S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
Why should being openly gay preclude you from serving in the military?
- Status
H
havana1
Guest
Do you mean openly “happy” or openly homosexual, which undermines unit cohesion? It’s really not the best time to be using our military for social experiments.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
That statement is actually taken out of context by the West.
Ahmadinejad statement referred the question presented to him about Israel attacking Iran. His responce was that if Iran were attacked, they would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Not that Amadinajard is a good guy or anything, but lets not use misquoted statements for our own propaganda.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
No I didn’t ignore it, but merely pointed out the unreliability of the Iowa caucus.
Besides, look who George Bush was running against in the 2000 Iowa caucus, Steve Forbes and Allan Keyes.
Jim
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
Then organize it to make the soldiers happy. But why shouldn’t they be able to serve at all?
O
Owlpride
Guest
ro
And I agree what you said wasn’t anti-Israel.
Fine, I said some people. If your not one of them, good for you.
And I agree what you said wasn’t anti-Israel.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Gay marriage: the Catholic Church already discounts civil marriages to a large degree. What the courts call marriage has no bearing on reality from a Catholic perspective. Given that civil divorce is a no-fault process that is easily obtained just by ordering papers online and mailing them in, there really isn’t much about civil marriage that is truly marriage anyway, IMO. In short, while I wouldn’t vote in favor of gay marriage laws, I don’t think they do any meaningful damage to civil marriage in this country: the damage has already been done long ago.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: I don’t like the homosexual lifestyle, and obviously I consider it sinful. I also don’t like the adulterous lifestyle, and consider it sinful. People living those lifestyles, however, can be capable soldiers and they don’t affect unit cohesion nearly as much as some people fear, at least not this day and age. If they want to serve, which already makes them an exceptional and uncommon person in our country, then they should be allowed to do so without fear of expulsion based on someone suggesting that they might be attracted to people of the same sex. To me this isn’t a Catholic moral problem at all, since we are already called to treat homosexuals fairly and befitting their human dignity.
Peace and God bless!
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
The military should not be influenced by society, to that extent I agree. But whether a soldier is fit to serve or not should be left up to his commanding officer at the time. There are soldiers who do things in boot camp to get out, one of those pertains to homosexual acts, often times it’s a weak attempt at suicide and sometimes they try and get injured and get a medical discharge.
Those soldier should be removed immediately.
Just as your Church accepts homosexuals, our military should as well. Their removal should be based on performance and the judgement of the commanding officer.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
G
Ghosty
Guest
I don’t know if Ron Paul can win. What I do know is that after the passage of the NDAA this week we need him to win if our country is going to preserve our traditional values. Our country isn’t in danger of dismantling the Federal Reserve, nor of withdrawing from NATO, but apparently we are in very real danger of throwing out Habeas Corpus and expanding a “War on Terror” that has no definite objectives and no limit on targets. This isn’t tin-foil hat nuttery anymore, but real votes of a vast majority of our Senate and House.
None of the other Republican candidates would object to this dangerous turn the U.S. is taking, and Obama certainly doesn’t either. Ron Paul does object, and he would veto such decisions, and that makes him the bitter medicine for the illness this country is currently suffering from. I don’t agree with his economic views, but I’m not afraid that our country will suddenly embrace his views if he’s elected; I am afraid of what our country is currently embracing, and he’s the only candidate who stands firmly against it.
I wasn’t planning on voting in the primaries at all, but the passage of the NDAA this week with the non-veto promise of Obama has compelled me to support Ron Paul despite my disagreement with many of his views.
Peace and God bless!
None of the other Republican candidates would object to this dangerous turn the U.S. is taking, and Obama certainly doesn’t either. Ron Paul does object, and he would veto such decisions, and that makes him the bitter medicine for the illness this country is currently suffering from. I don’t agree with his economic views, but I’m not afraid that our country will suddenly embrace his views if he’s elected; I am afraid of what our country is currently embracing, and he’s the only candidate who stands firmly against it.
I wasn’t planning on voting in the primaries at all, but the passage of the NDAA this week with the non-veto promise of Obama has compelled me to support Ron Paul despite my disagreement with many of his views.
Peace and God bless!
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
Do you prefer distributism instead?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Distributism/small capitalism mixed with voluntary collectivism. I don’t agree with a corporate structure at all.
Peace and God bless!
meltzerboy
New member
I suppose Ron Paul can win in the GOP primaries, with the support for Gingrich waning somewhat and that for Romney paper-thin even among his supporters. Also, the Evangelicals are split between Bachman, Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum. So who knows?
The general election is another matter, however. For Paul to win, he has to make the case not only for US military non-intervention but also for a drastic reduction in trade with other countries and political and economic non-support for Israel, as well as European allies. I think his being elected would require a huge change in the mindset of the American people, who have been conditioned to think of the world in terms of a global economy and the United States as a global leader and a humanitarian big brother to the nations of the world.
