586 replies to this topic

[capt_morgan]

then why dont we just disband congress like rome did to the senate and just make him empirer

[TakeAStepBack]

Commander in Chief too. If all we get are ended foreign occupations and wars and a reeled in military, it's leaps and bounds over what we've received in the last 40 years. Not only that, but he's called Dr. No for a reason. He refuses to waste our money. Getting absolutely nothing done in the way of government spending our money is better than adding trillions more to the debt/deficit spends.

[TEO]

what little paper? and before you even answer...no it doesnt.

I must have missed the limitations other than "his word." Would you (or anyone) mind outlining the limitations, or pointing me in the direction of a specific list of limitations?

[capt_morgan]

im just sayin...congress has to vote on shit do they not? yea, premier obama has the veto power...but its not absolute. if you want to talk military then yea...he can essentially do whatever.

[capt_morgan]

but lets exaggerate and say paul wins, and he decided it was time to do away with social security...congress would unanimously say "up yours"

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, he pledged and offer to opt out for newcomers to SS. Sooner or later that program isn't going to be around anyway. I believe I read by 2018 it's completely insolvent.

[capt_morgan]

prolly....we're gonna have a lot of poor old people it seems....either way

[capt_morgan]

i do like the opt-in/opt-out thing though as ive said before....but i doubt there would even be enough money getting put into it for it to work

[TEO]

prolly....we're gonna have a lot of poor old people it seems....either way

We have a lot of poor old people now, unless you think $600-800 per month ain't poor.

[capt_morgan]

We have a lot of poor old people now, unless you think $600-800 per month ain't poor.

doesnt mean it cant or wont get worse...that doesnt make it ok

[TEO]

Drastically changing a broken system does not mean the truly needy be cast out to die.

[TakeAStepBack]

it will get worse. To me the answer is not more of the same to conquer the problem though. It's not OK, either. It's a damn shame. I've been paying into SS and medicare since I was 16. I have no hopes of those programs being around when it comes my turn to collect on them. That's why im against such programs.

[deadheadskier]

Well, he pledged and offer to opt out for newcomers to SS. Sooner or later that program isn't going to be around anyway. I believe I read by 2018 it's completely insolvent.

I've read anywhere from 2018, to the 2040s, to never. I don't think anyone has an accurate answer.

Honestly, I doubt it ever goes away. I'm not hashing my bets on it as a safety net for retirement, but I do believe a SS program will always remain in place.

[TEO]

SS does mean SUPPLEMENTAL, not FULL support.

[deadheadskier]

....I'm aware

[TakeAStepBack]

I've read anywhere from 2018, to the 2040s, to never. I don't think anyone has an accurate answer. Honestly, I doubt it ever goes away. I'm not hashing my bets on it as a safety net for retirement, but I do believe a SS program will always remain in place.

That's true. it could also be argued that it's already insolvent. Obama even had to fess up over the last debt ceiling raise when he fearmongered that if we didnt get the ceiling raise, he didnt think any checks would go out. In other words, they are borrowing money to fund the program. We are, at this time, borrowign money to fund most programs.

[TEO]

Understood that you are dhs.

[capt_morgan]

time to start scrapping man hole covers.

[PeaceFrog]

I don't think that gumming up the process so that nothing gets done is the answer, either.

[TakeAStepBack]

I wish he would WIN. At the very least we NEED the shake up.

Sadly, the realization is he will not win the nomination. his own campaign has resigned to this bar an unforseen event. However, the seeds have been planted and the movement carries on. taking leadership roles in state gop positions, delegations, etc. So in that regard, the movement is/was a huge success. It will continue to grow. tampa will be about getting items into the platform that matter to the cause, such as monetary reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom. (sheesh, what is this, a sharia law country? Ridiculous we have to fight hard for these in the supposed free country of the world) prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

[TakeAStepBack]

[Julius]

It will continue to grow. tampa will be about getting items into the platform that matter to the cause, such as monetary reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

and don't forget making sure the queers can't get married!

[TakeAStepBack]

That's not in the platform. But thanks for the thorn.

[TakeAStepBack]

And for the record, regardless of the irresponsible joke made by Rand Paul, Ron Paul's position on same sex marriage is:
Asked his opinion on same-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul replied, “Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament.”

[capt_morgan]

no where in that statement does he say anything about same sex marriage...in fact, just the use of the word biblically makes me think he would be against it.

[TEO]

no where in that statement does he say anything about same sex marriage...in fact, just the use of the word biblically makes me think he would be against it.

May I refer you to this?
The time when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite

One of the most common arguments against same sex marriage is that “one man, one woman is the way it’s always been for thousands and thousands of years.” Yeah, but no. Humanity has and continues to practice almost every arrangement possible in the name of love, politics, religion and economics. While a man and a woman has been the most common due to biological impulse, it’s not everyone’s preference. Hell, between the 10th and 12th centuries, Christian churches had little problem performing same sex marriage.

http://www.iheartcha...-christian-rite

[PeaceFrog]

He wants to leave it up to the States to prevent gay marriage.

[capt_morgan]

May I refer you to this? The time when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite One of the most common arguments against same sex marriage is that “one man, one woman is the way it’s always been for thousands and thousands of years.” Yeah, but no. Humanity has and continues to practice almost every arrangement possible in the name of love, politics, religion and economics. While a man and a woman has been the most common due to biological impulse, it’s not everyone’s preference. Hell, between the 10th and 12th centuries, Christian churches had little problem performing same sex marriage. http://www.iheartcha...-christian-rite

so are you saying that if the government just stayed out of it the churches would allow it?

