a question for ron paul supporters

Moonpig

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

unsung wrote:

311jj wrote:

I hardly doubt he has any funding/support from the Koch brothers. And Fox News hardly likes him.

I don't understand why there is all this backlash against him on this board. He is an honest politician who stands by his views and is consistent. He wants to bring all of the troops home and audit the fed. Those are two things I think most people here would agree. And that's his two biggest issues.

Now you can disagree with him for a lot of his crazier ideas, but who else has the guts and honesty to say what they believe and stand by it. I'd like to hear what any other GOP candidate has to say about some of the things that Dr. Paul gets asked.

Like Vinny said it is the (R) next to his name. Proof that most people here preach bipartisanship and voting for the best candidate, but then look away when the answer slaps them in the face.

Liberals (classical or neo) really hold the key to this guy getting the Republican nomination. I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again-- Barack Obama has his party's nomination. Registered Democrats should switch parties for the primaries and vote for the Republican who is going to keep Obama most honest, especially in terms of foreign policy, Ron Paul. Even if liberals/Democrats cannot bring themselves to vote against their party in the national election, they owe it to themselves and everyone else to make sure that Barack isn't any lamer than any of the other lame ducks in presidential history. The best way to do that is to run Ron Paul against him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brandon10 is a pretty liberal guy right?

Excellent idea, I believe if that were to happen it would shake up both camps, and would alienate the fringe elements of both parties.

That is the sort of shift it would take for things to change. Everybody keeps whining about the candidates out there, well you get what you elect people, I say the issue is with the electorate.

Having said that, this is all pie in the sky stuff, and those same people that give out about partisan politics will revert to type when it comes time to make the mark at the ballot box.

UpSideDown

shadowcast wrote:

I'll tell you what. As of right now he is getting my vote as an Independent

Agreed

VINNY GOOMBA

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes, supporting DOMA automatically loses my vote...i can't vote in favor of discrimination, no matter what other policies of his i might possibly agree with.

And his excuse for supporting DOMA is that "this is about state's liberty" or some noise like that.

And the "whites only" water fountains, I guess, were the "states rights" as well. And let's not forget that his son is the guy who says that restaurants should have the "liberty" to have a "no blacks" policy.

Must be nice that none of that "liberty" will ever touch him, will it?

His support of DOMA is more about the federal government not making anymore mandates on the states than it has to-- he definitely does not want to create a federal agency for the "marriage police" to make sure that the states that vote to keep gay marriage illegal, despite the fact that the federal government says otherwise, the same way he doesn't want the feds busting states like California for medical marijuana. By the same logic, he would also be against a federal law that made gay marriage universally banned throughout the states. Ideally, Paul is in favor of voluntary associations of any kind, including gay marriage and he believes that the state, as in all government, should have no say in marriage at all. That to me, is true liberty for all. With the terms of each marriage being truly different, I do not see why those people who do it for the "legal" reasons couldn't do it with contracts. Sure, its a little more difficult, but also consider the amount of people that do pre-nups, wills, and other legal contracts between two individuals who are united in some way. They would become cookie-cutter after a while, like an apartment lease, and relatively inexpensive, if not for free with a short google search. If marriage were just left as a spiritual / religious / personal idea, it actually allows for the greatest, non-exclusive use of the idea.

As far as restaurants being able to serve who they want, that's not an issue of states rights as it is private property and free speech on an individual level. If a business owner wants to be ignorant enough to hang a sign that says, "no blacks, no gays, no christians" why not let them? Why not let them have the choice to serve who they want? Why not let them be as reckless with their free speech on their own property as they want to? Is it really a great idea to force a card-carrying member of the KKK to serve a black person a hamburger? "Excuse me, Grand Dragon-- I'll have a cheeseburger, lettuce, tomato, onion, pickles, ketchup,-- oh and can you hold the spit, please?" Fortunately, despite being official policy of this country for 3/4 of its existence, state-endorsed racism / prejudince / bigotry has become far less prevalent since the 1960s because of segregation LAWS that were over-written or repealed, and any business that adopts a policy of hate towards their customers is likely going to fail. If they don't fail, they can just be an exclusive little clubs full of morons who love to hate whole groups of people for no reason at all, which already exist and always will. For whatever reason, government-sponsored racism seemed to be much more powerful than government-mandated tolerance is currently. If laws prohibiting people business owners from serving who they want were to disappear tomorrow, those business that were most discriminatory would disappear shortly after, leaving the most hateful segments of the population with exactly what they deserve-- little of anything.

