Republican Nominees

ResurrectionRooney wrote:OK, fine, I'm really not all that opposed to the idea of siblings marrying each other. There is of course a power structure there though, you're either being dishonest there or very naive.

I guess I'm naive on the subject then. I don't see how siblings of around the same age causes a power structure.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:So we are doing it to protect a concept? I can't agree with a law that is to the detriment of people's happiness to protect a concept.

How is a homosexual couple less happy because they can't get married? I don't understand that. They can still live together, have sex, etc.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:To be clear, you are claiming that it should be illegal for couples who cannot have kids to marry each other.

If there is a way to know 100% that a couple cannot have kids, then yes. I don't see the point.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You can't even prove that God commanded it, so don't go making these ridiculous claims.

Whatever, there is no point in arguing over that. It's still naive of you to think that the US government does not base certain things on religion. Take the Pledge of Allegiance for example.

SBSP wrote:Please take this crap out of the thread, so the proper crap can be discussed.

Gay marriage is an important topic among Republicans.

VivaRonaldo wrote:Ron Paul.

I don't really know why I voted Ron Paul in the poll.

SBSP wrote:I don't really know why I voted Ron Paul in the poll.

Well he is the best candidate, so good job. I recommend you read about/listen to him.

Explain to me why he is the best candidate.

SBSP wrote:Explain to me why he is the best candidate.

He is well known for being a strict constitutionalist. He has a great track record for being consistent in his views and I think he is one of the most honest politicians around. Here are his views on certain topics...

Foreign Policy

Ron Paul is a big non-intervention supporter, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. He is also a supporter of reducing or eliminating foreign aid to all countries including Israel. He is also big on free trade on the international level. He opposes protected alliances like NAFTA.

Economy

There is a lot I can see here, but I'll keep it simple. Lower spending, smaller government, lower taxes, getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

Civil Rights

When it comes to civil right issues, he thinks the states should decide, not the federal government.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Some people tell me he's crazy. Why is that?

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:OK, fine, I'm really not all that opposed to the idea of siblings marrying each other. There is of course a power structure there though, you're either being dishonest there or very naive.

I guess I'm naive on the subject then. I don't see how siblings of around the same age causes a power structure.

Well they won't necessarily be the same age for a start.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:So we are doing it to protect a concept? I can't agree with a law that is to the detriment of people's happiness to protect a concept.

How is a homosexual couple less happy because they can't get married? I don't understand that. They can still live together, have sex, etc.

They want to get married and the government is not allowing them to do so - it is almost as though the government is saying their relationship is not as valid as a heterosexual one.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:To be clear, you are claiming that it should be illegal for couples who cannot have kids to marry each other.

If there is a way to know 100% that a couple cannot have kids, then yes. I don't see the point.

What a horrible viewpoint.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You can't even prove that God commanded it, so don't go making these ridiculous claims.

Whatever, there is no point in arguing over that. It's still naive of you to think that the US government does not base certain things on religion. Take the Pledge of Allegiance for example.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't, I'm arguing that it shouldn't, and the Founding Fathers never envisioned it that way. Please withdraw your fanciful claim about societies having no laws against murder before God handed them down, or present some proof.

Is the Old Testament canon in Islamic belief?

SBSP wrote:Some people tell me he's crazy. Why is that?

Because he is so different from others. He proposes some unexpected things like getting rid of the Federal Reserve. It doesn't mean his views are wrong though.

he also wants to return to a gold standard:



I'm not too sure how it works but it sounds cool and will help to get rid of the ridiculous paper money printing which only leads to inflation.

I remember learning briefly about the old banking system in economics where people would deposit bars of gold; that always sounded really awesome

ahlycotc wrote:

SBSP wrote:Explain to me why he is the best candidate.

He is well known for being a strict constitutionalist. He has a great track record for being consistent in his views and I think he is one of the most honest politicians around. Here are his views on certain topics...

Foreign Policy

Ron Paul is a big non-intervention supporter, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. He is also a supporter of reducing or eliminating foreign aid to all countries including Israel. He is also big on free trade on the international level. He opposes protected alliances like NAFTA.

Economy

There is a lot I can see here, but I'll keep it simple. Lower spending, smaller government, lower taxes, getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

Civil Rights

When it comes to civil right issues, he thinks the states should decide, not the federal government.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

yes please.

