CRA 1964 banned religious discrimination by businesses (and race, color, national origin). And of course you still hear from Christians about how they're being oppressed. War on Christmas!
Rick Santorum The Origins of the Nick Name "Frothy"
- Thread starter jsingh1022
- Start date
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
Kylejack,
We get it dude. You like the foul-mouthed, foul-minded sex advice from a homosexual activist. I get that you like that...but what this has to do with libertarianism, I have no idea. It's obvious that you are a flaming liberal. You hate Rand Paul. You are the first to give negative comments to anything Rand does.
What is it about men having anal sex with each other that you find enhances Ron Paul's message of liberty?
What is it about the politically active homosexual movement that supports the Constitutionalism of Ron Paul?
What is it about feeding in to this nasty meme about anal sex do you think is going to help the Ron Paul movement in a Republican primary?
We get it dude. You like the foul-mouthed, foul-minded sex advice from a homosexual activist. I get that you like that...but what this has to do with libertarianism, I have no idea. It's obvious that you are a flaming liberal. You hate Rand Paul. You are the first to give negative comments to anything Rand does.
What is it about men having anal sex with each other that you find enhances Ron Paul's message of liberty?
What is it about the politically active homosexual movement that supports the Constitutionalism of Ron Paul?
What is it about feeding in to this nasty meme about anal sex do you think is going to help the Ron Paul movement in a Republican primary?
Liberals; libertarians who not only think that morality can't be legislated, but who also believe that there's nothing inherently wrong with two consenting adults having the sex-lives of their choice and don't think they're worse people for it.
Yeah, this is pretty much the neo-con defense of Mark Levin and Hannity. "You don't like these beacons of conservative light shining into the abyssal depths of liberalism? Then you must be a liberal'. That's mindless collectivism and 'my dad can beat up your dad' bickering.
Plenty of libertarians don't like Rand Paul. Largely due to his willingness to compromise non-interventionism with neo-con hawkishness.
And uhh, you can't really.. ..get on a high horse about how classless Savage's attacks on Santorum are, if you're trying to insinuate that kylejack's support for Savage's free-speech is due to his love for gay anal sex. Or distorting his whole argument for that matter.
Seriously try to separate your religious faith from libertarianism. They may be personally linked, but it's not a universal truth. To people such as myself, for example, religion and statism are symptoms of the same disease that affects society; collectively placing faith and undeserved authority in something higher than the individual. Now, clearly you disagree with that and that is fine but.. you don't see me arguing for liberty from that personal link I've made between these two views I have, because I recognize that it's a personal connection I've made and therefore not something I should project to the rest of the world as an objective truth.
Yeah, this is pretty much the neo-con defense of Mark Levin and Hannity. "You don't like these beacons of conservative light shining into the abyssal depths of liberalism? Then you must be a liberal'. That's mindless collectivism and 'my dad can beat up your dad' bickering.
Plenty of libertarians don't like Rand Paul. Largely due to his willingness to compromise non-interventionism with neo-con hawkishness.
And uhh, you can't really.. ..get on a high horse about how classless Savage's attacks on Santorum are, if you're trying to insinuate that kylejack's support for Savage's free-speech is due to his love for gay anal sex. Or distorting his whole argument for that matter.
Seriously try to separate your religious faith from libertarianism. They may be personally linked, but it's not a universal truth. To people such as myself, for example, religion and statism are symptoms of the same disease that affects society; collectively placing faith and undeserved authority in something higher than the individual. Now, clearly you disagree with that and that is fine but.. you don't see me arguing for liberty from that personal link I've made between these two views I have, because I recognize that it's a personal connection I've made and therefore not something I should project to the rest of the world as an objective truth.
Last edited:
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
This guy has gone off on Rand for more than just sanctions on Iran. I myself have criticised Rand for sanctions.
But I have no problem whatsoever pointing out the moral difference between Christianity and secularism. If this guy is going to praise the virtues of anal sex, I will praise the virtues of Jesus, and it is my freedom to do so.
It is also my freedom to point out to you in the most glaring fashion that all of those European societies that have succumbed to secularism have become bastions of totalitarianism. Christianity is the last bulwark of freedom in this world.
But I have no problem whatsoever pointing out the moral difference between Christianity and secularism. If this guy is going to praise the virtues of anal sex, I will praise the virtues of Jesus, and it is my freedom to do so.
It is also my freedom to point out to you in the most glaring fashion that all of those European societies that have succumbed to secularism have become bastions of totalitarianism. Christianity is the last bulwark of freedom in this world.
I'm not a liberal. Rand's the type of dude to impose harsh sanctions on another nation, something which is starkly opposite of libertarian. Rand's sanction vote shows I was right all along to be skeptical of him.
So what? You're doing the same thing again. 'But he's Rand Paul! If you don't like him, it MUST mean you're a liberal!' I don't give a crap who he likes or doesn't like. If he doesn't believe in government involvement overseas, in people's private lives or in the market, he's not a 'liberal'. No matter how much crap he talks about Rand Paul.
Yes, secular Europe has less violent crimes and less drug abuse, while christian America and jewish Israel are wreaking the most havoc in the Middle East. Then you have the most religious place in the EU, Greece, which also happens to be most totalitarian. Right. So no, Europe isn't any more totalitarian than America. Europe and America are pretty much on the same level of liberty and totalitarianism, also depending on which country you look at (so good job on collectivizing all 'these European societies'). Even a country like Sweden, that is taxed into oblivion has some free market solutions that someone like Ron Paul is arguing for. Different western societies are totalitarian and libertarian in different areas.