VINNY GOOMBA

Moonpig wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

unsung wrote:

Like Vinny said it is the (R) next to his name. Proof that most people here preach bipartisanship and voting for the best candidate, but then look away when the answer slaps them in the face.

Liberals (classical or neo) really hold the key to this guy getting the Republican nomination. I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again-- Barack Obama has his party's nomination. Registered Democrats should switch parties for the primaries and vote for the Republican who is going to keep Obama most honest, especially in terms of foreign policy, Ron Paul. Even if liberals/Democrats cannot bring themselves to vote against their party in the national election, they owe it to themselves and everyone else to make sure that Barack isn't any lamer than any of the other lame ducks in presidential history. The best way to do that is to run Ron Paul against him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brandon10 is a pretty liberal guy right?

Excellent idea, I believe if that were to happen it would shake up both camps, and would alienate the fringe elements of both parties.

That is the sort of shift it would take for things to change. Everybody keeps whining about the candidates out there, well you get what you elect people, I say the issue is with the electorate.

Having said that, this is all pie in the sky stuff, and those same people that give out about partisan politics will revert to type when it comes time to make the mark at the ballot box.

Apparently, the Huffington Post agrees with me
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koe ... 86650.html

BECOME A BLUE REPUBLICAN!

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i just disagree with the republican party mantra, and that is pretty much across the board on every single issue, both foreign and domestic....

Examples please.

VINNY GOOMBA

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes, supporting DOMA automatically loses my vote...i can't vote in favor of discrimination, no matter what other policies of his i might possibly agree with.

And his excuse for supporting DOMA is that "this is about state's liberty" or some noise like that.

And the "whites only" water fountains, I guess, were the "states rights" as well. And let's not forget that his son is the guy who says that restaurants should have the "liberty" to have a "no blacks" policy.

Must be nice that none of that "liberty" will ever touch him, will it?

this is not the 1960s. we have moved beyond this segregation bullshit. paul is an old man, and his beliefs will not resonate with the youth, who are actually engaged in the election process now, and they will be necessary to win the popular vote.

Ron Paul is incredibly popular among young people, unlike all of the other Republican candidates.

mikepegg44

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

His support of DOMA is more about the federal government not making anymore mandates on the states than it has to-- he definitely does not want to create a federal agency for the "marriage police" to make sure that the states that vote to keep gay marriage illegal, despite the fact that the federal government says otherwise, the same way he doesn't want the feds busting states like California for medical marijuana. By the same logic, he would also be against a federal law that made gay marriage universally banned throughout the states. Ideally, Paul is in favor of voluntary associations of any kind, including gay marriage and he believes that the state, as in all government, should have no say in marriage at all. That to me, is true liberty for all. With the terms of each marriage being truly different, I do not see why those people who do it for the "legal" reasons couldn't do it with contracts. Sure, its a little more difficult, but also consider the amount of people that do pre-nups, wills, and other legal contracts between two individuals who are united in some way. They would become cookie-cutter after a while, like an apartment lease, and relatively inexpensive, if not for free with a short google search. If marriage were just left as a spiritual / religious / personal idea, it actually allows for the greatest, non-exclusive use of the idea.

As far as restaurants being able to serve who they want, that's not an issue of states rights as it is private property and free speech on an individual level. If a business owner wants to be ignorant enough to hang a sign that says, "no blacks, no gays, no christians" why not let them? Why not let them have the choice to serve who they want? Why not let them be as reckless with their free speech on their own property as they want to? Is it really a great idea to force a card-carrying member of the KKK to serve a black person a hamburger? "Excuse me, Grand Dragon-- I'll have a cheeseburger, lettuce, tomato, onion, pickles, ketchup,-- oh and can you hold the spit, please?" Fortunately, despite being official policy of this country for 3/4 of its existence, state-endorsed racism / prejudince / bigotry has become far less prevalent since the 1960s because of segregation LAWS that were over-written or repealed, and any business that adopts a policy of hate towards their customers is likely going to fail. If they don't fail, they can just be an exclusive little clubs full of morons who love to hate whole groups of people for no reason at all, which already exist and always will. For whatever reason, government-sponsored racism seemed to be much more powerful than government-mandated tolerance is currently. If laws prohibiting people business owners from serving who they want were to disappear tomorrow, those business that were most discriminatory would disappear shortly after, leaving the most hateful segments of the population with exactly what they deserve-- little of anything.

I am simply shocked by the amount of people that don't understand the differences you point out. It is as if they are purposely not understanding the distinctions so they can call him a bigot and racist.

