RyanBaxter

I'm basing this off his own views, not whether or not he would uphold his views and promises of implementing them. Well, there is a process that requires any change in the law, with Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court, all being entities that decide upon what the law should be, so I would argue that they could not be implemented at will, as evidenced by Obama pushing for Gun Control, but the Supreme Court rejecting these measures and the NRA stepping in to ensure the Second Amendment is upheld. And I am not sure what you mean by the last question.

VALID ARGUMENT FROM THE RIGHT: Traditional marriage- an institution that has always been about procreation and strongly and subtly suggesting children will result due to the marriage, is being attacked for not allowing gays to be a part of that tradition as well. If we were to change our traditions as a result of contemporary conditions- then what is the point of ensuring traditions are upheld if they are going to be continually undermined? Therefore, traditional marriage should be preserved. VALID ARGUMENT FROM THE LEFT: What is the role of government in ensuring who does or does not get to be married? Marriage has always been about two people and love is a central element to marriage. Are a gay couple going to have to settle for civil unions, rather then what they really want... which is to say "I'm married". Are heterosexual couples allowed to have the ability to say that, whilst the LGBT community miss out? Therefore, marriage should be allowed for same-sex couples. SOLUTION: You can't undermine traditional marriage as the Left has done in the US already (thankfully in Australia, it is still a heterosexual institution), because then there is no point in traditions, if you keep creating exceptions. However, that doesn't mean gays can't say "I'm married". The worst thing ever created about civil unions was calling it 'civil unions'. They allow for a formalized relationship between same-sex couples to be recognized and states can decide if they wanted it so a California could have it, but Alabama probably would not, as well as churches deciding if they wanted it as it could go against their faith, but others can embrace it and secular marriages can occur. I would call them 'specialized marriages'- that is between a non-heterosexual, law-willing couple that are formally recognized as being married and can have the ability to say "I'm married".

Abortion is a topic I feel very strongly about, and after watching Planned Parenthood: What They Aren't Telling You! by Stef, nobody has resonated how strongly my anger at modern society is and the laws around the Western world regarding abortion more then this, among the other things government has allowed and more then that- has made the taxpayer fund. I have seen numerous people stand up to abortion as they have spoken against the evil of killing someone inside the womb and I find it absolutely astounding regarding the hypocrisy of the Left, when they say that because I'm pro life- I am 'big government', when they support gun control, higher taxes, the welfare state, foreign aid, economic protectionism (or sometimes socialism), environmental regulations, political correctness and regulating free speech, anti-smoking laws, anti-gambling laws, taxpayer-funded government-run education and healthcare, affirmative action and the minimum wage off the top of my head, whilst I oppose all of these (though I don't know enough about the environmental topics). Furthermore, they say I'm 'against women' when I actually say to women- look, you had a choice when you were having sex, you can use contraceptives, try different sexual activities or have the man 'pull out' when you're together, if you don't do any of these things, yet still have traditional sex... chances are you're going to have a life in your stomach and you can't have an abortion unless you're health is being threatened and there is no other way to ensure the unborn child's survival, because we don't believe in murder- inside or outside the womb. At least I say this, rather then the abortionists supporting pro-death policies that literally KILL BOTH MALES AND FEMALES. The abortionists are absolute scum and I can't believe the extent of the evil of a society that I was raised to believe was good in so many ways by 'education', when in fact we kill our unborn young. It is disgraceful. If you want to see an excerpt of how bad my generation's fembots have got, check out this interview (WARNING: nudity is present because it is 'expressive' and 'empowering' in her opinion, so if you're underage, GTFO): http://herself.com/caitlin/ Here's an excerpt from the abortion part of the interview: What is your political stance on women’s reproductive rights?No one anywhere ever should EVER be able to tell a woman what is right for her body regarding her reproductive rights. If you’re pro-life/anti-contraceptive, swell, just keep it to your fucking self & practice it, don’t enforce it on others. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?Super duper pro pro pro SUPER PRO-choice. I volunteer at a clinic that performs clinical abortions & escort patients to the waiting room from their cars, just to help them avoid harassment & so that they can see that they are supported. I actually liked this actress after seeing Tomorrow, When the War Began- but have lost all respect for her with comments like this. She fundamentally misunderstands that we are all human lives and this is the type of mindset our conscience is reduced to nowadays. No longer is justice ensured; abortion is still occurring in many Western societies around the world, and stupid, lying politicians who turn their eyes and ears away from the horror to the ill-informed and impressionable masses, and whether or not they claim they're pro-life, nothing gets done about it. I sympathize with many in the pro-life movement, and I look at people who have shot up abortion clinics and feel that they are not at all 'misogynists' and 'mentally ill', but instead want justice to prevail in Western societies that give none. It is absolutely disgraceful that organisations like Planned Parenthood have labelled aborted children as 'biowaste' and the suction abortion process is absolutely horrifying, and I can have arguments all day with the Left- polite arguments, about whether there should be a tax or not and if so, what the % should be, about whether we have a 'commitment' towards the disadvantaged and poor and that mandatory welfare is an appropriate system to combat poverty or about whether we should get involved in wars that end up in destabilizing regions and causing movements like ISIS to spring up, but they do not get to decide that the unborn life is inhuman and should be killed, whilst calling it a 'freedom for women'. Because the right to kill your own child is just so damn liberating! Does anyone else feel similar to me on this issue?

