I am (SOPA-Opponent) Matt McCall, I am Running against Lamar Smith in the Republican Primary in TX-21. AMA! (self.IAmA)

{IAmA}

7599 ups - 5531 downs = 2068 votes

I studied Economics and Business at Westmont College before beginning my professional career. As a professional, I’ve done many things in business from working in Honduras as a consultant, to running a car wash franchise in California, which I sold before moving back to Texas. In Texas, I started several small businesses before entering the medical sales field in 1997. In 2004, I started a new business in the same field supplying surgical products to the U.S. military hospitals in Europe, of which I still do today. I am not a wealthy man, but I am grateful to have work that I enjoy.

http://votemattmccall.com/events/

Ask me anything!

Update: If you can afford it you can donate to the campaign here.

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/3RDGEbEX/Matt-McCall/

Update: Thank you all for sharing your views. Sorry we could not agree more.

My email is [email protected] for the questions that were missed or unable to see due to the down votes.

2668 comments submitted at 18:24:26 on Aug 19, 2013 by [deleted]

  • [-]
  • crash__bandicoot
  • 1939 Points
  • 20:15:19, 19 August

Matt McCall,

In a previous comment, you said you wanted to keep the government "out of our bedrooms." Yet immediately following that statement, within the same comment you said marriage is between a man and a woman.

Would you like to take a moment to explain this comment and defend your position?

  • [-]
  • silverf1re
  • 1811 Points
  • 20:45:13, 19 August

lol

  • [-]
  • De_Facto
  • 450 Points
  • 21:11:06, 19 August

This is the ONLY time I will up vote an "lol"

  • [-]
  • feureau
  • 86 Points
  • 21:44:30, 19 August

Do people read "lol" as el-oh-el or lawl?

If lawl, then:

>A "lol", Mr. President

  • [-]
  • Frostiken
  • 8 Points
  • 22:04:56, 19 August

I read it as 'el-oh-el'.

  • [-]
  • feureau
  • 13 Points
  • 22:10:55, 19 August

I still think "lol" should be lawl whereas "L.O.L." is el-oh-el.

  • [-]
  • Hamartithia_
  • 7 Points
  • 23:04:57, 19 August

I don't read it I just look at it as if it were a guy surrendering to the police. Add in some squiggly lines ~~lol~~ and it's a guy drowning.

  • [-]
  • I_suck_at_mostthings
  • 4 Points
  • 23:14:19, 19 August

I read it as lawl. It's way funnier that way to me. Except I wouldn't pronounce it "lawl" as much as "lole" like "mole"

  • [-]
  • Noamyoungerm
  • 3 Points
  • 00:38:13, 20 August

It makes the most sense to pronounce it the same way as the word loll.

  • [-]
  • AlienwareMac_Pro
  • 1 Points
  • 22:50:34, 19 August

Depends. If I'm reading something very professional, like if oxford were defining it I'd read it as el oh el. In that comment it's general usage so I'd read it as lawl. If it were used with leet speak or hacker esque I'd read it as lul.

  • [-]
  • sunnyandtony
  • 1 Points
  • 23:29:11, 19 August

El-oh-el my friend, el-oh-el.

And totally worth the upvote!

  • [-]
  • NickSpigger
  • 1 Points
  • 23:54:37, 19 August

I read it as a little TIE fighter

  • [-]
  • martialfarts316
  • 1 Points
  • 01:24:45, 20 August

I subconsciously read every acronym as their expanded versions for some reason. So I've always read it as "laughs out loud".

  • [-]
  • whoozeewhatsit
  • 2 Points
  • 00:17:12, 20 August

You're a dope.

  • [-]
  • IcumAlittleWHENuLOL
  • 95 Points
  • 22:14:59, 19 August

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Edit: Thanks for the birthday present. ;-)

  • [-]
  • OnePoorBastard
  • 5 Points
  • 22:25:00, 19 August

Goddamn you. This is the first time that I've upvoted a novelty account.

  • [-]
  • ItsNotJared
  • 1 Points
  • 22:10:36, 19 August

This is what I came here to see

  • [-]
  • dildologist
  • 174 Points
  • 21:55:23, 19 August

If you want our votes, don't dodge the serious questions. Or at least have the decency not to brand this an AMA, call it an Ask Some Silly Deniable Indirect Questions. You know, an ASSDIQ.

  • [-]
  • gynoceros
  • 32 Points
  • 22:15:52, 19 August

You dildologists play this game better than anyone else.

  • [-]
  • benpatient
  • 3 Points
  • 23:11:44, 19 August

that's impossible to pronounce without at least two curse words!

  • [-]
  • chocoboi
  • 3 Points
  • 00:26:24, 20 August

Can we make this a thing? This happens on pretty much all political AMAs...

  • [-]
  • FuckingAppleOfDoom
  • 2 Points
  • 23:43:13, 19 August

i laughed unreasonably hard at this. well played, sir.

  • [-]
  • gustercc
  • 3 Points
  • 23:48:59, 19 August

"Ass-dik". Perfect. Ha! I'd high five you, if I had any arms.

  • [-]
  • GiantPandaCunt
  • 254 Points
  • 21:03:59, 19 August

Surely OP will deliver....

  • [-]
  • executex
  • 559 Points
  • 22:34:38, 19 August

My apologies for changing the subject a bit, but I just wanted to let people know more about this guy.

This guy: Matt McCall is an insane Republican who doesn't seem to understand much about politics.