Prince Of Dorkness

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

His support of DOMA is more about the federal government not making anymore mandates on the states than it has to-- he definitely does not want to create a federal agency for the "marriage police" to make sure that the states that vote to keep gay marriage illegal, despite the fact that the federal government says otherwise, the same way he doesn't want the feds busting states like California for medical marijuana.

How convenient.

So is he also against the law that says "if you're straight and married in Utah, they have to honor your marriage in North Dakota?"

Hm.

Didn't think so. :roll:

Prince Of Dorkness

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Ideally, Paul is in favor of voluntary associations of any kind, including gay marriage and he believes that the state, as in all government, should have no say in marriage at all. That to me, is true liberty for all.

OK. And so who handles things like Green Cards? I'm married to a Canadian. If I were straight, my spouse would get a green card just for being married to me. But I don't. How do you handle that?

How do you handle federal taxes?

How do you handle survivor benefits?

how do you handle the 1356 rights, protections, privileges and responsibilities given to married couples at the federal level? Only a handful of which you can get with "contracts."

I do not see why those people who do it for the "legal" reasons couldn't do it with contracts.

And since you're straight... I guess you'll never have to be arsed to find out, will you?

Sure, its a little more difficult,

...but you don't mind making the gays jump through a few more hoops, right? It's kinda fun to make us tap dance for you. Look at how much fun it was to make the black president have to prove he was American!

If marriage were just left as a spiritual / religious / personal idea, it actually allows for the greatest, non-exclusive use of the idea.

And as soon as straight people give up every single one of their special rights, get "civil unions" and look after the rest with "contracts," I'll GLADLY follow suit.




yeah. Didn't think so.

As far as restaurants being able to serve who they want, that's not an issue of states rights as it is private property and free speech on an individual level. If a business owner wants to be ignorant enough to hang a sign that says, "no blacks, no gays, no christians" why not let them? Why not let them have the choice to serve who they want? Why not let them be as reckless with their free speech on their own property as they want to? Is it really a great idea to force a card-carrying member of the KKK to serve a black person a hamburger? "Excuse me, Grand Dragon-- I'll have a cheeseburger, lettuce, tomato, onion, pickles, ketchup,-- oh and can you hold the spit, please?" Fortunately, despite being official policy of this country for 3/4 of its existence, state-endorsed racism / prejudince / bigotry has become far less prevalent since the 1960s because of segregation LAWS that were over-written or repealed, and any business that adopts a policy of hate towards their customers is likely going to fail. If they don't fail, they can just be an exclusive little clubs full of morons who love to hate whole groups of people for no reason at all, which already exist and always will. For whatever reason, government-sponsored racism seemed to be much more powerful than government-mandated tolerance is currently. If laws prohibiting people business owners from serving who they want were to disappear tomorrow, those business that were most discriminatory would disappear shortly after, leaving the most hateful segments of the population with exactly what they deserve-- little of anything.

Yeah, because bigotry has always been so bad for business, hasn't it? :shock:

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am simply shocked by the amount of people that don't understand the differences you point out. It is as if they are purposely not understanding the distinctions so they can call him a bigot and racist.

Well good for you... just "simply shocked."

It's almost as if you purposely forget all those special rights and stuff you have so you can insist that inequality doesn't exist.

unsung

When you say "special rights" are you also referring to hate crimes?

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

When you say "special rights" are you also referring to hate crimes?

What?

MotoDC

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

unsung wrote:

When you say "special rights" are you also referring to hate crimes?

What?

I believe he's referring to the enhanced penalties that straight, white males may face if they commit a crime against...well, against anyone who isn't a straight, white male. ( http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html ) That is, I think his point is that straight, white males aren't the only people with "special rights". I could be wrong.

Prince Of Dorkness

MotoDC wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

unsung wrote:

When you say "special rights" are you also referring to hate crimes?

What?

I believe he's referring to the enhanced penalties that straight, white males may face if they commit a crime against...well, against anyone who isn't a straight, white male. ( http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html ) That is, I think his point is that straight, white males aren't the only people with "special rights". I could be wrong.

What a truly absurd and non-sensical argument. "Hate Crimes" are a special "right?"

(I guess if you say you can't tell the difference between our two most recent presidents, comparisons aren't really your "strong" area.)

That said, let me know when a bunch of gay red necks ties a straight white man to a fence, beats him into a coma and leaves him to die... all because he's a straight white male.

MotoDC

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

unsung wrote:

When you say "special rights" are you also referring to hate crimes?

I believe he's referring to the enhanced penalties that straight, white males may face if they commit a crime against...well, against anyone who isn't a straight, white male. ( http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html ) That is, I think his point is that straight, white males aren't the only people with "special rights". I could be wrong.

