The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Republican Debates: Round 6
Elki
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
Are you a 'values' voter? Do you think the Republican candidates don't talk about values enough? Well, get ready, because they made a debate that is 110% about sucking your dick. This is supposed to be the 'values-voters debate'.
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Network: Sky Angel
Date: September 17, 2007, 7:30-10:30 PM ET (Yeah, I'm making this a bit early)
Candidates:
John Cox
Sam Brownback
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo
Notable absences:
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Moderator: ??
Webstream: http://www.afa.net/
Try to stay on-topic.
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Network: Sky Angel
Date: September 17, 2007, 7:30-10:30 PM ET (Yeah, I'm making this a bit early)
Candidates:
John Cox
Sam Brownback
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo
Notable absences:
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Moderator: ??
Webstream: http://www.afa.net/
Try to stay on-topic.
Elki on
0
Posts
I don't know whether to watch for the entertainment factor, or worry that my head would explode from watching it.
Odds are, he'll just focus on abortion and gay marriage, which he and the religious right largely agree on.
Yeah, because he is so deft politically and tries to avoid confrontation.
I don't think states rights is a political dodge for Paul. The dude just legitimately wants the federal government to die.
No offense, but I have some doubt of your ability to objectively evaluate this particular subject due to your obsessive hatred of states rights. You're like Loren on this.
Haha I have to sig this.
No, it's pretty consistent. His preference for State's using that right to outlaw gay marriage is bullshit hypocrisy, though. He thinks the only legitimate job of the Fed occurs on aircraft carriers.
I honestly don't see what the fucking difference is between the state government taking away a right and the federal government taking away a right from the perspective of the person losing the right.
Depends on how (if?) you read the constitution.
From the individual perspective, it would be easier to find a state willing to give you that right if it is up to the states than it would be if it is up to the national government. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Not really. In fact, the illogic of it all takes the breath away. The states don't want to be dictated to by a majority of the national population - they want to be left alone to dictate terms to their minorities in peace.
Rights need to be ensured at the highest level of government or not at all.
What? Huh?
Let me restate this. If gay-marriage is a national issue rather than a states issue, then it is going to be rather difficult for gay-marriage not to be banned democratically as the national majority is against it. If it is a states issue, then there is going to be a wider distribution of how accepting the individual states are of gay-marriage, and there are much more likely to be outliers away from the mean who have popular support for it. As such, there would be some places where gays could be married rather than none.
This is a separate issue from not democratically granted rights, like if the courts decreed the bans to be unconstitutional.
The true libertarian position would be for the government to keep its hands off on marriage in general, but that is neither here nor there.
Whether that's true or not, the issue is that Ron Paul, vaunted champion of liberty, is courting the bigot vote, who apparently do feel - rightly or wrongly - that they either are, or are soon to be, under siege from a nation wanting them to change their ways.
Of course it's here or there, because if Ron Paul actually took that position he would look like considerably less of a tool.
While it sounds like a good slogan, there actually is a legitimate argument for states' rights in America: The US is such a geographically, economically, and ideologically diverse nation, that it would be far easier for the state government to look after its constituents, because it would be difficult to enact a national policy that will make everybody happy. The "United States of Canada" and "Jesusland" cartoon from the 2004 elections isn't far off. I'm sure more than one Blue-stater has thought that things would be better if we just kicked all the red states out of our country. And that is not a new line of thought -- back in the times right after the Revolutionary War, a lot of people didn't want a strong Federal government, but instead wanted the US to be like a loose coalition of states, and the US Constitution was just barely ratified.
And people disagree over what the fundamental freedoms are. Idealistically-speaking, we need to confront those differences so that our society can continue making progress (women's rights didn't get where it is now by all the women moving to a different country/planet/universe). However, pragmatically-speaking, people in Texas would be a lot happier if they had a different top-level government than California, so they can make policies like "A gun in every crib" and "No homosexuals;" conversely, Californians would be a lot happier if they didn't have to deal with the Bible-thumping, gun-toting morality of Texas. Whether or not you think it's the best thing for human society as a whole, divisive -- even irreconcilable -- regional differences makes a logical basis for the argument for states' rights.
Unless those state's use the 10th in order to violate any other amendments/rights garunteed to their citizenry by the 9th and 14th. Texas may not want to have sodomy and gay marriages going on, but they are inalienable rights which they cannot outlaw. Same with California and guns. People may disagree, but that would just make them wrong.
Yes, but gay marriage (and for that matter, marriage period) and abortion are not covered by those amendments. Hence, I don't think it's a duck for Ron Paul. There's nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government powers over those things. The only thing remotely related to them is:
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
I think gay marriage should be legal in all states, but recognize the fact that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do so. What does that make me?
Wrong.
Loving v Virginia is the relevant precedent.
From the decision in that case: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
That opening statement is bullshit.
And it's application of the due process clause of the 14th amendment? What was that?
How much time do you think will be dedicated by those present to bash the three absentees? I am guessing upwards of 90%
"While Rudy Guliani is in favor of divorce and eating your children, as proved by his absense today, I believe..."
Not the point I was trying to make. If a person is running for federal government, whether President or Congress, their opinion on gay marriage doesn't matter. It's not something they should have a say in whatsoever. It's a states issue. The only stretch would be as a litmus test for appointing judges, who might be required to put the states in line if they cross boundaries, but they should not be making any legislative or executive decisions on that topic.
It is NOT a state's issue... it is a Civil Rights issue which has always been the domain of the Federal Government to enforce.
This is going back a few days, but I was thinking about it last night. Isn't it possible, nay likely, that he's using the "Leave it up to the states" dodge to maintain the Christian Right vote in the primaries, hoping to then go full frontal with libertarian principles to win the election? He's all about practicing what he preaches, but he is a politician after all. Sort of an ends politically justify the means move.
What the fuck is an abortion survivor?