He's worse than Lamar smith (I never thought I could ever say this absurd sentence)...

From his OWN website:

>shutting down the EPA. Doing so will provide the double benefit of saving cash, and removing all associated federal regulation burdens. Each of the states has their own agency to regulate the environment and local government will best respond to the will of the people. We must shut down the Department of the Interior and give the lands back to the States. Shut down the Department of Energy, that has never found a drop of oil, and give the nuclear regulation to the Navy. We must also eliminate the Department of Education,

... I can list thousands of reasons why each of these departments should not be shut down, but expanded. But this person seems to have an irrational hatred of the federal gov.

>THE IRS MUST BE ABOLISHED!

..

>Repealing ObamaCare/Defunding ObamaCare

Thousands of people got rebates due to Obamacare's 80-20 rule. Thousands of people became insured either by their employer or their parents due to Obamacare. Thousands were not denied because of pre-existing condition nonsense. And the basic ideas in this bill were first proposed by moderate Republicans anyway.

>...unless a declaration of war is issued by Congress.

(He doesn't even understand the difference between an authorization of war and a declaration of war. Apparently, he's not a lawyer or foreign policy expert, or a historian on US law, so it's pretty clear why he fails at understanding world politics; People who are running for an office to write laws, should understand the law first. A bill does not literally have to say "declaration" to be accepted as a declaration of war, an authorization will suffice).

>I am completely against abortion and would like to eliminate it.

He's also a missionary, serving on the board of Interdenominational Christian Ministries, and runs 6 churches. This puts him in a conflict of interest because he needs to be serving people of all religions and all denominations.

I'll give him credit for the SOPA issue though.

  • [-]
  • AwesomezGuy
  • 23 Points
  • 23:03:38, 19 August

This needs to be voted higher.

  • [-]
  • NuclearPotatoes
  • 9 Points
  • 23:02:55, 19 August

There's something in the water in Texas and Florida.

  • [-]
  • frostbite305
  • 6 Points
  • 23:22:28, 19 August

>florida

By that you mean north florida, right?

  • [-]
  • Toxic84
  • 3 Points
  • 23:59:16, 19 August

I fucking hate my state.

  • [-]
  • valeriekeefe
  • 1 Points
  • 03:38:20, 20 August

Florida: The only state where the more North you go, the more South it gets...

  • [-]
  • rprebel
  • 2 Points
  • 23:05:52, 19 August

Thankfully, my well is filtered.

  • [-]
  • Cherrypoison
  • 4 Points
  • 23:10:57, 19 August

Yep, too batshit for my vote in any universe.

Thanks for posting the roundup.

  • [-]
  • potiphar1887
  • 3 Points
  • 23:14:56, 19 August

Jesus Christ. This should be a top level comment.

  • [-]
  • stratsticks57
  • 3 Points
  • 23:22:51, 19 August

He wants to abort abortion!

  • [-]
  • chictyler
  • 4 Points
  • 23:13:23, 19 August

Pretty standard republican policies.

  • [-]
  • Txmedic
  • 3 Points
  • 23:07:18, 19 August

What is the rationale for giving control of nuclear energy over to the navy?

  • [-]
  • rick_in_the_wall
  • 5 Points
  • 00:01:16, 20 August

The guy thinks the department of energy is supposed to be discovering oil. It's possible he needs to no rationale to form his opinions...

  • [-]
  • Doctor_Chill
  • 1 Points
  • 23:58:14, 19 August

I don't see what being a missionary has to do with it. But yes, like all Texas Republicans, he is crazy.

  • [-]
  • ShellReaver
  • 3 Points
  • 00:24:15, 20 August

His religion obviously influences him.

  • [-]
  • Doctor_Chill
  • 2 Points
  • 00:29:45, 20 August

It could. Or maybe he's just crazy. I'm a Christian with Social Democratic economic views that believes in separation of church and state.

  • [-]
  • bluehairedbeaver
  • 3 Points
  • 00:43:05, 20 August

Alright, well you are not crazy. Crazy + Church + Politics is a terrible combination.

  • [-]
  • Doctor_Chill
  • 2 Points
  • 01:09:42, 20 August

Crazy + Politics is bad. With or without the involvement of faith.

  • [-]
  • smokeydesperado
  • 80 Points
  • 21:40:20, 19 August

Pls respond op

  • [-]
  • stupid_hobbitez
  • 49 Points
  • 21:46:12, 19 August

lol he's seriously already devolved to bitching about the hivemind and retiquette. Read his recent comment history.

3 hours in. Not bad, fellas. Not bad.

  • [-]
  • ringingbells
  • 0 Points
  • 23:13:15, 19 August

Wow. You gotta be ready before you jump into the ring because be sure...

"Bonesaw is Ready!"

  • [-]
  • americanadiandian
  • 1 Points
  • 23:49:33, 19 August

I skimmed through his comment history just now and commend him for staying as positive and respectful as he did. Do you have an example of him bitching about the hivemind and retiquette?

  • [-]
  • sociomancy
  • 1 Points
  • 00:49:39, 20 August

I was sympathetic until I went over to his website.

He never had a goddamned chance.

  • [-]
  • iamlatech
  • 1 Points
  • 22:09:50, 19 August

Pls

  • [-]
  • ITM-Steve
  • 212 Points
  • 21:22:35, 19 August

This is why I love IAmA. The person can't hide from the controversial questions. Not answering is making this look worse and worse.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 67 Points
  • 22:14:00, 19 August

So many questions. I will slowly get around to it.

