HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Just for fun -- Where do you fit in politically?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2013, 03:31 PM
  #76
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
There's many reasons I'm drawn to the political philosophy of Ron Paul. His views on same sex marriage is certainly not one of them.
Guess that makes you a Gary Johnson kind of guy.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:44 PM
  #77
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
And I have EXACT quotes from the link that I provided as well. He states what you quoted and GOES FURTHER.
The crux of the issue is that he believes states should be able to repress and deny gay couples the same rights straight couples have (through his ACTIONS, not his words).

As an aside, I'm also always amused by the anti-Federalist crowd claiming that the founding fathers would be turning over in their grave if they saw how powerful the Federal gov't is....while completely ignoring the fact that the current Constitution came about because a previous constitution was too weak federally and needed to be fixed.

jflory81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:47 PM
  #78
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
Not surprising for this board.

It was pretty clear after posting here for a few days that there are very few social conservatives here.

Most arguments seem to stem from issues of economics and foreign policy.
Big Phil.

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:49 PM
  #79
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
Less war, more gay sex. That's a recipe for happiness.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:51 PM
  #80
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
Not surprising for this board.

It was pretty clear after posting here for a few days that there are very few social conservatives here.

Most arguments seem to stem from issues of economics and foreign policy.
It is kind of weird that most liberals agree with a significantly less aggressive foreign policy yet the President (who is a Democrat) has an extremely aggressive foreign policy. In fact, there are many people on both sides that oppose an aggressive foreign policy.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:52 PM
  #81
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Less war, more gay sex. That's a recipe for happiness.
I can agree with that. However, if I had to choose, it would be for less war.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:59 PM
  #82
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
The only groups that are "intervening" on individual rights in the gay marriage question are the states that do not allow two consenting adults to be married in a church/institution that is willing to marry them.

A true libertarian/anti-interventionist would not support DoMA (much less sponsor legislation that would prevent it from ever being challenged in the courts), as it allows states to repress gay couples' rights. Paul is anti-Federalist. There are areas where this puts him on the right side of rights and freedoms, and there are areas where it puts him on the wrong side. This is an area that puts him squarely on the wrong side.

jflory81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 04:07 PM
  #83
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
I can agree with that. However, if I had to choose, it would be for less war.
Hah. Yeah, I'll leave the gay sex to others.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 05:25 PM
  #84
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
The only groups that are "intervening" on individual rights in the gay marriage question are the states that do not allow two consenting adults to be married in a church/institution that is willing to marry them.

A true libertarian/anti-interventionist would not support DoMA (much less sponsor legislation that would prevent it from ever being challenged in the courts), as it allows states to repress gay couples' rights. Paul is anti-Federalist. There are areas where this puts him on the right side of rights and freedoms, and there are areas where it puts him on the wrong side. This is an area that puts him squarely on the wrong side.
I agree in the sense that he is not always on the correct side of rights and freedoms. To demonstrate, I do not agree with his position on abortion.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 05:38 PM
  #85
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Hah. Yeah, I'll leave the gay sex to others.
I think it is a valid point to leave gay sex for gay people. I literally have nothing against the gay men. In fact, the more gay men in my community the more likely it is for a girl to claim me as "the terrible mistake from that horrible drunk night".

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 05:54 PM
  #86
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Big Phil.
I said very few, not zero.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 06:13 PM
  #87
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
It is kind of weird that most liberals agree with a significantly less aggressive foreign policy yet the President (who is a Democrat) has an extremely aggressive foreign policy. In fact, there are many people on both sides that oppose an aggressive foreign policy.
I don't find it weird at all.

1. Polls have shown that most Americans support the current foreign policy so there's little reason for politicians to challenge it to begin with. If more people spoke against it (outside of internet forums), more would be done about it.

2. That the talking heads of both parties toe the same line about foreign policy just shows what a waste of time two-party politics really is. We need to get more than just DNR politicians into Washington.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 08:06 PM
  #88
nhsportsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
I find it interesting that some on this thread are calling marriage a right. As far as I am concerned, if you need permission (ie. a license from the government), then it isn't much of a right.

nhsportsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 08:19 PM
  #89
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhsportsfan View Post
I find it interesting that some on this thread are calling marriage a right. As far as I am concerned, if you need permission (ie. a license from the government), then it isn't much of a right.
You have to register to vote too, and yet voting is largely considered a right.

Can the government deny two consenting individuals of a different gender from getting married?

jflory81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 08:43 PM
  #90
nhsportsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
You have to register to vote too, and yet voting is largely considered a right.