Will not make it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-says-palestianians-are-an-invented-people/2011/12/09/gIQAV4VXiO_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

I'm glad there's one Western politician who isn't scared to tell the truth about the "Palestinians". The "Palestinians" are Arabs, and they should leave Israel's legitimately held territory, or shut the fuck up and stop complaining. Anti-Semitic shower of cunts.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I'm glad there's one Western politician who isn't scared to tell the truth about the "Palestinians". The "Palestinians" are Arabs, and they should leave Israel's legitimately held territory, or shut the fuck up and stop complaining. Anti-Semitic shower of cunts.

Egyptians are Arabs too. Americans are an "invented" people as well. Should they not have the right to the land?

By the way, Arabs are Semitic. Makes you look foolish for calling them Anti-Semitic.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I'm glad there's one Western politician who isn't scared to tell the truth about the "Palestinians". The "Palestinians" are Arabs, and they should leave Israel's legitimately held territory, or shut the fuck up and stop complaining. Anti-Semitic shower of cunts.

Egyptians are Arabs too. Americans are an "invented" people as well. Should they not have the right to the land?

By the way, Arabs are Semitic. Makes you look foolish for calling them Anti-Semitic.

Yes they are, maybe they should look after their fellow people by offering them some homes to live in, and letting them leave "Palestine".

Americans won their land through conquest and strength of arms, what right do the Palestinians have to Israel's lands? Or any land whatsoever for that matter.

You are well aware of the meaning of 'Anti-Semitic', as is everyone else.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Egyptians are Arabs too. Americans are an "invented" people as well. Should they not have the right to the land?

By the way, Arabs are Semitic. Makes you look foolish for calling them Anti-Semitic.

Yes they are, maybe they should look after their fellow people by offering them some homes to live in, and letting them leave "Palestine".

Americans won their land through conquest and strength of arms, what right do the Palestinians have to Israel's lands? Or any land whatsoever for that matter.

You are well aware of the meaning of 'Anti-Semitic', as is everyone else.

Israel didn't take over the entire region through conquest. So the Palestinians have a right for a state just as the Jews do.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Yes they are, maybe they should look after their fellow people by offering them some homes to live in, and letting them leave "Palestine".

Americans won their land through conquest and strength of arms, what right do the Palestinians have to Israel's lands? Or any land whatsoever for that matter.

You are well aware of the meaning of 'Anti-Semitic', as is everyone else.

Israel didn't take over the entire region through conquest. So the Palestinians have a right for a state just as the Jews do.

I didn't say that they did. The claimed stateless territory, which they have every right to do. Arabs brutally attacked them immediately after, and got their arses kicked. Problem?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Israel didn't take over the entire region through conquest. So the Palestinians have a right for a state just as the Jews do.

I didn't say that they did. The claimed stateless territory, which they have every right to do. Arabs brutally attacked them immediately after, and got their arses kicked. Problem?

And the Arabs got it back from them. Egypt regained the Sinai and Gaza while Jordan claimed the West Bank through conquest. Those areas were given to the Palestinians and is now their land. Saying that Americans have every right to have a nation on the land of Native Americans because it was through conquest, but saying the opposite when it comes to Palestinians/Arabs is hypocritical on your part. Problem?

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

I didn't say that they did. The claimed stateless territory, which they have every right to do. Arabs brutally attacked them immediately after, and got their arses kicked. Problem?

And the Arabs got it back from them. Egypt regained the Sinai and Gaza while Jordan claimed the West Bank through conquest. Those areas were given to the Palestinians and is now their land. Saying that Americans have every right to have a nation on the land of Native Americans because it was through conquest, but saying the opposite when it comes to Palestinians/Arabs is hypocritical on your part. Problem?

As long as they can defend these areas from incursions by Israel then I don't have a problem with them being declared rightful owners of the land.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

And the Arabs got it back from them. Egypt regained the Sinai and Gaza while Jordan claimed the West Bank through conquest. Those areas were given to the Palestinians and is now their land. Saying that Americans have every right to have a nation on the land of Native Americans because it was through conquest, but saying the opposite when it comes to Palestinians/Arabs is hypocritical on your part. Problem?

As long as they can defend these areas from incursions by Israel then I don't have a problem with them being declared rightful owners of the land.

Then why are you saying that Palestinians don't have any right to any land right now?

Because Israel don't want them to have it, they are only there because they crawl to the international community.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Because Israel don't want them to have it, they are only there because they crawl to the international community.

So what if Israel does or doesn't want for Palestinians to control Gaza and the West Bank? It's still their land as we agreed a couple posts ago. Some Palestinians don't want Israel to have their land, does that mean Israel shouldn't have it?