  • [-]
  • Bucky_Ohare
  • 46 Points
  • 22:45:11, 19 August

Sir,

Pressingly, the ones you got first while important are going to fall drastically behind the ones already on the top of the page (sorted by best) which are gathering you a ton of negative feedback.

You're going to have to actually give some distinct, solid answers. We're not amused by generic statements and it's not a rally; you're going to find a lot of directed, poignant questions that quite frankly you need to answer, or this is going to be a huge black eye in the internet community.

  • [-]
  • Sutekhy
  • 237 Points
  • 22:44:13, 19 August

http://i.imgur.com/f6DEbwY.gif

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 32 Points
  • 22:55:56, 19 August

This is my first time on Reddit.

  • [-]
  • qmechan
  • 9 Points
  • 22:57:57, 19 August

What are your thoughts so far?

  • [-]
  • lulumilnn
  • 7 Points
  • 23:00:18, 19 August

I imagine something like this.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 17 Points
  • 23:01:57, 19 August

People love me :)

  • [-]
  • nc_cyclist
  • 14 Points
  • 23:09:58, 19 August

I like this guy's sense of humor. That much I'll give him.

  • [-]
  • invictus8
  • 6 Points
  • 23:49:51, 19 August

This isn't a sense of humor. He's just being sarcastic because he's either unable or unwilling to debate his policy positions.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 69 Points
  • 22:57:04, 19 August

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 82 Points
  • 23:04:56, 19 August

:)

  • [-]
  • andrewphf
  • 24 Points
  • 23:51:00, 19 August

WE DID IT REDDIT!

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 5 Points
  • 23:52:33, 19 August

I'm still here and I am not going away :)

  • [-]
  • GodWrappedInPlastic
  • 5 Points
  • 00:03:39, 20 August

Surely, this can't be the real Matt McCall...

  • [-]
  • Le_Madmaxxx
  • 4 Points
  • 00:00:48, 20 August

All kidding aside. I am actually interested in the original question. Can you share your thoughts please?

edit: n/m, found the answer further down :)

  • [-]
  • HandfulOfPeter
  • 7 Points
  • 23:06:45, 19 August

You gotta stop with the emoticons, man..

edit: or in this particular case..

  • [-]
  • Rainman316
  • 2 Points
  • 00:23:10, 20 August

You're catching on.

  • [-]
  • Neil_Degrasse_Bacon
  • 8 Points
  • 23:35:21, 19 August

I fucking lost it right here.

  • [-]
  • Foxclaws42
  • 6 Points
  • 23:41:15, 19 August

I love you.

  • [-]
  • MattMcCall_PR_Agent
  • 4 Points
  • 23:17:09, 19 August

Didn't I tell you how much this would improve your image, Matt? People love you already. Lamar is going down!

  • [-]
  • Mr-Dumpy
  • 2 Points
  • 00:23:54, 20 August

Apparently you've been a redditor for 1 month, says the profile.

  • [-]
  • Bkaps
  • 2 Points
  • 23:00:48, 19 August

"OH, will you look at the time? GOTTA GO."

  • [-]
  • beckleyt
  • 2 Points
  • 23:06:01, 19 August

Sums up this guy's AMA... This is brutal, yet highly entertaining.

  • [-]
  • Gadgetstorms
  • 17 Points
  • 22:48:01, 19 August

The sharks are circling - you're on the front page of /all. Thousands of people are waiting for you to answer this question. If make it a priority there Matt.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 4 Points
  • 22:50:03, 19 August

Which one....There is so many...Im new

  • [-]
  • infrikinfix
  • 12 Points
  • 22:53:08, 19 August

Steady yourself Matt: they can smell fear.

  • [-]
  • r2load
  • 11 Points
  • 22:52:42, 19 August
  1. arrange comments by upvotes
  2. answer the damn questions
  3. profit?
  4. nah, ama goes down in flames.
  • [-]
  • GrapeRello
  • 9 Points
  • 22:57:57, 19 August

This one Matt, This is the one you have been dodging. Now answer >Matt McCall, In a previous comment, you said you wanted to keep the government "out of our bedrooms." Yet immediately following that statement, within the same comment you said marriage is between a man and a woman. Would you like to take a moment to explain this comment and defend your position?

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 16 Points
  • 23:00:20, 19 August

I did respond to this question. And I have answered it multiple times. I personally believe marriage is between a man and a women. I am not going to write legislation that will ban it or make it illegal though. It is none of our damn business what you do in the bedroom.

  • [-]
  • mlw4428
  • 4 Points
  • 23:04:20, 19 August

> I personally believe marriage is between a man and a women. I am not going to write legislation that will ban it or make it illegal though.

So are you saying that you would allow gays to get married, should they want? You would abolish or pass the necessary laws to allow gay people to be married and have all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities afforded to straight couples?

This is what people want to know...no one cares about your personal beliefs. We care about your legislative goals and while I'm not from Texas, I assure you that the 3.8 MILLION Redditors watching this thread right here, right now will remember what you say. They will forever judge you based on your answers.

  • [-]
  • DoctoryWhy
  • 2 Points
  • 23:03:54, 19 August

When people say "privacy in our bedrooms" they are generally talking about equal rights in marriage and not literal bedrooms.

