Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory.
Neo-confederate nutjob.
@abominare Are you even listening? I've watched every one of his debates going back from 2008. He's for letting the states decide what to do. On every social issues he's for letting states decide on how to do things. Even better yet, your local government. You must be a troll because I really can not understand your logic.
As for me I'm urging my friends/family to vote for Ron Paul because he's the only candidate who is anti-war, anti-patriot act, and for the government legislating morality. All the other presidential candidates are not.
People hear small soundbytes from media people who don't like Paul.
Paul is the most consistent and honest candidate there is (There's a quote from McCain mentioning it). His stance on seperation on church and state is this: The church should not be regulated by the state. (Church meaning any religion). The state obviously should not favor one religion over the other, but that shouldn't prevent it's members from engaging in such activities. Anyway, me and my whole family are voting for him and I recommend you listen to some youtube videos from 2003 about the guy predicting the housing bubble and collapse. Even if you don't agree with him completely socially (which btw, he thinks should be left up to the states anyway), then at least listen to his stance on economics.
Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory.
Neo-confederate nutjob.
@abominare Are you even listening? I've watched every one of his debates going back from 2008. He's for letting the states decide what to do. On every social issues he's for letting states decide on how to do things. Even better yet, your local government. You must be a troll because I really can not understand your logic.
As for me I'm urging my friends/family to vote for Ron Paul because he's the only candidate who is anti-war, anti-patriot act, and for the government legislating morality. All the other presidential candidates are not.
And who exactly is the one who decides what is moral? The christian church? The muslim faith? Postmodernist philosophy? Left or rightwing political philosophy? Where do all these people come from who think that morality is a law of nature that just is. Morality is a philosophy with various views.
Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory.
Neo-confederate nutjob.
@abominare Are you even listening? I've watched every one of his debates going back from 2008. He's for letting the states decide what to do. On every social issues he's for letting states decide on how to do things. Even better yet, your local government. You must be a troll because I really can not understand your logic.
As for me I'm urging my friends/family to vote for Ron Paul because he's the only candidate who is anti-war, anti-patriot act, and for the government legislating morality. All the other presidential candidates are not.
And who exactly is the one who decides what is moral? The christian church? The muslim faith? Postmodernist philosophy? Left or rightwing political philosophy? Where do all these people come from who think that morality is a law of nature that just is. Morality is a philosophy with various views.
Rofl, I completely agree with you of course but I'm pretty sure that was a typo. He should clear that up though because it changes his meaning entirely.
On August 20 2011 06:17 DannyJ wrote: Ron Paul's age is a major consideration. Can you really have an 80 year old president?
No it isn't, and it wasn't when McCain was the nominee. Well, with Palin as the vp it became a mild concern.
Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory.
Neo-confederate nutjob.
@abominare Are you even listening? I've watched every one of his debates going back from 2008. He's for letting the states decide what to do. On every social issues he's for letting states decide on how to do things. Even better yet, your local government. You must be a troll because I really can not understand your logic.
As for me I'm urging my friends/family to vote for Ron Paul because he's the only candidate who is anti-war, anti-patriot act, and for the government legislating morality. All the other presidential candidates are not.
I swear derp, you just said the point I was making, the idea of state's right to choose which rights they want to keep and do away with is absolute stupid.
As per 14th amendment the states must guarantee the same rights and standards as the federal constitution. Something Ron Paul SHOULD know if he'd actually read the damn thing. Instead he harps on this bunk idea that states should be neither constrained by the constitution nor be subject to listening to the government where it has jurisdiction (supremacy clause, another portion of the constitution ron paul skipped).
This nation has already had to deal with these same ideas over and over again. First civilly during the the writing of the constitution with the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (feds won states rights lost). Then again as the Civil War when a bunch of southerners decided the federal government couldnt interfere with states rights to tell them they couldnt enslave, torture, and sell a race of people. They lost that as well. Then finally we the horse was beaten again when the same states continually argued that it was within their state's rights to segregate and discriminate against those said black people during what we now call the Civil Rights Era, you know Brown v BoE? Guess who lost again? States rights nutjobs!