Can the government deny two consenting individuals of a different gender from getting married?
Off the top of my head licenses can be denied based on age, relationship, previous marriages without documentation of divorce. Previously, inter-racial marriages were denied in some places.

Additionally, you need a third person to oversee the marriage and sign the license. So, at least theoretically if you couldn't convince a pastor or justice to sign, then you couldn't be married. Thus, I think it is pretty clear that getting married has never been a 'right' in the traditional sense. Since it is basically a legal contract, the need for documentation to deal with the downstream issues (divorce and death) makes sense.

nhsportsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 08:58 PM
  #91
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhsportsfan View Post
Off the top of my head licenses can be denied based on age, relationship, previous marriages without documentation of divorce. Previously, inter-racial marriages were denied in some places.

Additionally, you need a third person to oversee the marriage and sign the license. So, at least theoretically if you couldn't convince a pastor or justice to sign, then you couldn't be married. Thus, I think it is pretty clear that getting married has never been a 'right' in the traditional sense. Since it is basically a legal contract, the need for documentation to deal with the downstream issues (divorce and death) makes sense.
Age has to do with consent, marrying relatives isn't legal (in most states) and marriage is strictly between two people (you can't be married to two people at once). These are all concerns with the legal definition of marriage.

And refusing interracial marriages was deemed unconstitutional.

As Earl Warren said in Loving v Virginia:
Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

jflory81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:46 PM
  #92
Garo
Registered User
 
Garo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montréal
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflory81 View Post
You have to register to vote too, and yet voting is largely considered a right.

Can the government deny two consenting individuals of a different gender from getting married?
Not sure in the US, but there's plenty of policies in Europe against certain types of migrant marriages.

Garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:11 PM
  #93
nhsportsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
Are you arguing that marriage is a right or not?

Are rights the same as freedoms?

Earl Warren is basically saying you have 'rights' as far as the state is willing to extend them to you. If you had a 'supportable basis' for restricting the rights of people on the basis of race, then it would be perfectly acceptable for the state to do so, per Mr. Warren.

As far as I am concerned, a right cannot be infringed by a government ever, except when your right infringes on someone else's (ie. the actual purpose of government).

If you want marriage to be a right, the government needs to back out of the marriage business. The day the government forbid polygamy was the day marriage was no longer a right. I would say the use of marriage-divorce information is useful, and not necessarily infringing, but since the government defines marriage, in lieu of merely documenting it, makes is less than a right, in my opinion.

You brought up voting. It is only a right again, as far as the government is willing to let it be. Minors, felons (sometimes), and others are denied voting privileges. However, you point about registering, doesn't make it more or less a right. Registration is valid in protecting the integrity of voting (in theory anyway).

nhsportsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 11:00 PM
  #94
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garo View Post
Not sure in the US, but there's plenty of policies in Europe against certain types of migrant marriages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garo
Not sure in the US, but there's plenty of policies in Europe against certain types of migrant marriages.
As per my post above, denying marriage licenses on a racial basis is unconstitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nhhockeyfan
Are you arguing that marriage is a right or not?

Are rights the same as freedoms?

Earl Warren is basically saying you have 'rights' as far as the state is willing to extend them to you. If you had a 'supportable basis' for restricting the rights of people on the basis of race, then it would be perfectly acceptable for the state to do so, per Mr. Warren.

As far as I am concerned, a right cannot be infringed by a government ever, except when your right infringes on someone else's (ie. the actual purpose of government).

If you want marriage to be a right, the government needs to back out of the marriage business. The day the government forbid polygamy was the day marriage was no longer a right. I would say the use of marriage-divorce information is useful, and not necessarily infringing, but since the government defines marriage, in lieu of merely documenting it, makes is less than a right, in my opinion.

You brought up voting. It is only a right again, as far as the government is willing to let it be. Minors, felons (sometimes), and others are denied voting privileges. However, you point about registering, doesn't make it more or less a right. Registration is valid in protecting the integrity of voting (in theory anyway).

I'm not arguing that marriage is a right, I'm telling you that the Supreme Court (also known as the body that interprets the Constitution) has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. The UN has also declared marriage a fundamental right (for whatever that's worth).

California courts overturned Prop 8 based on the Loving v. Virigina decision. Eight different courts have found DoMA to be unconstitutional


As to the rest of your post, rights are not absolute. You have a right to bear arms, but no one believes that ordinary citizens should have access to missles or rockets. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal for the populace to have well before the current gun debate. You have a right to life....right up until you give someone else a reason to fear for their life. Then the other person is justified in taking your life to protect theirs.