  • [-]
  • qmechan
  • 3 Points
  • 23:09:57, 19 August

The issue people might be having with your statement may be in your phrasing. When you're saying you wouldn't write legislation to ban it, are you referring to gay sex or gay marriage? Would you write a law saying that a marriage is only between a man and a woman? Would you vote for such a law? If so, why exactly? Certainly your personal opinion is that that's what it is, but what creates that opinion? What forces inform that opinion? What are you looking at when you ask the question "What is a marriage, what should it be?"

I am sort of sympathetic to the idea that maybe you haven't put that much thought into it, because it's not that important an issue to you, and you feel that as a private citizen, you've the right to your opinion free from the judgements of others. I understand that sentiment, sir. Where I believe that sentiment has to end is when a person says that they are a person that should be making decisions that affect a massive number of people. Once you run for public office, you have to make the time to examine issues that are important to people (as I hope you've seen, this one is) and not only put a great deal of consideration into it, but be able to outline your consideration when describing your conclusion. This is a thing you have not done, so you have not had the cessation of questions that I think you're looking for. The people here aren't satisfied with your answer in terms of the details, and responding with frustration to American voters being dissatisfied with a person running for office not explaining something enough isn't a noble or correct response that's respectful of the electorate. If you feel unfairly scrutinized, simply remember that you yourself are campaigning for more scrutiny of our government and should be setting the example.

EDIT/ADDENDUM: You've mentioned before about your wish to have a conversation with the American taxpayer. In this forum, at least, the American taxpayer is demanding a fuller understanding of your rationale. You've argued for an audit of the entire government on your website and Facebook page, so surely you must see the need of an audit of the candidate before any trust can be given. I think you may be wishing for a more casual and less hostile sense of interaction, which is understandable. Conversations are often friendly. But I believe, and I think that most of the readers will back me up on this, is less of a small-talk for candidates and more of an examination or interrogation of them. Do you believe you ought to be exempt from that standard, and if so, do you believe that our elected officials should also be?

  • [-]
  • westcoastfunky
  • 2 Points
  • 23:02:41, 19 August

You have not answered anything, you are providing vague non-answers.

Yes or no question - Are you against "gay marriage"?

  • [-]
  • MattMcCall_PR_Agent
  • 3 Points
  • 23:27:13, 19 August

Stick to your guns Matt. Remember, they respect honest and direct responses. Don't back down. You're doing great!

  • [-]
  • lulumilnn
  • 3 Points
  • 23:01:53, 19 August

"Be gay, just don't let me see it!"

You don't have to write anything because it's already illegal in most places, you jerk.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 4 Points
  • 23:01:00, 19 August

And it is not defined in the Constitution, therefore, we have no right too.

  • [-]
  • Bliss86
  • 32 Points
  • 23:06:26, 19 August

You can't deny that there is a clear inequality regarding marital benefits and rights for gay people. It's not only about marriage itself, but tax code, hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children.

50 years ago there was a clear inequality for mixed-color couples. It's your goddamn business to grant everyone equal rights, no matter the gender, color or sexual orientation!

  • [-]
  • Failureman
  • 7 Points
  • 23:05:17, 19 August

Then work to overturn federal benefits from Marriage.

  • [-]
  • DaintyWeiner
  • 14 Points
  • 23:03:10, 19 August

Mr. McCall... come on... too? Commander and Chief? There instead of their? LOL? This is embarrassing for me to read.

  • [-]
  • jonesyjonesy
  • 6 Points
  • 23:08:00, 19 August

Bae caught me grammerin

  • [-]
  • shave_daddy
  • 5 Points
  • 23:03:59, 19 August

So you'd be against a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman?

  • [-]
  • itisknownkhaleesi
  • 4 Points
  • 23:02:11, 19 August

You can edit your posts.

  • [-]
  • sawser
  • 4 Points
  • 22:53:34, 19 August

When you refresh the page, the top most question is the one that most people want a response to. Work from top to bottom, as the top question is the most seen question.

It is MUCH better to answer one question and its 4 follow ups thoroughly, then four individual questions with generic vapid responses. If you only answer two questions but answer them completely, it will be viewed much more favorably than barely answering 15 questions.

  • [-]
  • commentingisfun
  • 4 Points
  • 22:54:38, 19 August

There's so many buttons! I don't understand! Matt, if you can dump several replies into the child comments you can surely just reply to the original. It's an easy question. You either want to legislate adult decisions (such as marriage, marijuana use, internet censorship etc.) or you don't. Stop being such a politician for a second and maybe you can start to garner some votes from the Austonians and folks from SA who frequent reddit. Right now you're blowing it. There are 3 votes in my household in your district, we are very vocal in social media and we really dislike Lamar Smith.

  • [-]
  • Gadgetstorms
  • 2 Points
  • 22:56:19, 19 August

Answer the marriage question first. If Yu sort by best it's the first question. The one with the most votes.

  • [-]
  • DaveSW777
  • 6 Points
  • 22:51:27, 19 August

Bullshit. Why are you anti gay and anti trans? What proof do you have that supports any of your claims?

Put up, or shut the fuck up.

  • [-]
  • rorywanabe
  • 8 Points
  • 22:27:47, 19 August

A sort of meta question on this topic.

  • How did you find out about Reddit AMAs?
  • Have you read other people's AMAs to get a sense of how they are run; any specific ones that you found interesting or that inspired you to do your own?
  • How are you running your AMA; specifically interested in what criteria you are using to decide what questions to answer (just personal judgement, answering all questions that come in chronologically, or maybe set out to cover specific topics)?
  • Are you writing the answers completely solo or are you having people help you structure your answers (either maybe a PR person to help smooth out the rough draft answers, or someone familiar with Reddit to help guide your answers within this community)?
  • [-]
  • lol-god
  • 3 Points
  • 22:50:17, 19 August

That's government style right there. "We'll slowly get around to it."

