Ron Paul supports genetic discrimination

2

Comments

  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    please show me where i have said that.
    see your own words below
    i have said your consistency has not been there lately and some of your views now seem hypocritical to ones you've had in the past, imo. But that's far from saying you are an overall hypocrite.

    i stand behind thinking you have changed some of your stances to mold to those of Obama's but that's in no way condemning you.


    hahahahaha...


    thanks for clearing that up
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    see your own words below




    hahahahaha...


    thanks for clearing that up


    before you choke up on your laughter...you forgot to bold the part where I said you weren't an overall hypocrite.

    I stand behind thinking you have been hypocritical in some of your views
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    so you would support a candidate that doesnt believe in evolution and does not believe in a womans right to choose, simply because he is an isolationist?


    and you disagree with me for supporting Obama despite some concerns, minor compared to the 2 we are talking about above? you have to be kidding


    Im not supporting Paul but I would support him over Obama based on his stance on the war alone and that he stances behind his ideals.

    and the problems i have with Obama are far from minor
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    so you could vote for a candidate that does not believe in evolution, is anti-choice, believes in complete deregulation, and believes in social darwinism, aka sink or swim domestic policy?


    that seems to fly in the face of pretty much everything you seem to stand for...
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    my2hands wrote:
    so you could vote for a candidate that does not believe in evolution, is anti-choice, believes in complete deregulation, and believes in social darwinism, aka sink or swim domestic policy?


    that seems to fly in the face of pretty much everything you seem to stand for...


    Hold that up against the the bigger picture and what you said becomes trivial in comparison...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    my2hands wrote:
    so you could vote for a candidate that does not believe in evolution, is anti-choice, believes in complete deregulation, and believes in social darwinism, aka sink or swim domestic policy?


    that seems to fly in the face of pretty much everything you seem to stand for...


    Perhaps you missed it the first time:
    jeffbr wrote:
    He has personal beliefs. I part company with him on the above. But he doesn't use government force to promote his ideas.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Vedd Hedd wrote:
    bombs, dropping down.
    please forgive our hometown...
  • SpreadtheJAM
    SpreadtheJAM Posts: 344
    Commy wrote:
    please forgive our hometown...

    They probably deserved it.
    BORGATA>VIC
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    oops
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    SpreadtheJAM wrote:
    They probably deserved it.
    true.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Hold that up against the the bigger picture and what you said becomes trivial in comparison...


    not trivial at all to me... his domestic policy is like George Bush on steroids...
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    my2hands wrote:
    not trivial at all to me... his domestic policy is like George Bush on steroids...

    What does this even mean? Bush and Paul are nothing alike. Bush and Clinton and Obama and McCain are alike in their use of government force. Paul would take government out of the equation for many things. He'd get rid of the Patriot Act, will Obama?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    so why did he vote no?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    my2hands wrote:
    not trivial at all to me... his domestic policy is like George Bush on steroids...


    His domestic policy is nothing like Bush's. Yes he might share the same opinion as Bush on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage but unlike Bush he doesn't wish to force his beliefs down the throats of the entire population.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    mammasan wrote:
    His domestic policy is nothing like Bush's. Yes he might share the same opinion as Bush on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage but unlike Bush he doesn't wish to force his beliefs down the throats of the entire population.

    i am not talking morals or "social issues" only... i am talking domestic policy

    he believes in an uber-market based doemstic policy. think katrina times 10. he wants to get rid of the department of education, the department of energy, FEMA, enviroemtal protection agency, etc, etc, etc... the only thing he supprts speniding federal $ on is the military... he is against nearly all forms of regulation... anti gun regulation... the list goes on and on... . he is the ultra domestic conservative, which means "free market" corporations rule the day without any over sight or regulation and pull your self up by the boot straps social darwinism... he is essentially "dubya" on steroids as far as domestic policy and "free market" capitalism... take an honest look at what he really supports, forget the iraq stuff and the international isolationism for a second, and take a look at what he REALLY supports policy wise domestically. he is so far to the right it isnt even funny...
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    my2hands wrote:
    i am not talking morals or "social issues" only... i am talking domestic policy

    he believes in an uber-market based doemstic policy. think katrina times 10. he wants to get rid of the department of education, the department of energy, FEMA, enviroemtal protection agency, etc, etc, etc... the only thing he supprts speniding federal $ on is the military... he is against nearly all forms of regulation... anti gun regulation... the list goes on and on... . he is the ultra domestic conservative, which means "free market" corporations rule the day without any over sight or regulation and pull your self up by the boot straps social darwinism... he is essentially "dubya" on steroids as far as domestic policy and "free market" capitalism... take an honest look at what he really supports, forget the iraq stuff and the international isolationism for a second, and take a look at what he REALLY supports policy wise domestically. he is so far to the right it isnt even funny...


    I do know what he supports and I still agree with a good amount of it. He still is nothing like Dubya. While Bush increases the amount of government and government influence in almost every aspect of our lives, Paul wants to reduce it. Nothing like Dubya.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    mammasan wrote:
    I do know what he supports and I still agree with a good amount of it. He still is nothing like Dubya. While Bush increases the amount of government and government influence in almost every aspect of our lives, Paul wants to reduce it. Nothing like Dubya.

    you are correct on domestic national security... i should have been more clear... i am talking all non security related domestic policies. which is the majority of domestic policy that has an affect on our day to day lives.

    one of the bush legacies is the erosion of oversight, regulation, and social programs... and paul would shift that into hyper drive

    no enviromental protection agency, no department of transportation, no department of education, no department of energy, no medicaid, no social security, etc... just money for the military. states rights. do we really need to regress nearly a decade?

    sorry, no thanks.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    my2hands wrote:
    i am not talking morals or "social issues" only... i am talking domestic policy

    he believes in an uber-market based doemstic policy. think katrina times 10. he wants to get rid of the department of education, the department of energy, FEMA, enviroemtal protection agency, etc, etc, etc... the only thing he supprts speniding federal $ on is the military... he is against nearly all forms of regulation... anti gun regulation... the list goes on and on... . he is the ultra domestic conservative, which means "free market" corporations rule the day without any over sight or regulation and pull your self up by the boot straps social darwinism... he is essentially "dubya" on steroids as far as domestic policy and "free market" capitalism... take an honest look at what he really supports, forget the iraq stuff and the international isolationism for a second, and take a look at what he REALLY supports policy wise domestically. he is so far to the right it isnt even funny...

    Department of Energy and Education should be nixed. Complete waste of tax dollar. EPA should revamped or gotten rid of. NASA should be privitized. Social security partial privitization. He is not completely against spending money of social programs he just believes that they need to be worked on to reduce the large amounts of tax dollars that are misspent.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    my2hands wrote:
    do we really need to regress nearly a decade?

    Will the US regress a decade, century, or millennium, if something isn't done might be the question...

    bring on the good ol colonial days...hehe
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    my2hands wrote:
    you are correct on domestic national security... i should have been more clear... i am talking all non security related domestic policies. which is the majority of domestic policy that has an affect on our day to day lives.

    one of the bush legacies is the erosion of oversight, regulation, and social programs... and paul would shift that into hyper drive

    no enviromental protection agency, no department of transportation, no department of education, no department of energy, no medicaid, no social security, etc... just money for the military. states rights. do we really need to regress nearly a decade?

    sorry, no thanks.

    Ron Paul never stated that he would completely kill of social programs. He stated that in order to continue offering the programs we do we would need to trim the fat of said programs or eliminate other areas of spending, such as the Dept of Education, etc...
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul

Categories