Marriage is a right, but in this country it is a contract between two consenting, unrelated adults (hence the age of consent requirement), and it is legally an exclusive contract.


I should add that governments are what gives you rights in the first place. Do you think you would have rights in an anarchy? Where there's no punishment for your neighbor to come over and take your **** and kill you except whatever you can do back to him? There's no rights there. It's the law that gives you the rights you do have by laying out punishments for people who violate them.

jflory81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 11:47 PM
  #95
nhsportsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
So if the law grants you your rights. You are saying there are no rights. You have no right to life, unless the law says you do. Slavery can be legal again , if we just pass an amendment. Maybe a little payback for slavery, would be to enslave all of the whites for a period of 80 years.

I would say, that rights exist outside of government. They must, else there is no such thing as rights, only privileges. I get what you are saying that for all practical purposes rights are enforced, therefore given by the government, but all governments have or are violating peoples rights in some form or another.

People still have 'rights' even when their government violates them. Therefore, 'rights' exist outside of government.

nhsportsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 12:18 AM
  #96
jflory81
Irken Elite
 
jflory81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 20,449
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to jflory81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhsportsfan View Post
So if the law grants you your rights. You are saying there are no rights. You have no right to life, unless the law says you do. Slavery can be legal again , if we just pass an amendment. Maybe a little payback for slavery, would be to enslave all of the whites for a period of 80 years.

I would say, that rights exist outside of government. They must, else there is no such thing as rights, only privileges. I get what you are saying that for all practical purposes rights are enforced, therefore given by the government, but all governments have or are violating peoples rights in some form or another.

People still have 'rights' even when their government violates them. Therefore, 'rights' exist outside of government.
How can rights exist outside of government when without government the strongest can do anything they want to whomever they want without fear of repercussion? Your rights aren't worth **** without law and government. Societies and law are what seperate us from the Animal Kingdom - where there certainly is no such thing as "a right to life".

Obviously, civilization has progressed past the stone age. Your first paragraph is a situation that could never happen in this country, precisely because of the type of government and constitution that we have. The United States government is literally built on the idea that all people have these rights (and marriage is included in that as of 1966). In a more repressive government - or in an anarchy - these rights do not exist. History is littered with genocides and atrocities; I'm sure those killed were comforted by their "right to life".

If you want to call what the government calls a "right" a priviledge, that's fine. But then there are no true "rights" in the world. It is only law - written and enforced by some type of government (whether a local council or federal behemoth) - that provides the framework for you to exercise those rights. Without the ability to exercise them, they might as well not exist.

jflory81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 12:28 AM
  #97
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,362
vCash: 500
A piss poor worded quiz. I still showed to be right to center. Of course we don't need a quiz like this to know that most of the people who post on this board are nothing more than a bunch of clueless radical left-wingers.

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 03:11 AM
  #98
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 42,682
vCash: 500
What does a belief in a god have to do with your political alignment?

And why does it fail to distinguish between public and private unions?

Why does it lump those that are completely against abortion with those that think it should be lawful for ****/endangers the mother?

It offers no "neutral" answer so it's pretty much automatically worthless from a statistical standpoint.

I came out as an "average Republican" whatever that means.

kingsholygrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 06:42 PM
  #99
FootKnight
This ****ing team
 
FootKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
What does a belief in a god have to do with your political alignment?

And why does it fail to distinguish between public and private unions?

Why does it lump those that are completely against abortion with those that think it should be lawful for ****/endangers the mother?

[B]It offers no "neutral" answer[b] so it's pretty much automatically worthless from a statistical standpoint.

I came out as an "average Republican" whatever that means.
Yeah, I would have expected "somewhat agree\disagree" at least. Another problem with this is that you could have 10 different people select the same answer, but they all mostly agree\disagree for different reasons.

For the record, I came out as :
Overall: Moderate Democrat (about half way been middle and mod dem label)
Economic: close to Average Republican
Social: nearly extreme left on Very Liberal

FootKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 07:22 PM
  #100
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
A piss poor worded quiz. I still showed to be right to center. Of course we don't need a quiz like this to know that most of the people who post on this board are nothing more than a bunch of clueless radical left-wingers.
Cheap healthcare is soooo radical. Not believing in god, burn on the stake. All radicals.

Eisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.