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 2 Points
  • 23:09:42, 19 August

Seriously, it's like it's your turn at a spelling bee and you are just sitting there.

  • [-]
  • BigCat9000
  • 4 Points
  • 22:19:21, 19 August

Keep up the good work Matt. I'm sure you can turn this AMA around somehow. I have faith. Don't beat your PR person too badly when it's over though.

  • [-]
  • confusicus
  • 1 Points
  • 22:54:11, 19 August

Translation - "My PR team are trying to figure out an answer to this that doesn't make me look like a moron"

  • [-]
  • WellHeresMyFourthAcc
  • 1 Points
  • 22:59:46, 19 August

I'd recommend tackling this one first. It's the top comment at the moment- i.e. what everyone sees when they come into the AMA. It makes you look bad and out-of-touch. (Just a tip. Good luck with the AMA, and while I'm not sure I want you to win, I hope Smith loses.)

  • [-]
  • WTFOMGBBQ
  • 1 Points
  • 23:02:39, 19 August

This is the top question, I'm thinking it should be a high priority :)

  • [-]
  • _Zeppo_
  • 1 Points
  • 23:02:54, 19 August

Seems to be great interest in one question in particular, the one with over 1300 upvotes. Perhaps you could get around to that one.

  • [-]
  • kilbert66
  • 1 Points
  • 23:03:17, 19 August

I guess you didn't think that being here would actually involve answering questions and getting feedback, huh?

  • [-]
  • AwesomezGuy
  • 1 Points
  • 23:04:38, 19 August

Take your time, make sure to consult your PR guys. Fuck up this answer and Reddit will just downvote any AmA you post in future.

  • [-]
  • willystylee
  • 1 Points
  • 23:05:41, 19 August

It's been 4 hours and you've only answered like 3 or 4 questions...

  • [-]
  • MattMcCall_PR_Agent
  • 0 Points
  • 23:07:09, 19 August

Great idea Matt! These nice young people will wait patiently for your answer. I told you they would give you a fair shake.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 23:07:30, 19 August

You should really get to this one now. It's at the top of the list and the first thing people see. It looks really bad right now.

  • [-]
  • mr_rightnow
  • 1 Points
  • 23:10:44, 19 August

http://www.imgur.com/SQQnI35.gif

  • [-]
  • daggah
  • 1 Points
  • 22:31:08, 19 August

When I read the headline, I knew this guy was just another Republican shrill, just using the fact that SOPA was in the news recently to get Reddit's attention.

  • [-]
  • aspensmonster
  • 57 Points
  • 21:48:22, 19 August

~~He's since deleted the comment about a natural man and woman. Seriously.~~

Edit: Or I just can't find it. Still digging.

Edit2: Whelp. Can't find it in the JSON either. Don't know whether the JSON keeps a log of all comments or just mimics the default visibles though.

Edit3: Nope. Not deleted. Just buried under an avalanche of downvotes:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1koh5j/iamsopaopponentmattmccalliam_running/cbr146s

>I have not said I am for scaling back the military. I said that I am for having an Adult conversation with the American Taxpayers about what they want our military's mission to be, and then we should fund that. I am for getting the Government out of not just our bedrooms but out of most of our lives. As for the word marriage, it is between one natural man and woman. My opponent believes the same on marriage.

  • [-]
  • Rotten_Potato
  • 3 Points
  • 23:27:56, 19 August

So what he says is basically "We can't ban teh gay but we don't want those icky gays to have the same benefits that we do"?

  • [-]
  • aspensmonster
  • 2 Points
  • 23:37:02, 19 August

The problem is that he hasn't said much of anything. See his final comment and my copy-paste response from one of his earlier comments.

  • [-]
  • DoctorWaluigiTime
  • 2 Points
  • 23:40:19, 19 August

"My opponent believes the same on marraige."

Well I guess that means nobody can hold that view against you. After all, the other guy's doing it.

  • [-]
  • skinnyboot
  • 1 Points
  • 00:11:05, 20 August

.JSON! .JSON!

  • [-]
  • jet43
  • 1 Points
  • 00:39:05, 20 August

Since when are right wing fundamentalists adult? Blinn adherence to Amy ideology us by definition a mental disease.

  • [-]
  • Mr_Reddits
  • 127 Points
  • 21:45:54, 19 August

¯\_( ツ)_/¯

  • [-]
  • drunkenwanderer
  • 1 Points
  • 06:59:04, 20 August

Can you find the feesh?!

  • [-]
  • GrokMonkey
  • 176 Points
  • 20:59:21, 19 August

A natural man and a woman. Which raises a whole lot of other questions in itself.

  • [-]
  • shave_daddy
  • 335 Points
  • 21:04:53, 19 August

Only cage-free, organic, free-range men and women

  • [-]
  • nootrino
  • 106 Points
  • 21:34:39, 19 August

I'll take one woman, hormone free.

  • [-]
  • gynoceros
  • 85 Points
  • 22:08:37, 19 August

Yeah, good luck with that shit, pal.

  • [-]
  • asstasticbum
  • 3 Points
  • 22:19:16, 19 August

I'll buck the trend, hormones with mine please. A side of silicone if you would be so kind as well.