What a truly absurd and non-sensical argument. "Hate Crimes" are a special "right?"

(I guess if you say you can't tell the difference between our two most recent presidents, comparisons aren't really your "strong" area.)

That said, let me know when a bunch of gay red necks ties a straight white man to a fence, beats him into a coma and leaves him to die... all because he's a straight white male.

Speaking of non-sensical...

You seem like a smart guy, Mr. Dorkness (I don't acknowledge royalty, ha), but it seems like you're often blinded by your own...verve? No one said "hate crimes" = "special right". The argument was that the establishment of special protections for certain groups against other groups amounts to a privilege afforded the former group. Are you really turning this into a semantic argument? Because that's always so productive. Fine, make it special "protection" instead of "right".

Prince Of Dorkness

MotoDC wrote:

You seem like a smart guy, Mr. Dorkness (I don't acknowledge royalty, ha), but it seems like you're often blinded by your own...verve? No one said "hate crimes" = "special right". The argument was that the establishment of special protections for certain groups against other groups amounts to a privilege afforded the former group. Are you really turning this into a semantic argument? Because that's always so productive. Fine, make it special "protection" instead of "right".

Um... yeah... we think they DID, in fact say "hate crimes are a special right."

Or we THINK that's what he said. Who can tell?

And it has zero to do with what we were talking about.

But since people can't win THAT argument, I guess they've decided we'll say "you don't need marriage and real equality because there are a handful of semi-enforceable laws in a few places that most people laugh at and it leaves us poor discriminated straight white guys out. Boo Hoo."

unsung

MotoDC wrote:

Speaking of non-sensical...

You seem like a smart guy, Mr. Dorkness (I don't acknowledge royalty, ha), but it seems like you're often blinded by your own...verve? No one said "hate crimes" = "special right". The argument was that the establishment of special protections for certain groups against other groups amounts to a privilege afforded the former group. Are you really turning this into a semantic argument? Because that's always so productive. Fine, make it special "protection" instead of "right".

My point entirely. EVERYONE, regardless of whatever "label" that someone wants to give them, should be treated the same.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

My point entirely. EVERYONE, regardless of whatever "label" that someone wants to give them, should be treated the same.

Like I say... once white men are lynched for being white and straight people are murdered for being straight... maybe we can revisit those Hate Crimes "special rights" you're so upset about.

And for the record... White Straight men ARE protected by hate crimes laws. They usually just mention "Sexual Orientation, Race and Sex."

So... "Straight, White Male" would qualify for those protections if that's what the crime is attacking. Like... I dunno a horde of angry Latina Lesbians burns down a Nascar event to kill as many white straight men as they can... well, that's a hate crime too.

MotoDC

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Um... yeah... we think they DID, in fact say "hate crimes are a special right."

Or we THINK that's what he said. Who can tell?

Again, semantics. What was meant has been spelled out at this point. btw, was that a royal "we"? Love it.

And it has zero to do with what we were talking about.

You focused on it, not me.

But since people can't win THAT argument, I guess they've decided we'll say "you don't need marriage and real equality because there are a handful of semi-enforceable laws in a few places that most people laugh at and it leaves us poor discriminated straight white guys out. Boo Hoo."

I don't even know which "THAT argument" you're talking about at this point. All I was doing was clarifying the point unsung made. And you're letting your verve get in the way again, lashing out at things that aren't there (at least in my posts). I'm certainly not asking for anything boo hoo sympathy; I don't feel particularly oppressed in my little SWM life. That doesn't make the existence of such laws any less hypocritical.

DriftingByTheStorm

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

No, of course not. I'm lumping him in because I think he's jus another Fox News Grenade-Thrower.

Fox News Rigs Entire Debate To Savagely Attack Ron Paul

Right.
That's why in the last election they pulled every dirty trick in the book (and a bunch of new ones) to smear Ron Paul to high hell. You don't get BOTH Hannity & Colmes ragging you in to oblivion too easily.

This year they are already making "honest mistakes", using footage from the 2010 CPAC Straw Poll "by mistake" to make a news story claiming Ron Paul was booed heavily after WINNING AGAIN IN 2011. Story Here ... and then, after the fact (and the manipulation to the masses has been achieved) ... They Apologize.

Awe gee.
Go fuck your self, Fox.

And, FUCK YOU FRANK.
Remember when Fox News sunk to even scummier lows by using Frank Luntz, his Magical Ron Paul Bashing Poll Device, and bullshit STACKED Focus Groups to blatantly discredit Ron Paul to the masses?

Yeah, he's a Fox News Grenade Thrower.

:?: :?: :?: