Ron Paul surging in SC...

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

im just saying....i enjoy apples and oranges as much as the next guy

Yeah. I'm quite sure you do.

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

[
Sadly... if federal immigration laws aren't changed, my family lives under the constant threat of my Canadian husband having to move back to Canada and the government splitting us up.

Just to be clear, I think it's dumb we have to discuss it because there should be gay marriage. Wasn't saying it was an issue not worth discussing...if that make sense.

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

hmmmm...

I didn't realize this was a thread about gay rights.

don't be silly.. it's not.

But it IS about a particular Libertarian candidate and I assumed it was ok for us all to discuss our opinions of his stances and how those affect us personally. I originally said I felt that he was only going to do anything if he himself would personally benefit because that's what I see as the Libertarian way.

People asked where that came from and I was too happy to tell them.

I'm so sorry if my talking about how politics affects me personally in the political forum. Would that be more appropriate in the one where we trade our memorabilia?

I'm not being silly. You turn attention away from the thread's purpose and point it towards yourself and gay rights. I was waiting patiently for you to tell us all for the 100,000th time you do porn. I'll say it for everyone... I don't care. I do care about the thread. So, to me, what you did is derail... and this isn't a one time thing, you do it consistently. I don't post in most threads, but I read them. Your posts aren't very informative, they are similar to what you did here.

I feel like you're welcome to discuss anything here. You can do what you're doing, but I don't have to agree with it or like it. Broaden that last sentence of mine and that, in and of itself, clearly will bother you for the rest of your life... or so it seems. It's deeper than a message board thread. It's your life. I say get over it. Your not changing hearts here with your posts (but I doubt that's what you want). Instead, it seems like baiting... or better yet trolling, which are popular words in these parts lately.

Actually, as far as "not changing hearts", I think you're wrong. Also, to suggest he is here baiting and trolling is really sad. As passionate as POD is about these things, its it obvious he is just plain annoyed at the way these politicians simply want to suppress him from the same rights as his neighbor? He doesnt want to have to worry about his husband being kicked out of the country! If I had to think about my wife getting the boot, I'd be screaming form the mountaintops!

And, I for one, like a lot of what Ron Paul says. A LOT. But did I know about his stance on gay marriage? Nope. I do now. And along with Cincy, I think its ridiculous that we even have to talk about it. It should be allowed... its 2012 for god sake. I try not to label myself democrat or republican, but i've found myself leaning more left because ALL the republican agenda I ever hear is social issues and how they want to take away rights or suppress another group. Every debate (of which they spend half their time on), even the ridiculous ads of Rick Perry, slams gays. To these republican candidates: give gays their freedoms, let women keep theirs, and get yourselves focused on the economy and jobs for fucksake! I NEVER hear the dems discussing how they want to prevent a group of people from the same freedoms as their straight neighbors.

WaveRyder

JonnyPistachio wrote:

did I know about his stance on gay marriage? Nope. I do now.

....and how do you feel about it?

dignin

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e30251.htm

Chomsky on Ron Paul

CHOMSKY: Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the
Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him -- but, his policies
are off the wall.

I mean, sometimes I agree with him. I think we have to end the war in
Afghanistan. But, if you look at the other policies, I mean, it's kind of
shocking and principles that lie behind them (shakes head)....I don't know
what to say about them.

In the Republican debates, at one point -- and this kind of brought out
who he is --- he is agains Federal involvement in health, in anything. He
was aked something like, "Well, what if some guy's in a comma,
and...uh...he's going to die and he never took out insurance. What should
happen?"

Well, his first answer was something like, "It's a tribute to our liberty."

So, if he dies, that's a tribute to how free we are?

He kinda backed off from that, actually. There was a huge applause for
when he said that. But later, reactions were eleswhere. He backed up and
said, "Well, the church will take care of him...or charities or something
or other....so, it's not a problem."

I mean, this is just savagery.

And it goes across the board. In fact, it goes through the whole so-called
Libertarian ideology. It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it
through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier
to corporate tyranny.

But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen
because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful
state, and they know it.

JonnyPistachio

WaveRyder wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

did I know about his stance on gay marriage? Nope. I do now.

....and how do you feel about it?