  • [-]
  • Jon_Ham_Cock
  • 1 Points
  • 23:00:09, 19 August

Monsanto drooling...

New band name.

Called it.

  • [-]
  • Bzbzbzbz
  • 1 Points
  • 00:30:08, 20 August

She will be as dry as the Sahara

  • [-]
  • Rilgon
  • 4 Points
  • 21:33:56, 19 August

Oh, you mean like from Whole Foods.

  • [-]
  • stormeus
  • 4 Points
  • 21:38:21, 19 August

But then who'll make the next National Treasure movie?

  • [-]
  • the_slunk
  • 2 Points
  • 21:46:06, 19 August

This guy's a Christian conservative Republican; trust me -- he would prefer women be caged.

  • [-]
  • BuddhistNudist987
  • 1 Points
  • 21:54:14, 19 August

What if they have fair trade men and women, but can't prove that they're organic?

  • [-]
  • zorreX
  • 8 Points
  • 22:30:35, 19 August

So I guess transgender people are just fucked. Cool.

  • [-]
  • thesecretbarn
  • 9 Points
  • 21:46:56, 19 August

Transphobia.

  • [-]
  • guruscotty
  • 1 Points
  • 23:20:36, 19 August

a legitimate man and a legitimate woman.

  • [-]
  • airon17
  • 107 Points
  • 21:21:42, 19 August

This might be the greatest AMA I've ever seen.

  • [-]
  • MrConfucius
  • 12 Points
  • 22:19:45, 19 August

Oh my god, watching this AMA crash and burn has made my crappy day so much better.

This is on par with that baseball player's one.

  • [-]
  • DonTellMyBoss
  • 7 Points
  • 22:25:31, 19 August

Please, could we just focus on Rampart?

  • [-]
  • Sutekhy
  • 2 Points
  • 22:48:40, 19 August

> Oh my god, watching this AMA crash and burn has made my crappy day so much better. > This is on par with that baseball player's one

Ahh, good ole Jose Canseco

  • [-]
  • xLuky
  • 3 Points
  • 22:47:01, 19 August

Honestly thats really the only reason I click on AMAs, to watch them burn.

  • [-]
  • TheGreatCraven
  • 44 Points
  • 21:50:57, 19 August

Oh man this is just brutal.

  • [-]
  • Photographent
  • 48 Points
  • 21:50:23, 19 August

HEY MATT!! just in case you didn't notice this I made it nice and bold for ya, your potential voters would like an answer.

  • [-]
  • Halo-3-FTW
  • 48 Points
  • 21:12:49, 19 August

I haven't seen the quote so I don't know the exact context, but I want to point out that one can want government "out of the bedrooms" and still have an opinion on what marriage should be.

Just because one may think same-sex marriage is right or wrong, doesn't mean that they will force their opinion onto others.

Again, I don't know the context of what was said, but it is possible to hold an opinion and not let it affect how one does their job.

  • [-]
  • IranianGenius
  • 36 Points
  • 21:41:44, 19 August

Here's the question and his response.

  • [-]
  • Foxclaws42
  • 1 Points
  • 22:53:22, 19 August

Wow. I don't even...

  • [-]
  • notb
  • 13 Points
  • 21:54:30, 19 August

While what you're saying is technically correct, it's essentially irrelevant in the realm of politics and the scope of this AMA. If he didn't intend to push that aspect of his ideology he wouldn't have mentioned it. Claiming to believe in something and then voting against it gets a politician labelled as a flip flopper.

He's a politician because he wants to push his ideology. The reality is that he's trying to play both sides of the fence here. He's attempting to pander to hyper-liberal reddit without betraying his largely conservative voters. If he is elected, he will most certainly act on his beliefs or on the beliefs of his biggest donor.

  • [-]
  • Halo-3-FTW
  • 2 Points
  • 22:26:14, 19 August

Before I reply, I had/have no intentions of defending him as I don't know anything about him. Just the very few things I read about in the AMA.

That being said, a politician can believe one thing and not force it on others as long as he is clear about it. For example, we will stick with the marriage example.

A politician can state that he is against same-sex marriage but has no intentions of pushing his ideology on the rest of the nation. This would likely work for a libertarian more so than the other two (large) parties. He could then vote for same-sex marriage bills without the worry of being called a flip-flopper. Sure, some people would be mad at him, but he clearly stated his intent prior to being elected.

That being said, it is just easier for politicians to lie and then do what they want when they are elected...it seems to be all the rage these days.

Also, I agree that this guy appears to be trying to grab the on-the-fence-libertarians to get the vote over Lamar Smith. Personally, I would rather see a true libertarian take the seat.

  • [-]
  • bobertian
  • 4 Points
  • 22:04:00, 19 August

As a voter in TX-21, I want to know the answer to this.

  • [-]
  • shillbert
  • 22 Points
  • 21:38:33, 19 August

Devil's advocate: gay people can do whatever they want in their bedroom (they won't be arrested for sodomy), but that doesn't mean they can get married! Marriage happens in a church, not a bedroom!

(In other words, to a Republican these are entirely separate issues so there's no inherent contradiction)

  • [-]
  • Grizzalbee
  • 42 Points
  • 22:08:38, 19 August

Marriage happens in a municipal building, not a church.

  • [-]
  • chirisu
  • 4 Points
  • 22:20:36, 19 August

Sometimes buttsecks happens in a church...

