Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:Here's a great example of some more hypocrisy:

http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluen ... ce285.html

Remember when all these conservatives were up in arms about some rapper or something going to the White House? Kid Rock is playing the GOP convention.

I remember when someone.. I think maybe Newt Gingrich??? was irate that the Beach Boys were invited to sing at the White House when the Reagans were in office.

Apparently, he forgot where the Reagans were from (not to mention that the Beach Boys are hardly a bastion of sex and violence) ... Mrs Reagan very quickly said she loved the Beach Boys and promptly invited them to do a concert.

Remind me, why are gays not allowed in North Carolina?

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.

There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.

I think Symmetry's point is that you might be a social conservative on a given particular issue and on no others...thus, you wouldn't really be "a social conservative" (as a whole).

I know what Symmetry's point is. I'm attempting to reframe the discussion and I'm doing it mostly for Phatscotty's benefit (or detriment). I thought I would get more support from the gallery.

Simply put, to shout freedom from the rafters while at the same time trying to make sure people are less free, regardless of what particular issue you are on about, makes that person a social conservative. Just because Phatscotty shouts about economic freedom does not make him any less of a big government conservative when it comes to social issues.

Maybe you are just wrong. It happens ya know.

Ron Paul is all about states rights, and that includes drug legalization and drug testing. That has been my position all along. Again, I have to conclude you don't really know what you are talking about.

I am an alternate delegate for Ron Paul. I was a delegate for Ron Paul in 2008. I am going to "shout" at the convention in Tampa in August. I am working for Ron Paul, not just talking crap on a gaming forum. I made the decision to stop shouting and get involved and do something a long time ago. I'm currently in the process of being hired to speak around my state on the issue of marriage.

I am confident because of all we have accomplished, and I can see clearly the way we are paving for future Libertarian Republicans. I think the truth is that my level of understand is far too advanced, and it simply cannot be understood by beginners. Call it pompous or whatever you want. The time for petty verbal attacks has passed. Now is the time for action. If you aren't involved, you will have to wait for a long time until you understand what was happening right now, and what we were doing, and what will come of it.

Question is, WTF are you doing for our common cause Mr. Criticizer? Anything?

Phatscotty wrote:I'm currently in the process of being hired to speak around my state on the issue of marriage.

I don't understand this part. Are you speaking to inform people about what marriage is? Are you speaking to persuade them that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage? I'm not trying to be a smartass...I really don't understand why someone would pay someone else to "speak on the issue of marriage".

Phatscotty wrote:I think the truth is that my level of understand is far too advanced, and it simply cannot be understood by beginners.

*chuckle*

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I'm currently in the process of being hired to speak around my state on the issue of marriage.

I don't understand this part. Are you speaking to inform people about what marriage is? Are you speaking to persuade them that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage? I'm not trying to be a smartass...I really don't understand why someone would pay someone else to "speak on the issue of marriage".

I am not sure yet. what I want to do is simply explain what this issue means on 4 or 5 different levels, and I do not plan on making a religious argument at all. From all the people who I have talked to, I realize that most people have not even begun to explore the issue on anything except for the most basic level.

Example: "Do you support gay marriage?" most common answer "Yes. I think people should be able to love whoever they want." They do not even realize that people absolutely already can and do love WHOEVER they want. Right at that exact moment, 5 seconds into the conversation, I continually see the light-bulb turn on in their heads. They have never thought past that. There is no law that prevents gay people from being gay, or says who you can or can't love. I 100% support people loving whoever they love, and I 100% understand it's none of my business.

It's a big deal because we are voting in my state this November if we are going to amend our constitution to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. fyi we are also voting on voter ID. Voter ID has 70+ support, and traditional marriage is over 60%.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I'm currently in the process of being hired to speak around my state on the issue of marriage.

I don't understand this part. Are you speaking to inform people about what marriage is? Are you speaking to persuade them that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage? I'm not trying to be a smartass...I really don't understand why someone would pay someone else to "speak on the issue of marriage".

I am not sure yet. what I want to do is simply explain what this issue means on 4 or 5 different levels, and I do not plan on making a religious argument at all. From all the people who I have talked to, I realize that most people have not even begun to explore the issue on anything except for the most basic level.

Example: "Do you support gay marriage?" most common answer "Yes. I think people should be able to love whoever they want." They do not even realize that people absolutely already can and do love WHOEVER they want. Right at the moment, 5 seconds into the conversation, I continually see the light-bulb turn on in their heads. They have never thought past that. There is no law that prevents gay people from being gay, or says who you can or can't love. I 100% support people loving whoever they love, and I 100% understand it's none of my business.

It's a big deal because we are voting in my state this November if we are going to amend our constitution to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. fyi we are also voting on voter ID. Voter ID has 70+ support, and traditional marriage is over 60%.

So it's the second question, then?

I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

Phatscotty wrote:I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there. I do not plan on saying anything close to what marriage is or what it isn't. It's more about how it should be dealt with in a fair, democratic, and liberty minded way.

For everyone to have an equal say is the only way to truly deal with this in a fair way.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there.

If the vote is already happening in your state, then why would they need someone to tell them that? I'm not trying to force anything but clarification from you.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there.

If the vote is already happening in your state, then why would they need someone to tell them that? I'm not trying to force anything but clarification from you.

Because, nobody has heard about or thought about these things, as I originally stated in this line of conversation. The clarity is there.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I hope to be speaking about marriage. I will continue not to take an opinion on the matter, other than it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level.

I'm not trying to do this to talk about me or what I think, I'm doing it to try to educate people on the issue.

So you will tell them both that marriage is only between a man and a woman and ALSO that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Or am I misunderstanding?