Good question. I think he is the most tolerant out of the republican candidates. But as I said, I hate that this is even a consideration when we are deciding a presidential candidate. If I had to choose, right now I guess i 'd go with RP....All the others seem like they firmly want gays to have no rights when it comes to marriage. But i'm not sure where he'd stand if he had presidential powers. He backed DOMA and FMa or (or is it FME, cant remember),

but then again...
I saw these quote the other day:

“I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument,” he said recently. “Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.”

“But,” he continued, “if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.”

In his newest book, Liberty Defined, Paul’s chapter on “Marriage” states, “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” He adds, “There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.”

“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”

inlet13

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Actually, as far as "not changing hearts", I think you're wrong. Also, to suggest he is here baiting and trolling is really sad. As passionate as POD is about these things, its it obvious he is just plain annoyed at the way these politicians simply want to suppress him from the same rights as his neighbor? He doesnt want to have to worry about his husband being kicked out of the country! If I had to think about my wife getting the boot, I'd be screaming form the mountaintops!

Once again, you are free to think what you want. As for baiting and trolling - I simply get tired of reading page after page of threads (which weren't on the subject of gay rights) be turned away from the original subject matter - I'd admit this particular thread may not be the best example because he can say I wanted to discuss RP's issues. But, to me, it's repetitive and it gets old. If he's upset about politicians and their views on gay marriage, that's fine... I encourage him to write a thread on it rather than going into a multitude of threads and changing them from their original intent into threads on gay rights. Moreover, I don't have a problem with occasional changes of the subject in threads... I mean that happens. It's the repetitive nature and it's the multitude of his posts in a single thread (which really sways the discussion in a thread). That's my issue. Finally, he is 100% allowed to continue to do what he's doing by going into threads and changing the debate. It's just that I don't have to like it and I'm 100% allowed to not want to get sucked into debates that are outside the realm of the original thread's purpose.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

And, I for one, like a lot of what Ron Paul says. A LOT. But did I know about his stance on gay marriage? Nope. I do now. And along with Cincy, I think its ridiculous that we even have to talk about it. It should be allowed... its 2012 for god sake. I try not to label myself democrat or republican, but i've found myself leaning more left because ALL the republican agenda I ever hear is social issues and how they want to take away rights or suppress another group. Every debate (of which they spend half their time on), even the ridiculous ads of Rick Perry, slams gays. To these republican candidates: give gays their freedoms, let women keep theirs, and get yourselves focused on the economy and jobs for fucksake! I NEVER hear the dems discussing how they want to prevent a group of people from the same freedoms as their straight neighbors.

I'm glad you learned his position on gay marriage. From what I understand he's against the government being involved in marriage in totality (hetero or homosexual). Regardless, I think it's fantastic that you think we shouldn't have to talk about it. My response is... then don't - atleast in a thread on RP's polls in SC. Or, better yet, if you do want to talk about it, I'd recommend you do so in a thread on that subject.

Finally, as for how you close your message.... why not just vote Democrat? Seems like you prefer their platform. Then maybe you can start a thread discussing how Dems are expanding rights for all of the parties you mentioned. Maybe I'll even read it.

inlet13

dignin wrote:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30251.htm

Chomsky on Ron Paul

CHOMSKY: Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the
Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him -- but, his policies
are off the wall.

I mean, sometimes I agree with him. I think we have to end the war in
Afghanistan. But, if you look at the other policies, I mean, it's kind of
shocking and principles that lie behind them (shakes head)....I don't know
what to say about them.

In the Republican debates, at one point -- and this kind of brought out
who he is --- he is agains Federal involvement in health, in anything. He
was aked something like, "Well, what if some guy's in a comma,
and...uh...he's going to die and he never took out insurance. What should
happen?"

Well, his first answer was something like, "It's a tribute to our liberty."

So, if he dies, that's a tribute to how free we are?

He kinda backed off from that, actually. There was a huge applause for
when he said that. But later, reactions were eleswhere. He backed up and
said, "Well, the church will take care of him...or charities or something
or other....so, it's not a problem."

I mean, this is just savagery.

And it goes across the board. In fact, it goes through the whole so-called
Libertarian ideology. It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it
through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier
to corporate tyranny.

But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen
because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful
state, and they know it.

1) Noam Chomsky is a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nothing more. Might as well quote your local barber.
2) Why not start a thread on Noam Chomsky's thoughts on Ron Paul?

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

I'm glad you learned his position on gay marriage. From what I understand he's against the government being involved in marriage in totality (hetero or homosexual). Regardless, I think it's fantastic that you think we shouldn't have to talk about it. My response is... then don't. Or, better yet, if you do want to talk about it, I'd recommend you do so in a thread on that subject.