Now, yet another white southerner, from my home state no less, wants to bring back up talks about "state's rights". NO THANK YOU. I believe we have adequately proved the whole point of have rights in the constitution was so you know we could guarantee them to all citizens and recognize just as the founders did that state government was no place for protecting individual rights.
as a brit who takes interest in these things after watching the west wing (probably one of america's best exports, second to sc2 and scarlett johansson in joint first place) i do find the whole primary season fairly spectacular.
and after watching both our and mainly your kids dragged into debacle that was iraq, i find myself leaning towards ron paul.
i just cant understand why after the most blatent of lies which led to the most unreal farce in modern history more people dont feel the same...guess its down to fox beating their war drums 24 hours a day.
oh and i'll refrain from saying anything about the role of religion in politics as i'll probably get warned
On August 20 2011 06:17 DannyJ wrote: Ron Paul's age is a major consideration. Can you really have an 80 year old president?
Here’s one more tidbit from yesterday’s interview: Asked whether his age would be a detriment to getting elected (he turns 76 tomorrow), Paul smiled and dismissed the hypothesis:
“That’s an old-fashioned idea. In this day and age, what really counts are your ideas and my ideas are promoting liberty – and that’s a very young idea and young people love it.”
He went on to challenge anyone worried about his senior-citizen status to a physical competition. “Anytime any other running candidate wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 102, I’ll ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle.”
Here’s one more tidbit from yesterday’s interview: Asked whether his age would be a detriment to getting elected (he turns 76 tomorrow), Paul smiled and dismissed the hypothesis:
“That’s an old-fashioned idea. In this day and age, what really counts are your ideas and my ideas are promoting liberty – and that’s a very young idea and young people love it.”
He went on to challenge anyone worried about his senior-citizen status to a physical competition. “Anytime any other running candidate wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 102, I’ll ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle.”
Ok... im not very suprised Ron Paul himself thinks he can do it haha. The reality is quite something different. The rigors of being president mentally and physically is something he probably couldnt understand without being it.
Hell, even Obama has gone grey and feels the need to take 3 vacations a month.
So, since religion is starting to infiltrate modern politics in a very real and serious manner, with Perry having pray day and Bachmann talking about it every 20 seconds, Romney being blasted for being a Mormon and so on and so on and so on...
When the hell do we start taxing religious institutions? There's a great deal of money from evangelists, tithes, etc. that should be in our government if they want to somehow have this much influence in every day life. Separation of church and state my ass. 1/2 the damn country doesn't adhere to it and another 1/4 pays lip service at best.
On August 20 2011 06:17 DannyJ wrote: Ron Paul's age is a major consideration. Can you really have an 80 year old president?
Here’s one more tidbit from yesterday’s interview: Asked whether his age would be a detriment to getting elected (he turns 76 tomorrow), Paul smiled and dismissed the hypothesis:
“That’s an old-fashioned idea. In this day and age, what really counts are your ideas and my ideas are promoting liberty – and that’s a very young idea and young people love it.”
He went on to challenge anyone worried about his senior-citizen status to a physical competition. “Anytime any other running candidate wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 102, I’ll ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle.”
Ok... im not very suprised Ron Paul himself thinks he can do it haha. The reality is quite something different. The rigors of being president mentally and physically is something he probably couldnt understand without being it.
Hell, even Obama has gone grey and feels the need to take 3 vacations a month.
Broheem, you do understand modern medicine and nutrition has come a long way yea? There was a 60+ year old that nearly swam from FL to Cuba the other day. Odds are, the man can handle office for 4 years. He's not crumpling off stages like Bob Dole or anything.
On August 20 2011 06:17 DannyJ wrote: Ron Paul's age is a major consideration. Can you really have an 80 year old president?
Here’s one more tidbit from yesterday’s interview: Asked whether his age would be a detriment to getting elected (he turns 76 tomorrow), Paul smiled and dismissed the hypothesis:
“That’s an old-fashioned idea. In this day and age, what really counts are your ideas and my ideas are promoting liberty – and that’s a very young idea and young people love it.”
He went on to challenge anyone worried about his senior-citizen status to a physical competition. “Anytime any other running candidate wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 102, I’ll ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle.”