No. I will tell them all that "it should be an issue decided by the voters on a state level". You aren't misunderstanding, you are trying to force something into the conversation that isn't there.

If the vote is already happening in your state, then why would they need someone to tell them that? I'm not trying to force anything but clarification from you.

Because, nobody has heard about or thought about these things, as I originally stated in this line of conversation. The clarity is there.

Nobody has heard about or thought about States Rights? That's what you're saying here?

I guess my point is that it would have to be an awfully short talk, if what you're saying is true. There really isn't a lot of explanation that can be involved, and so it seems strange to me that someone would pay someone else to give such a very short talk on such a subject.

Check this post too, or else scroll to the top of this page
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=405#p3783441
add the other things I listed besides states rights, and the conversation will get longer. Shit, look how long this one is and we haven't even started yet!

I don't know exactly what will happen with the position if I get it. But I imagine a lot of it will be question and answer.

Phatscotty wrote:Check this post too, or else scroll to the top of this page
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=405#p3783441
add the other things I listed besides states rights, and the conversation will get longer. Shit, look how long this one is and we haven't even started yet!

I'm going to presume your link was a mistake, because there's nothing in that post that we haven't covered in the last couple of posts.

Phatscotty wrote:I don't know exactly what will happen with the position if I get it. But I imagine a lot of it will be question and answer.

Should states make the decision? Yes. Question and answer session concludes. <grin>

right, but when you said "nobody has heard of states rights?" and concluded it would be a short conversation, even though we have covered it in the last couple posts, you left out the other things that were in the link I shared.

Fairness, Democracy, Liberty, and states rights, as well as many other things. So it would be a longer conversation than you assume.

If you want to continue, it needs to be in another marriage thread, because I don't like posting in threads that have lies in their titles.

Id love to hear a podcast or recording of any speech you make PS.

Like Woodruff says if allyou care about is the promotion of democratic process then hell you wont even need to make a speech; just a website and relevant flyers/information is more than enough.

I assume you will be employeed by your local state government for this kind of promotional work?

I hope you come to New York. I will show up to one of your speeches and ask "why at the state level? why not at the county level or town level?"

GreecePwns wrote:I hope you come to New York. I will show up to one of your speeches and ask "why at the state level? why not at the county level or town level?"

Perhaps you would care to do a little historical research on your own as to why states control this function of government rather than asking. There is a lot of information out there on why certain laws sit at certain levels of the government.

I would suggest first studying the Declaration of Independence, followed by the Constitution, followed by the Federalist Papers.

I'll give you a quick breakdown. When the country of USA was first founded, it was founded by 13 individual governments (countries used to be called "states". A good way to understand this is search European states, you will see what you know today as "countries" listed) that each had their own sitting government and set of laws. In order to break free of Britain's tyranny, the states knew that either they had to work together or they would fail in their seemingly unwinnable war against one of the, if not the, world power at the time. These "states" or "countries" came together and put together one common government to easily regulate currency & commerce between them and became the "United States". As time grew on, more "states" joined. The concept of "state" has changed over time, now someone thinks of Nebraska rather than Albania when the word "state" is mentioned.

Anyway, when these states put a federal government system together, it was decided that anything not handled by the federal government was naturally handed down to the states to control. Laws and regulations on marriage is one of these items. The federal government recognized all state marriages as marriages until 1996 when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which defined marriage as only one man, one woman. So even if a state such as Massachussets allows gay marriage, it is not recognized by the federal government. This is where the real issue with gay marriage should lie, the federal government in my opinion should repeal DOMA and allow states to make these decisions and the federal government should recognize it if the states recognize it.

While I don't agree with gay marriage, if it is passed by a state according to that state's constitution, I have no complaints with it and feel that the federal government should respect the states rights to decide this matter.

And if a state so chose to pass the control of marriage down to the county level, they could. Many of the states have a big difference in things that they control compared to what they allow the counties to control. Bigger items like marriage are rarely one of these items though.

Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

GreecePwns wrote:Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Yet the answer is still the same. Perhaps you have been rejecting the answer exactly as much as you have been begging for it.



The reason it's not at the town level or the country level is because they have jurisdiction over smaller things like local carnivals, 4H meetings. and advertising garage sales.

Because the constitution says so is not a merit. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, as well. Try again.

GreecePwns wrote:Because the constitution says so is not a merit. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, as well. Try again.

I just showed you where it grants the states the power. That is the reality. That is the law.

I'm not appealing to anything, just introducing you to the most basic concepts of the US Constitution.

Go ahead and reject reality. It's pretty normal nowadays. I guess you will never learn then.

GreecePwns wrote:Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Your question was why at the state level and not at the county level. I answered that. Is there a different question you are trying to get answered? Maybe you should try to word it a different way or something.

GreecePwns wrote:Historically, that is the answer. I've been begging for someone to give an actual merit to the idea of deciding this issue at the state level over more local levels of government for around 20 pages in this thread and other threads.

Why do you require actual merit? That is rarely required when referring to laws, regulations, or constitutions. Many people will find particular items of law, regulations, or constitutions to be without merit and yet will still obey those things. In any event, if you find that the Constitution is without merit with respect to requiring that states maintain some level of sovereignty, there are avenues to achieve the result you wish to see. For example, an amendment to the Constitution.

To answer your question though, the applicability of a federal law to 50 states, 1 district, and numerous counties, cities, towns, and hamlets is completely ludicrous. Consider, as well, that each member of the house of representatives represents approximately 650,000 people. That's hardly proportional representation. Further, consider that laws that are supported and passed by, for example, South Carolina representatives, is equally applicable to California residents even though all the California representatives may have voted against the bill. So maybe the state governments, which have more proportional representation on the whole, should have more control over laws applicable to their own citizens, rather than less.