Have fun with NDAA, by the way.
And there you go distorting his argument again. He's not championing anal sex and you know this. He's just not demonizing the people who practice it and views the exercise of any behavior that doesn't hurt other people and standing up for it as an exercise of liberty. Whether that is having gay sex, doing drugs or praying where ever you want.
Last edited:
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
In what secular European country is there more respect for the rights of man than America?
I'll wait for your answer.
Estonia's pretty good. Hard to say that it it's better, because they're each better in different ways.
You can't really see past black and white thinking can you? I've already said that Europe is totalitarian and libertarian in different areas. I mean, here in the Netherlands, we don't have a death penalty while plenty of states and so many Americans believe it's ok for the government to end someone's life if a group of people and a judge with government granted authority believe it is. And only a government official can pardon that person. That's tyranny. And we don't have nearly the level of police brutality that America has. And the government pardons it, obviously.
I mean, out here, a friend of mine hugged a police horse while clearly rollin' hard on MDMA without getting tazered. Drug laws are hardly enforced (which I know from experience). We have legal prostitution (which, by the way, is still too heavily regulated by the government) We don't get sexually assaulted by the government at airports either. Recent studies have also shown that the Netherlands has more press freedom than America has.
And so on and so forth. It's not as black and white as you think it is. I'm not saying that the Netherlands are a bastion of liberty, I have as many issues with my country as I do with America, but they're in different areas.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
LawnAwake,
Can you carry a gun for self defense in the Netherlands? If not, why do you think having sex with prostitutes and rolling on MDMA qualifies you for a higher level of freedom than what we have America?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ery-Oppressive-Gun-Control-Laws-Exist-Kills-6
Wake up kids.
Last edited:
Perfect example of what I mean by distorting someone's point of view and black and white thinking. If you read carefully, which you did but choose to ignore anyway, you will notice that I never said that we're more libertarian.
Like here:
Secondly, you're proving my point about your black and white thinking. You only bring up my examples of victimless crimes (and you arbitrarily decide that this is less important.. out of curiosity, do you value government protection of gun rights more because you're pro-gun and you're (personally) anti-prostitution and anti-drugs and therefore lighter on protecting those liberties? How's that liberty minded? Liberty doesn't come in fractions), ignoring the fact that we don't have your degree of police (=government endorsed) brutality, don't have a death penalty or your perverse airport security. Also, which I didn't bring up sooner.. we have legal euthanasia and plenty of European countries are lighter on some market regulations than America is.
However, you don't care because of that one issue of gun control. Which you believe is not a problem to me even though...
'Doing drugs' and 'having sex with prostitutes' aren't rights, but they're representations of rights. Doing with your body whatever you damn well please is a right. Gunrights aren't 'rights' either, they're a representation of your right to protect your body from force, government or private.
You're simplifying issues way too much.
So I don't care what some individuals personally feel is more important. To me, the right to protect yourself is pointless if you have nothing to protect. The right to bear arms goes hand in hand with your right to do with your body whatever you please. You can't have one without the other.
But you'll probably decide to misread this as 'oh so you don't think people have the right to bear arms' or 'so you think that the right to bear arms is less important?' even though I'm saying that both rights are co-dependent on each other and of equal importance and that you can't have one without the other.
EDIT:
Also, you once again decided to ignore the death penalty and airport security issues, where government actively uses force against citizens. And none of your laws protect people to use guns against that force either.
Last edited:
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
One thing the state can do is to pacify young men with prostitutes and drugs.
What the state can NEVER do is to pacify young men with the right to bear arms.
What is more fundamental to the defense of liberty?
Last edited:
Neither and you're ignoring my entire point again. I said that "gunrights" are no good without having anything to protect and protecting your own body and doing with it whatever you want is fundamental. You're the owner of your body, you can do with it whatever you want. But does having a gun allow you to take heroin without repurcussions from the government? If you were to do drugs, resisted arrest and killed cops who were trying to arrest you for doing with your body whatever you please, they would send more cops and more guns and you would get the death penalty for being a cop killer. So yeah, you have your gunrights, but what good do they do if you can't even use guns to protect your right to do with your body whatever you want?
And if you think that allowing drug use is part of the worldwide statist conspiracy, then you clearly don't know about the fact that Portugal legalized all drugs, but then the globalists of the European Union overruled their national sovereinty? Much like the Fed is doing in California.
Besides. The GOP doesn't care about gunlaws, they care about pacifying Republicans by espousing a pro-gun ideology without believing in it.
Last edited:
You can collectivize my argument as 'European secularism' all you want, but when it comes down to it, I actually debated your points with logical arguments that you repeatedly ignored without refuting them once.
For someone who has claimed to 'know the truth', you're pretty poor at formulating it in a debate.
Yes, it does. Guns are there to protect youself (your body) from force. You can do with your body whatever you want. If someone is stopping you from doing with your body whatever you want, they're innitiating force against you. If you don't have the right to do with your body whatever, but can still own a gun.. what are you actually protecting? It sure as hell isn't your body, because if the government can tell you what you inject in it, or which consenting adult you have sex with, you don't really own it and you're not allowed to kill government officials who are innitiating force on you for using drugs.
You arbitrarily claim that 'gunrights' (which aren't actual rights, gunrights are a perversion of the actual right to self-defense) are more important than 'the right to do with your body whatever you want'. I'm merely saying that the whole point of owning a gun is to protect your body and rights. If you don't have the right to do with your body whatever you want, there's really no point in owning a gun because there would be nothing to protect. You need both rights.