  • [-]
  • aur0ra145
  • 3 Points
  • 22:13:24, 19 August

A Republican might think that way, but conservatives don't. I believe the government shouldn't have say in either action, be it marriage or bedroom (or coffee table if you roll that way.)

  • [-]
  • bcbrz
  • 2 Points
  • 22:09:44, 19 August

I actually agree with this position.

I'd love to see government "marriage" turned into "civil unions" (or whatever they want to call it), with similar benefits/protections, for both Hetero/Homo couples.

This could provide separation from the legal definition of marriage and the religious meaning.

  • [-]
  • shillbert
  • 3 Points
  • 22:14:55, 19 August

Yeah, I think civil unions are a good idea, but I'm not gay. Some gay people see them as a cop-out (an "equal but separate" kind of thing).

Edit: oh, you mean civil unions for both orientations, completely separate from religious marriage. Yeah, that's a great idea

  • [-]
  • combatsports4life
  • 3 Points
  • 22:43:18, 19 August

One can think marriage is between a man and woman, while at the same time being against government intervention. I'm actually surprised at how many people can't separate the two. Just because someone holds a belief doesn't mean they think the government should enforce those beliefs on others.

  • [-]
  • Dreadnaught666
  • 2 Points
  • 23:50:09, 19 August

Fuck republicans.

  • [-]
  • Sadsharks
  • 2 Points
  • 04:32:00, 20 August

I never expected crash bandicoot to so thoroughly destroy a politician.

  • [-]
  • Boomer1984
  • 4 Points
  • 21:19:44, 19 August

Can that not be his personal thought?

  • [-]
  • I_Key_Cars
  • 4 Points
  • 21:46:00, 19 August

"crickets chirping"

  • [-]
  • turds_mcpoop
  • 4 Points
  • 22:02:51, 19 August

I saw this link and got confused.
"A republican candidate who opposes SOPA and is open to connecting with a less conservative group of voters via a reddit AMA? AM I in Bizarro America?"

Then, the second I click on the link and see the first comment. "HOMOPHOBE!"

Ah, thanks for bringing me back to Earth. I feel better.

  • [-]
  • Neebat
  • 3 Points
  • 21:10:54, 19 August

It's a Republican primary in a deeply conservative district. The anti-gay sentiment is entrenched there and a sure-fire loss if you go against it.

But, if you prefer Lamar Smith get another term, that's your choice.

  • [-]
  • piecemeal
  • 4 Points
  • 22:11:47, 19 August

Yeah, most commenters seems to not understand that the choice before them isn't Bernie Sanders/Wendie Davis/Elizabeth Warren v. Lamar Smith, it's a choice between the devil you know, and a potentially slightly less douchy devil you don't.

  • [-]
  • Neebat
  • 2 Points
  • 22:20:09, 19 August

It's actually a bit more interesting than that.

Lamar Smith has been in Congress for ... Great Flying Spaghetti Monster!... TWENTY-SIX YEARS. In Congress, the committee assignments are largely based on Seniority. Lamar Smith gets to RUN shit up there because he's been there forever.

If you replaced Lamar Smith today with Fred Phelps (just to pick the absolute worst case,) it would still be an improvement. That... thing... would have less power, so even if the replacement were deeply evil, we would have more chance of a sane government.

And Texas is shifting Democratic fast enough, that even District 21 won't be Republican long enough for his replacement to build up that kind of clout.

  • [-]
  • sawser
  • 4 Points
  • 21:11:29, 19 August

Quit "Name calling!"

/s

Edit: McCall has referred to people asking these questions (less politely) as name calling. I was mocking that statement.

  • [-]
  • Rilgon
  • 4 Points
  • 21:33:38, 19 August

I will fully admit to being snarky and antagonistic. That said, such evil positions don't really deserve more than derision and scorn.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 22:13:13, 19 August

That is my personal view.

  • [-]
  • SwoccerFields
  • 57 Points
  • 22:14:34, 19 August

Yes but your two comments contradict each other.

  • [-]
  • Ergheis
  • 15 Points
  • 22:50:05, 19 August

I believe what he means is that his personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also does not want the government to intervene.

It is within a human's right to believe what they want. "I disagree with you, but I will defend your right to say it," per se.

  • [-]
  • jonesyjonesy
  • 20 Points
  • 22:28:42, 19 August

Matt McCall is a fucking reddit pro.

>Do you want to keep the government out of bedrooms, or not?

"Yes."

  • [-]
  • shmameron
  • 7 Points
  • 22:20:42, 19 August

I can't believe I had to scroll so far down to find his answer.

  • [-]
  • spencerawr
  • 3 Points
  • 22:50:49, 19 August

Not really. He can believe that marriage is between a man and woman BUT he doesn't dictate what others should do.

  • [-]
  • TremendousHeh
  • 2 Points
  • 22:51:53, 19 August

No they don't. You can personally be against abortion but believe that the government has no say in a woman's right to chose. You can be against homosexuality but believe it is not the business of the government to legislate morality.

  • [-]
  • blatherskiter
  • 2 Points
  • 22:54:11, 19 August

howso? What does keeping government "out of the bedroom" have to do with the definition of marriage?

  • [-]
  • Allitigator
  • 2 Points
  • 22:55:30, 19 August

Do they? Can't you have a personal view that you simultaneously think shouldn't be imposed on Americans by the government?

I don't agree with Mr. McCall's personal viewpoint, but I don't think the two statements are mutually exclusive.