You're missing the point. We wouldnt have to talk about it if all these republicans didnt want to keep people from having these rights. None of us supporting gay marriage want to talk about it, it should just be legal and then it wouldnt be an issue. It will be universally legal one day, in my opinion, so why fight it?

I get what you're saying in the rest of your post. If you're really interested in these threads, but dont want to read a persons posts, use the 'foe' option I guess. Personally, I feel like several people can have different discussions about RP's policies in the same thread.

btw, If I had to vote today, i'd probably just pass on the opportunity. I dislike them all.

polaris_x

soo ... Huntsman is out ... Perry's gotta pull the fork out of him soon ... comes down to Romney, Paul and Santorum ...

Santorum has no chance in states that don't have a huge evangelical base ... plus, the evangelicals have warmed to Romney ... with each successive bow out - it appears Romney gains the most ... really, unless he gets caught molesting a child or something - Romney has this in the bag ... so, the only question left is:

will Ron Paul run as an independent? if so, who's chances is he REALLY hurting if he does? ... i'd say Obama ...

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

1) Noam Chomsky is a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nothing more. Might as well quote your local barber.
2) Why not start a thread on Noam Chomsky's thoughts on Ron Paul?

yeah and ron paul is just a doctor ... what the cuss!?? ...

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Once again, you are free to think what you want. As for baiting and trolling - I simply get tired of reading page after page of threads (which weren't on the subject of gay rights) be turned away from the original subject matter - I'd admit this particular thread may not be the best example because he can say I wanted to discuss RP's issues. But, to me, it's repetitive and it gets old. If he's upset about politicians and their views on gay marriage, that's fine... I encourage him to write a thread on it rather than going into a multitude of threads and changing them from their original intent into threads on gay rights. Moreover, I don't have a problem with occasional changes of the subject in threads... I mean that happens. It's the repetitive nature and it's the multitude of his posts in a single thread (which really sways the discussion in a thread). That's my issue. Finally, he is 100% allowed to continue to do what he's doing by going into threads and changing the debate. It's just that I don't have to like it and I'm 100% allowed to not want to get sucked into debates that are outside the realm of the original thread's purpose.

I'm not sure what you want a thread about Ron Paul to look like. You're sick of POD changing the subjects to gay rights, but then that's what you respond to in the thread. There's been several other points and questions in the thread that you didn't respond to. Someone quotes Chomsky and you discredit it by saying he's just a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nearly all of Ron Paul's policies exist in the philosophical world and not in the pragmatic world. Why not recognize what a philosopher has to say about it? It seems like you just want to guide this into a 'Keynesian economics sucks' thread.

WaveRyder

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'm glad you learned his position on gay marriage. From what I understand he's against the government being involved in marriage in totality (hetero or homosexual). Regardless, I think it's fantastic that you think we shouldn't have to talk about it. My response is... then don't. Or, better yet, if you do want to talk about it, I'd recommend you do so in a thread on that subject.

You're missing the point. We wouldnt have to talk about it if all these republicans didnt want to keep people from having these rights. None of us supporting gay marriage want to talk about it, it should just be legal and then it wouldnt be an issue. It will be universally legal one day, in my opinion, so why fight it?

I get what you're saying in the rest of your post. If you're really interested in these threads, but dont want to read a persons posts, use the 'foe' option I guess. Personally, I feel like several people can have different discussions about RP's policies in the same thread.

btw, If I had to vote today, i'd probably just pass on the opportunity. I dislike them all.

but you jsut said you'd go with RP. Are you sure youre not a Romney fan....with the flip flop and all?
just kidding, ive been a bit occupied with floppers lately

JonnyPistachio

WaveRyder wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'm glad you learned his position on gay marriage. From what I understand he's against the government being involved in marriage in totality (hetero or homosexual). Regardless, I think it's fantastic that you think we shouldn't have to talk about it. My response is... then don't. Or, better yet, if you do want to talk about it, I'd recommend you do so in a thread on that subject.

You're missing the point. We wouldnt have to talk about it if all these republicans didnt want to keep people from having these rights. None of us supporting gay marriage want to talk about it, it should just be legal and then it wouldnt be an issue. It will be universally legal one day, in my opinion, so why fight it?

