are making way too many assumptions about my point of view, which you clearly are ignorant of. I don't vote because I have dual citizenship and I don't want to lose my other citizenship, but as I said I would have voted against prop 8 given the opportunity. And you should stop saying that people like myself and Ron Paul are against gay rights. You can lie and say it as many times as you want, but I'm so sorry to tell you, it doesn't change the truth which is that both Ron Paul and I support your right to marry.
I hope you aren't paying too much for those political science courses.... They don't seem to be very effective in teaching you what a democracy is. This is basic information that a junior high school student should learn in civics class. You seem to think that a dictatorship is democracy. Wrong! This is another great example of not just trusting experts, (since your teachers are probably claiming to be political experts) and look at the student they've produced.... Ignorant, vile, petty, and extremely biased.
Obviously youre never going to get this concept that I am for gay rights. Why should I talk to you anymore if you can't understand plain language? Why should I put up with you, when you make wild (inaccurate) assertions about my personal beliefs and you refuse to get to know me personally? Is that not an ignorant way of living? Are you not just some ignorant asshole trying to provoke people? What the fuck is your goal here big guy? Do you actually want to know what I think? Or do you just want to tell me what I think, and ignore what I actually say?
Goodbye Edward.
Valley Oak
12-31-2010, 06:32 AM
Brad, I am reposting a message to this thread that was taken out a few days ago. It has a short, new comment at the end that I added, which is crucial and that I have neglected to say before, until now:
I fear states' rights. I fear them because they are used as an excuse to abuse individual rights, even today. Back in the 1950s, the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954, US Sup. Ct.) was handed down to protect the constitutional rights (federal rights) of African Americans, especially those living in the old confederate states, and destroyed the "separate but equal" argument. Human rights take precedence over states' rights and many court decisions, such as Brown v. Board to name just one, asserted this.
The argument of states' rights is one of the favorite political arguments of the Republican Party, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and conservatives in general (Ronald Reagan's, "The Speech"). Not only that, but the states' rights position is used by anti-abortionists (like Ron Paul), racists (George Wallace), and anti-gay activists.
The idea that states' rights actually protect freedom and individual rights, etc, is a HUMONGOUS lie. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Wikipedia) was instituted to protect the individual rights of African Americans, because, once again, they were still being violated by the states. Powerful conservative senators, such as Strom Thurmond stridently opposed the CRA-'64 and even filibustered it. Thurmond, who was a Republican (~1964 until end of career) also ran for the Presidency of the United States in 1948 as the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidate. Thurmond was a Democrat at the beginning of his political career.
By taking power away from a centralized authority, people like Ron Paul and his son, Palin, Tea Partiers, and millions more, have the opportunity to deny those basic human, civil, and constitutional rights once again, returning, possibly to the old Jim Crow laws. In other words, what states' rights advocates are arguing for is the right of the majority of citizens in a given state to take away or deny the rights of minorities such as African Americans (Rand Paul's statement that people should have the right to deny service to African Americans), the LGBTQQI community, women, non-christians, etc, etc, etc.
There needs to be a singular, national authority to protect the rights of minorities. That is the greatest flaw of the stupid states' rights view.
I hope to see the day when the US Supreme Court decides in favor of same-sex marriage and forces ALL 50 states, against their will and the will of their majorities, to recognize and protect the rights of same-sex couple to marry.
(End of repost here.)
Brad, people like you spread misery in this world and make people unhappy. You are an unbelievably naive and selfish young man.