  • [-]
  • valeriekeefe
  • 8 Points
  • 22:31:16, 19 August

A two-part follow up:

  1. Do you believe trans people are naturally their identified sex.

  2. Do you believe trans people should be barred from all marriages, even to someone of the opposite legal sex? The opposite assigned sex?

  • [-]
  • Rockytriton
  • 10 Points
  • 22:21:57, 19 August

Your personal view that you are trying to force on other people.

  • [-]
  • scooterpwny
  • 5 Points
  • 22:22:54, 19 August

And why should that affect anyone else?

  • [-]
  • IranianGenius
  • 7 Points
  • 22:15:27, 19 August

The explanation wanted is how you justify keeping government "out of our bedrooms" while also saying that marriage, something which many people see as being private, is between a "natural man and a woman." Many people see this as a contradiction. Some comments others made have defended you, but it would be nice to hear you defend how you can have both of these beliefs.

Edit: Guys, can you not downvote Matt's responses? People are coming to this thread to read what he has to say, even if they disagree with it.

  • [-]
  • -ifyouseekay
  • 1 Points
  • 22:09:24, 19 August

Gay marriage is the least of my concerns considering the person he is trying to replace. Though I am a proponent of civil liberties for everyone, I much more concerned with the federal governments decision to trample on the rest of our rights not addressed by allowing two men to get married.

  • [-]
  • 7SirMixALot7
  • 1 Points
  • 22:11:08, 19 August

Seeing as he is a politician and this question of comparable thought would actually require some level of an intellectual answer to not sound completely ludicrous (in other words, mixing religious view into political view)...I don't see us getting an answer anytime soon.

  • [-]
  • suckthisdeth
  • 1 Points
  • 22:14:45, 19 August

Do people get married in bedrooms where you are from? Although I may not agree with his statement I can plainly see that it wasn't contradictory.

  • [-]
  • swallowedfilth
  • 1 Points
  • 22:37:15, 19 August

I understand what you're trying to say, but both him and Lamar Smith will probably have similar stances on these topics. He by no means is the perfect candidate but I think his anti-SOPA stance makes him the better candidate. Such is the way of politics...

  • [-]
  • OkraPatchRunner
  • 1 Points
  • 22:44:21, 19 August

You mean like Obama before he "evolved?"

  • [-]
  • GOOD_OLD_FUCK
  • 2 Points
  • 22:48:03, 19 August

Here is the comment.

  • [-]
  • Alex321321
  • 1 Points
  • 22:49:06, 19 August

Ouch. It burns.

  • [-]
  • blatherskiter
  • 1 Points
  • 22:52:44, 19 August

What does being "out of the bedroom" have to do with the definition of marriage?

  • [-]
  • tyme
  • 1 Points
  • 22:54:54, 19 August

It is not inconsistent to personally believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman while also believing the government should "stay out of our bedrooms". You can hold both viewpoints.

  • [-]
  • inconspicuous_male
  • 1 Points
  • 23:04:39, 19 August

Theres currently a 900 point discrepancy between the top and second comments here

  • [-]
  • Smithburg01
  • 1 Points
  • 23:07:31, 19 August

Well, the part about marriage could be his personal opinion, and the government out of bedrooms part may be his official stance. You can have things like that happen. I have conflicting thoughts and practises about many things

  • [-]
  • misingnoglic
  • 2 Points
  • 23:07:56, 19 August

You guys are fucking retarded. There's a difference between not believing in gay marriage and wanting to ban gay marriage. Are you offended that Matt McCall isn't going to get a gay marriage? Just be glad he's not shoving his views down people's throats.

  • [-]
  • I_suck_at_mostthings
  • 0 Points
  • 23:15:36, 19 August

Until he answers this, it is safe to assume it is because he doesn't actually mean what he said about keeping the government out of our bedrooms, but rather he knows that is what people want to hear.

  • [-]
  • whoozeewhatsit
  • 1 Points
  • 00:10:05, 20 August

Although I am not Matt McCall, obviously, I would be more than happy to answer your question. The simple answer is that the two really have nothing to do with each other. Government should not be involved in marriage, period. Your marital status should not affect your tax rate, inheritance laws, or anything else. When you look at it that way, as I do, it's quite easy to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, while saying government should get out of our bedrooms. I don't necessarily agree with that position, but you understand my point, I hope.

Bottom line- less government, period. Get government out of our bedrooms, and get it out of marriage.

  • [-]
  • theuncleiroh
  • 1 Points
  • 00:13:34, 20 August

He may believe in traditional marriage, but that doesn't mean he expects the government to uphold this belief.

  • [-]
  • iAmJimmyHoffa
  • 1 Points
  • 00:20:48, 20 August

Maybe he believes gay marriage is "unnatural" or "weird" but does not believe the government should be involved?

The hivemind is strong in this one.

  • [-]
  • inspectorspacetime2
  • 1 Points
  • 00:28:23, 20 August

hohohoooo he's been zinged good and proper!

  • [-]
  • CarlosFoxtrot
  • 0 Points
  • 00:30:55, 20 August

so brave

  • [-]
  • MyNameIs_Vincent
  • 1 Points
  • 00:48:18, 20 August

This is how all elections should be held. With debates like this and a legally binding document that forces them to stay by what they say this country could be one step closer to [ insert something positive ].

  • [-]
  • coffeenowplease
  • 1 Points
  • 00:49:16, 20 August

Well, he deleted his account. What do we do now, talk about Rampart again?