Well I'm in my late teens right now, and am heading off to Uni (Aussie college) next year. I'm gonna major in Cinema and Screen Studies, and minor in Philosophy and pick up a Photography and Creative Writing specialization unit. I considered doing a Bachelor of Arts/Business, but there were only like two units in the entire 16 unit field that I was interested in, and you have to choose at 8 from both Arts and Business, so I'm much happier doing just Arts. However, based off the discussions in this board, it seems as if the best thing to do would be to go for a career in demand, rather then a career that is hard to get into (for me, film). Any suggestions about whether to go for your dreams, take a risk and aim big, or go for the demand, be realistic and play it safe?

Two weeks ago, if you asked who I wanted for President- Ben Carson would be my second preference. His economic policies are great- wants a flat tax and getting rid of the minimum wage and Obamacare are things he wants to prioritize. If anyone saw the fourth Republican debate with Fox Business News, Carson IMO along with my favorite Rand and other favorites Rubio and Cruz, I thought were great. Now- I'm not so sure. As much as I dislike the liberal media and the blue pill insanity of modern society, Carson came out as a man of faith- which I have no problem with whatsoever. If you believe in God, fair enough, it's a concept that is baffling to get to the problem of- a 'wicked problem' one could say. But to say that evolution is by the Devil is just rebutting pure, cold, hard facts. Science is one of the most incredible things we have in the world- because it allows us to find out about this thing called existence and the natural laws about it- whether it be physics and the idea of a reality, biology and the concept of human development or psychology and how the brain functions. To ignore PROVEN empirical scientific studies that show that the Earth was formed far longer then 6000 years ago, is typical of the Right and why I became a liberal and then a Marxist in the first place when I first got into politics (though I've since taken the red pill and much more prefer the Right to the Left, though I do dislike a fair amount of the Right).

Hey, I'm new to Freedomain Radio's forums, but I've been watching Molyneux for the past 6-8 months and really like how educated on the economy and distrustful of the government he is. I can't say that I'm an anarcho-capitalist, or even a minarchist- paleolibertarian or libertarian conservative are probably the best titles to fit with my views. Anyway, my question is who would you select in the 2016 election? Even though I'm not from America, I have a vested interest in the election, and Rand Paul is definitely my first choice. His 13 hour speech against the PATRIOT Act removed any doubts I had about him and I know a lot of libertarians don't think he's as good as Ron, because of things like gay marriage (which I think is a lose-lose debate), changing from decreases to increases in the military budget, changing his opinion on whether to give foreign aid to Israel and all the other reasons that Adam Kokesh has talked about, but I think it's extremely hard to be 100% right on every issue, and that speedy decisions have to be made and conformist decisions ultimately have to be made if you want to align yourself with the Republican Party. I agree with him on most things and he is easily the best candidate in my eyes. If Gary Johnson or Jesse Ventura decides to run for the Libertarian Party- I might consider it, but I usually prefer Republicans to the Libertarian Party because I'm heavily pro-life and believe abortion should always be the last resort to any pregnancy (thus, I loved how Molyneux cleared up in the 'Planned Parenthood' video that he was vehemently against abortion whilst maintaining all the other libertarian things like foreign aid, welfare state, imperialism etc. which I agree with, whilst Johnson and even John Stossel who I watch and like a lot, are pro-death). Ben Carson and Marco Rubio are probably my second and third preferences, whilst my least favorite is a tie between Shillary Clinton and socialist Bernie Sanders. On the one hand, I think Hillary is a neocon in disguise, whilst in the meantime having a NARAL Pro-Choice score of 100% and a National Right to Life score of 0% like Sanders (which I think is nothing short of disgraceful) and supporting things like things like the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, but at least she's semi-socialist, semi-capitalist. On the other hand, Sanders stand against all of America's values and wants a statist government that takes from the rich and gives to the welfare state. He has more in common with the Soviet Union, then the United States of America. However, he is against the PATRIOT Act and Iraq War, so it's a 50-50 amount of hate. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what everyone else thinks. Ryan