Ok... im not very suprised Ron Paul himself thinks he can do it haha. The reality is quite something different. The rigors of being president mentally and physically is something he probably couldnt understand without being it.
Hell, even Obama has gone grey and feels the need to take 3 vacations a month.
Broheem, you do understand modern medicine and nutrition has come a long way yea? There was a 60+ year old that nearly swam from FL to Cuba the other day. Odds are, the man can handle office for 4 years. He's not crumpling off stages like Bob Dole or anything.
I suppose. Its defintiely something to consider though.
Also, i dont see how a person 20 years younger than he will be in office failing at a physical activity (no she didnt 'nearly" do it) helps your case.
On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote: I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world.
You just described every Republican candidate. But Ron Paul is easily the only one among them that believes in civil rights. Listen to him talk about gay marriage, about DADT, about the ground zero mosque especially, they're all on YouTube. It will surprise you how "progressive" he is (in reality he just believes and practices what he preaches).
He is on record saying that the constitution doesn't specifically call for separation of church and state, but his record and his positions across the board make it clear that government has no business imposing religious values on people and the first amendment protects all religions. He also said that prayer shouldn't be prohibited in schools but also shouldn't be led by the schools. That is reasonable by any definition.
I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents.
I know some people disagree with Ron Paul from a more liberal perspective, and that's totally fine. But this thread is about the Republican nomination after all, and you have to ask yourself who among them is the best choice and I think that's pretty easily Ron Paul. I mean, he's the only real conservative, the only one who actually believes in all the things the rest of them pretend to care about. It's also the only way we will have a real conversation about real fundamental change in the general election
Hes actually incredible anti civil rights, listen to his whole speech or debate answers, not just soundbytes. He will go on and on how the federal government shouldnt prohibit gay marriage or enforce religions. Then like clock work after hes said enough for a good quote to make him look like a constitutionalist he will say openly an unashamedly that the state governments should be the ones decide who gets married, who has rights, and what religion should be mandatory.
Neo-confederate nutjob.
Erm, I'm not sure if we are talking about the same guy. I've sat through entire Republican debates, watched mostly entire interviews, and read one of his books. I won't pretend to know everything about all the candidates but I have studied him quite a bit and can safely say that I've never seen, heard, or read any such statements by Ron Paul.
I dont tend to bother myself with watching anything with him in anymore so besides googling it off the top of my head, first candidate debate fox had this season, he was asked on gay marriage said that fed gov shouldnt prohibit it, got some applause for saying government should stay out of it, then once the applause died down he said the states should be the ones denying it not the federal government.
I don't have speakers on my computer at the office but it was the may sc republican debate with the fox news crew, its on youtube.
that is a severe misrepresentation of what he said. I can't believe how many times we have to rehash this in this thread. He said keep the government out of marriage, let the people do whatever they want, keep it between them and their churches, marriage shouldn't be a government institution at all, why should we have to ask the government's permission to get married? Then, and this is what you latch onto for proof, he said that if you MUST have government somehow involved, the issue would be a state issue since it isn't delegated to Congress. I've heard him talk about it many times and he writes about it in his manifesto, he has always been consistent. I have fought hard for gay rights my whole life, I would not endorse an anti-gay candidate for anything.
Here :
Like i said he gets his cliche talking point in about getting government out of your life, once a good quote is out he says that it should be determined by state government. Ron Paul as a man is, atleast not openly, not anti gay marriage he is however just fine with them having their rights stripped by state governments.
If you're fighting for gay rights youre backing the wrong man because he totally ok with enabling discrimination against gays as long as its at the state level. Hes the same guy who 40-50 years ago who would say segregated schools are fine because thats what their state chose.
In a shocking turn of events, the GOP hopefuls are trying to out do each other in the fine arts of being complete idiots and pandering to other complete idiots. I am sure you will all fall off your chairs in amazement that they, in fact, do not accept the very well established theory of evolution.
On August 20 2011 07:08 Elegy wrote: "Letting states decide" on civil rights issues is one of the greatest jokes in American history....
It has a track record of working badly.
If my income tax went to my state and we didn't have to look beyond our own borders for approval, I think California would be even more the garden of eden!
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4544/bachman.jpg)