Let's go back to the beginning and this time don't change the topic. Answer the questions with yes or no...

1) Does a nation that conquer land through war or land that is given to them have control and ownership over that land?
2) Was Gaza and the West Bank given to the PLO, who represent the Palestinian people?

ahlycotc wrote:
1) Does a nation that conquer land through war or land that is given to them have control and ownership over that land?
2) Was Gaza and the West Bank given to the PLO, who represent the Palestinian people?

1) Yes
2) Yes, but if Israel retakes that land then it belongs to them.

I have a couple of questions for you

1) Is a man who believes that millions of his citizens will be sent to eternal suffering by a powerful being, and does not condemn this, a suitable candidate for Presidency?
2) Do you believe Gary Speed went to hell? (I know you don't know, I'm asking what you believe)

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:
1) Does a nation that conquer land through war or land that is given to them have control and ownership over that land?
2) Was Gaza and the West Bank given to the PLO, who represent the Palestinian people?

1) Yes
2) Yes, but if Israel retakes that land then it belongs to them.

I have a couple of questions for you

1) Is a man who believes that millions of his citizens will be sent to eternal suffering by a powerful being, and does not condemn this, a suitable candidate for Presidency?
2) Do you believe Gary Speed went to hell? (I know you don't know, I'm asking what you believe)

Why are you changing the subject? It doesn't even have anything to do with article I posted or the thread in general. I take that as a sign of weakness from you.

1) Good
2) Good, but Israel hasn't currently retaken the land so that addition to your answer is meaningless.

By having answered yes to the two questions, you are in fact claiming that Palestinians (or the PLO) do indeed currently (as of 12/9/2011) have a right to the land in Gaza and the West Bank. Which makes me wonder why you were agreeing with Newt and reiterating his comments. Was it trolling? Was a misunderstanding of his comments? Did you change your mind on the matter through our discussion?

If it will satisfy you, I will answer your own 2 questions through PM because this isn't the place for it. I'm feeling generous today and will actually put in some effort in answering you although you could easily spend your own time going through threads past and getting the answers. Don't expect me to waste my time again at another time if a similar situation arises.

If Israel is happy for the Arabs to have a particular piece of their land then that's fine by me, although I don't like the cowardly way the Arabs have gone about it.

Answer my questions however you choose.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:If Israel is happy for the Arabs to have a particular piece of their land then that's fine by me, although I don't like the cowardly way the Arabs have gone about it.

Answer my questions however you choose.

You didn't answer my question about your initial reaction to the article. What was the reason for reiterating Newt's comments?

There is nothing cowardly about going to the UN. The PLO has rights over land in West Bank and Gaza and want to be officially recognized by the world and be part of the UN. I don't see what Israel has to do with that.

Because they're true, and the facts that Newton Gingrich spoke of are not spoken of nearly enough in the Western media.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Because they're true, and the facts that Newton Gingrich spoke of are not spoken of nearly enough in the Western media.

Damn it, pick a side RR. Do the Palestinians have any right to any land? Throughout our conversation we have twice come to the conclusion that the Palestinians do currently have right to some land. Newt said that Palestinians don't have any right to any land and you agreed with him twice now. So what will it be?

You've made it clear in the past that you won't stand for me expressing my view when it comes to the 'Palestinians', because you're a coward of a man who is afraid of an honest debate. Suffice it to say that I don't like the 'Palestinians', because I hate terrorism, and they are followers of a vile, probably imaginary God, but if Israel allows them some land then that is up to Israel.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You've made it clear in the past that you won't stand for me expressing my view when it comes to the 'Palestinians', because you're a coward of a man who is afraid of an honest debate. Suffice it to say that I don't like the 'Palestinians', because I hate terrorism, and they are followers of a vile, probably imaginary God, but if Israel allows them some land then that is up to Israel.

@Bold: That's not true; otherwise, we wouldn't have had this debate. And how can I be a coward of debating when we just had one.

In addition, you made two disgusting generalizations which paint you as a racist. Not all Palestinians are Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists. So retract that statement or you will get an infraction.

You still are failing to answer a simple question. What are you afraid of?...

1) Do Palestinians currently have right to some land? (Based on our discussion you answered 'yes' twice.)
2) Was Newt correct in saying that Palestinians do not have any right to any land? (Based on our discussion you answered 'yes' twice. That would contradict your answers to the previous question. It would also make you either a liar or a confused man.)