[TEO]

I believe I was saying just because you read the term bible it does not automatically mean anti same-sex marriage.

[capt_morgan]

He wants to leave it up to the States to prevent gay marriage.

its all about individual liberties until its a subject they dont like....then its all the states problem. gotta love that wash your hands of it, its not our problem mentality.

[capt_morgan]

I believe I was saying just because you read the term bible it does not automatically mean anti same-sex marriage.

i stand corrected

[TEO]

Individual liberty would presume that marriage is a spiritual concern whereas legal unions/partnership are a civic matter.

[PeaceFrog]

all these different definitions of common words and phrases remind me too much of a cult

You're asking people to redefine everything they've ever known.

That's just too much to ask.

[capt_morgan]

Individual liberty would presume that marriage is a spiritual concern whereas legal unions/partnership are a civic matter.

the minute government put in god we trust on money and then started giving tax breaks to married couples...it became one issue. legal or not.

[TEO]

the minute government put in god we trust and then started giving tax breaks to married couples...it became one issue. legal or not.

Yep, and that should have been stopped before it started. So just because it has been that way and is fundamentally wrong does that mean it should not be changed?

[PeaceFrog]

the minute government put in god we trust on money and then started giving tax breaks to married couples...it became one issue. legal or not.

I agree. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[capt_morgan]

im all for taking the issue off the governments table...but you have to deal with the economic problems it creates as well

[PeaceFrog]

Yep, and that should have been stopped before it started. So just because it has been that way and is fundamentally wrong does that mean it should not be changed?

You're forgetting that there are many people who want these things, and until they change their minds it doesn't make sense to continue to just build more laws and principles around this foundation that YOU think is fundamentally flawed, as if it weren't. It should be YOUR goal to start with the basics and get the fundamentals fixed first.

[capt_morgan]

Yep, and that should have been stopped before it started. So just because it has been that way and is fundamentally wrong does that mean it should not be changed?

i dont have the answer to that...maybe tasb can add to it in a way i cant. i just see a lot of butthurt citizens either way.


my thought about it...while may not be right...is that gay marriage should be made legal... across the board on a federal level. it doesnt hurt anyones freedoms...in fact, it grants a freedom where there wasnt one. to me thats progress.

[PeaceFrog]

you can't hit the rewind button... this is real life

the only button is...


wait for it...


FORWARD

[TEO]

i dont have the answer to that...maybe tasb can add to it in a way i cant. i just see a lot of butthurt citizens either way. my thought about it...while may not be right...is that gay marriage should be made legal... across the board on a federal level. it doesnt hurt anyones freedoms...in fact, it grants a freedom where there wasnt one. to me thats progress.

With you on that as we have wrapped so much "legally" up in marital status.

[TEO]

you can't hit the rewind button... this is real life the only button is... wait for it... FORWARD

Which would also mean over ridding "bad" former law such as the right to own slaves, no?

[PeaceFrog]

Which would also mean over ridding "bad" former law such as the right to own slaves, no?

yes... I do believe so...

however, like I said... you've got an entire political party full of people who reinstated the "In God We Trust" slogan just this year (as if that really needed to be done)... this is what we're dealing with... so there's a looooong way to go before I see that being repealed. The best we can do at this point is temporarily patch it up.

[PeaceFrog]

let me put it this way...

you can't give slaves 40 acres and a mule if they aren't even freed yet.

[TakeAStepBack]

its all about individual liberties until its a subject they dont like....then its all the states problem. gotta love that wash your hands of it, its not our problem mentality.

Powers not enumerated as federal are left up to the states. I feel that, because of the decree of separation of church and state, and since marriage is a religious and spiritual matter, not a state one, that it should have nothing to do with government. Paul leaves it tot he state because he does believe it is between a man and a woman. But knows his belief can not be sanctioned through federal law. I would take it further than Paul and say it is a constitutional question of separation church and state. Therefore, the state has absolutely no business in it.

That also means no perks like tax breaks and such. but Paul and I also agree that federal income tax , and state income tax, are unconstitutional as well. The govt. gets their tax money 7 ways from Sunday. They should not have a hand in my labor services rendered. Which is where all the hub-bub comes in in the first place. Perks from the public treasury.

[TakeAStepBack]

you can't hit the rewind button... this is real life the only button is... wait for it... FORWARD

Great. So the same things could be said about the war on terror, the war on drugs, economic warfare and civil liberty warfare. Stay the course, right? No turning back now! Only thing ot do is keep doing the same disastrous fucked up mess we've been at! Eventually, we'll win!!!!

[capt_morgan]

a lot of folks woulnt have even gotten married if not for the economic perks. take those away, as well as the governments stance on the legality...and the problem should be solved. take it up with your church if you insist on going that route

[capt_morgan]

or you can legalize it federally and make it a civil right... taking away the states "right" to deny minorities their freedom

[capt_morgan]

or contradicting myself here, who is to say a bill isnt passed making it federally legal then the next prez gets in and re-peals the law sending us back to square one...

i have to say on this issue the paul approach is cleaner...sorta nips it in the bud....never to re-surface.

[capt_morgan]

it also annoys me that people get tax breaks for having children...but thats just because kids make me wanna vomit