I get what you're saying in the rest of your post. If you're really interested in these threads, but dont want to read a persons posts, use the 'foe' option I guess. Personally, I feel like several people can have different discussions about RP's policies in the same thread.

btw, If I had to vote today, i'd probably just pass on the opportunity. I dislike them all.

but you jsut said you'd go with RP. Are you sure youre not a Romney fan....with the flip flop and all?
just kidding, ive been a bit occupied with floppers lately

haha, Well, I meant that if I HAD to chose from the republicans, RP is the only one who I could remotely consider. the others, not so much.
In a general election, I doubt I could make up my mind, unless Bob Ross was alive and on the ticket.

WaveRyder

[quote="JonnyPistachio"
haha, Well, I meant that if I HAD to chose from the republicans, RP is the only one who I could remotely consider. the others, not so much.
In a general election, I doubt I could make up my mind, unless Bob Ross was alive and on the ticket. [/quote]

happy little trees

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Once again, you are free to think what you want. As for baiting and trolling - I simply get tired of reading page after page of threads (which weren't on the subject of gay rights) be turned away from the original subject matter - I'd admit this particular thread may not be the best example because he can say I wanted to discuss RP's issues. But, to me, it's repetitive and it gets old. If he's upset about politicians and their views on gay marriage, that's fine... I encourage him to write a thread on it rather than going into a multitude of threads and changing them from their original intent into threads on gay rights. Moreover, I don't have a problem with occasional changes of the subject in threads... I mean that happens. It's the repetitive nature and it's the multitude of his posts in a single thread (which really sways the discussion in a thread). That's my issue. Finally, he is 100% allowed to continue to do what he's doing by going into threads and changing the debate. It's just that I don't have to like it and I'm 100% allowed to not want to get sucked into debates that are outside the realm of the original thread's purpose.

I'm not sure what you want a thread about Ron Paul to look like. You're sick of POD changing the subjects to gay rights, but then that's what you respond to in the thread. There's been several other points and questions in the thread that you didn't respond to. Someone quotes Chomsky and you discredit it by saying he's just a linguist/philosopher/socialist. Nearly all of Ron Paul's policies exist in the philosophical world and not in the pragmatic world. Why not recognize what a philosopher has to say about it? It seems like you just want to guide this into a 'Keynesian economics sucks' thread.

Ugh... here we go.

This thread began (by me) discussing RP in SC. Basically, showing his polls. There's been a multitude of RP threads on his stances. POD's posts would have been more appropriate there, or in his own thread on the subject matter he wanted to discuss... which is very similar in most of his posts.

As for what I've responded to, I don't sit by the edge of my seat and respond every day... nor every so often. I take a look when I can. So, to elaborate, I wouldn't respond all the time even if I wanted to. So, what I've responded to here, makes little difference.

As for the Chomsky post, that poster was doing something similar to what POD was doing. Clearly, both dislike RP and want to discuss his negatives. In my personally opinion (which I'm sure you disagree with, because that's how you operate), the problem is they were not really on message with the thread. So, in this particular case, I thought it was appropriate to be consistent and recommend that this other poster posts a thread on that subject. I also stated my opinion on Chomsky, since apparently he thinks his word is gospel.

Finally, to conclude... this wasn't intended to be a thread on RP's policies, it was intended to be a thread on RP's polls in SC (as the title suggests). There are plenty of threads on RP's issues. I simply think either of these posters could have posted there. I've said all along... anyone can do what they want. They can do what they are doing here. I just don't have to like it and I can recommend they do it elsewhere.

cincybearcat

inlet...is this on topic?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3


I was sorry to see Huntsman leave, but it was expected. I believe his supporters will generally follow his endorsement of Mitt, with Ron Paul getting the rest. The news of Huntsman leaving the campaign is not good for the social conservative (Gingrich, Perry, Santorum), despite Newts comments.

cincybearcat

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... an-splash/

Interesting, Ron Paul doesn't get any support from former Huntsman supporters. Goes to Mitt or goes away (i.e. no 2nd choice).

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

will Ron Paul run as an independent? if so, who's chances is he REALLY hurting if he does? ... i'd say Obama ...

I believe he stated he would only run if he got the republican nomination.

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

Interesting, Ron Paul doesn't get any support from former Huntsman supporters. Goes to Mitt or goes away (i.e. no 2nd choice).

I don't think losing 121 votes to Romney hurts matters much anyway.