The general election is another matter, however. For Paul to win, he has to make the case not only for US military non-intervention but also for a drastic reduction in trade with other countries and political and economic non-support for Israel, as well as European allies. I think his being elected would require a huge change in the mindset of the American people, who have been conditioned to think of the world in terms of a global economy and the United States as a global leader and a humanitarian big brother to the nations of the world.
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
Note that I’m not trying to belittle you but would just like an honest debate. How do you feel about the economies of scale argument that would defend the use of big business production in certain sectors of the economy. For instance, iron extraction would be a pretty tough task for a small business with not much capital.
As a conciliation, I would agree that the accumulation of capital as we have it today is due to coercion and needs correction. However, I feel that going too far the other way and forcing capital to be shared more is inefficient and immoral. I just want a good medium where consumers demand where capital should be allocated.
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
This is what Obama won on.
Paul supports much more trade with other countries.
Non-support? He’s fine with trading with them; he just wants to respect their sovereignty.
Yeah, we really do need to stop thinking that we run the world.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Not to avoid a great discussion and debate on the subject, but it’s a bit off-topic for this thread. What’s more, I’m really not equipped at this time to put the kind of effort into such a discussion that would be required of me. It’s been a long time since I’ve debated this particular issue and I simply don’t have time to crack my books and hone my arguments right now.
I’ll just say that economies of scale are the real sticky issue with my position and it isn’t a question to be lightly glossed over.
Peace and God bless!
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
I can respect that. God bless you as well.Not to avoid a great discussion and debate on the subject, but it’s a bit off-topic for this thread. What’s more, I’m really not equipped at this time to put the kind of effort into such a discussion that would be required of me. It’s been a long time since I’ve debated this particular issue and I simply don’t have time to crack my books and hone my arguments right now.
I’ll just say that economies of scale are the real sticky issue with my position and it isn’t a question to be lightly glossed over.
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
This is a point that a lot of “Paul can’t win” types seem to forget: a lot of the issues that drew independents to Obama are positions that fall within Ron Paul’s spectrum. Obama has since betrayed those values and independents are very upset with him; this NDAA issue, if it gets more play time (and we should ensure it does), could easily be a tipping point for many independents, and possibly even some Democrats.
I think it’s possible that if Ron Paul could eke out a Republican nomination he could draw a lot more support from the middle and from disaffected Democrats than the Republican “frontrunners”, if the right issues are emphasized.
Peace and God bless!
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I don’t know that Ron Paul could not sell his non-interventionist military policy to independents and even Democrats who have had their fill with war as much as many libertarian Republicans have. The case for being the world policeman, for as much as the world needs it, has become very old with many,many Americans who no longer want to pay for the thankless task.
This is not a conspiratorial sort of argument as the conservative elite such as National Review recently tried to brush it off as. Whether it is a good thing or in American interests is quite another thing, and there is indeed a good case to be made that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but it Ron Paul just does not come off as a birther or a 9/11 inside job type, even if he may well hold out some appeal to voters who are of that type.
However, selling a domestic policy of reducing government services by trillions of dollars and dozens of departments will be the more difficult sell to a population that has become rather addicted to government largesse. This is a sacred cow for any on the left and middle left, and all but the most libertarian see such drastic methods as impractical in terms of a population that has already had made many of its economic decisions based on having a certain amount of government support.
As far as promoting free enterprise economy rather than the corporatism that defines the mainstream of both the Republican and Democratic parties, this is certainly what the tea party is all about. Big big enemies in the world that gives us Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae, in the highest reaches of power, in the mainstream media, and in the movers and shakers across America, will do all that they can to ensure that this fails.
The left will never go for this of course. They love big government and they are much too resentful of a successful middle class bourgois than they hate the big business corporatism model that makes big government possible.
Weariness of maintaining themselves a big brother/police of the world though runs deep throughout American people in general. It is thankless, expensive, and impossible to maintain with government getting steadily bigger.
Something will have to blow.
This is not a conspiratorial sort of argument as the conservative elite such as National Review recently tried to brush it off as. Whether it is a good thing or in American interests is quite another thing, and there is indeed a good case to be made that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but it Ron Paul just does not come off as a birther or a 9/11 inside job type, even if he may well hold out some appeal to voters who are of that type.
However, selling a domestic policy of reducing government services by trillions of dollars and dozens of departments will be the more difficult sell to a population that has become rather addicted to government largesse. This is a sacred cow for any on the left and middle left, and all but the most libertarian see such drastic methods as impractical in terms of a population that has already had made many of its economic decisions based on having a certain amount of government support.
As far as promoting free enterprise economy rather than the corporatism that defines the mainstream of both the Republican and Democratic parties, this is certainly what the tea party is all about. Big big enemies in the world that gives us Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae, in the highest reaches of power, in the mainstream media, and in the movers and shakers across America, will do all that they can to ensure that this fails.
The left will never go for this of course. They love big government and they are much too resentful of a successful middle class bourgois than they hate the big business corporatism model that makes big government possible.
Weariness of maintaining themselves a big brother/police of the world though runs deep throughout American people in general. It is thankless, expensive, and impossible to maintain with government getting steadily bigger.
Something will have to blow.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
- Status