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.
That's why it's our job to choose the right people to govern at the state level also, he's expecting us to take responsibility for what we choose is morally correct. I don't like seeing the Federal government be the "supreme rule of how we should live". That's why we have a democracy and if we want gay marriage in California for example, we best vote for the state governor that supports it.
"I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry said today. "That's a theory that is out there -- and it's got some gaps in it."
Perry then told the boy: "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."
Yep, that's how schools work. You tell kids some things that are true and some things that are made up and you trust that the children will be "smart enough" to figure it out. "America's first three presidents were George Washington, John Adams and the Green Lantern. Good luck on your AP History test."
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.
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.
That's why it's our job to choose the right people to govern at the state level also, he's expecting us to take responsibility for what we choose is morally correct. I don't like seeing the Federal government be the "supreme rule of how we should live". That's why we have a democracy and if we want gay marriage in California for example, we best vote for the state governor that supports it.
EDIT: typo
first off its a republic, secondly the reason why we have a federal government enforcing rights is because said state governments are smaller and regional and because of that much more able to be controlled by a majority that is a minority on a national scale. The ability for these potentially smaller factions to take control and be in direct conflict to what the federal government has outlined is unacceptable (tyranny of the minority concept), this is concept is elementary and is extensively talked about in the Federalist Papers, which as the Supreme Court would agree goes hand in hand with understanding the constitution and filling in the gaps and explaining intended purpose.(Fun Fact the court has used them interchangeably and even solely on basing court decisions)
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.
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.
That's why it's our job to choose the right people to govern at the state level also, he's expecting us to take responsibility for what we choose is morally correct. I don't like seeing the Federal government be the "supreme rule of how we should live". That's why we have a democracy and if we want gay marriage in California for example, we best vote for the state governor that supports it.
EDIT: typo
first off its a republic, secondly the reason why we have a federal government enforcing rights is because said state governments are smaller and regional and because of that much more able to be controlled by a majority that is a minority on a national scale. The ability for these potentially smaller factions to take control and be in direct conflict to what the federal government has outlined is unacceptable (tyranny of the minority concept), this is concept is elementary and is extensively talked about in the Federalist Papers, which as the Supreme Court would agree goes hand in hand with understanding the constitution and filling in the gaps and explaining intended purpose.(Fun Fact the court has used them interchangeably and even solely on basing court decisions)
What about the Tenth Amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
We're still largely in a grey area as to what grounds the Federal government has in getting involved with such things as abortion. Ultimately, any law passed by the states, still has to be Constitutionally ratified by the courts, so re-enacting something like slavery, just because the majority wanted it, isn't even remotely possible in this day and age.
On August 20 2011 07:08 Elegy wrote: "Letting states decide" on civil rights issues is one of the greatest jokes in American history....
There's a school district in Mississippi and several counties in Georgia that until 2008 held separate racially segregated proms. (Yes, that means at "white prom", black students are *not allowed* to attend)
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.
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.
That's why it's our job to choose the right people to govern at the state level also, he's expecting us to take responsibility for what we choose is morally correct. I don't like seeing the Federal government be the "supreme rule of how we should live". That's why we have a democracy and if we want gay marriage in California for example, we best vote for the state governor that supports it.
EDIT: typo
In the specific case of gay marriage, why not? My problem with the sort of thinking that Ron Paul has is that it doesn't allow for specific cases. Equal rights is not only a core belief of the USA, but it is also a trend through history that should be pretty obvious. In the case of gay rights, there isn't the same "Well, no one knows what the right thing to do is!" as there is with stuff like economics and foreign policy. Equality should be a pretty straight forward thought process and we as citizens should be willing to differentiate between times when government intervention is or is not a good thing. The federal government supporting equality is not going to translate to the government stripping away your rights as an individual or something like that. There isn't a "slippery slope".
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.
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.
That's why it's our job to choose the right people to govern at the state level also, he's expecting us to take responsibility for what we choose is morally correct. I don't like seeing the Federal government be the "supreme rule of how we should live". That's why we have a democracy and if we want gay marriage in California for example, we best vote for the state governor that supports it.
EDIT: typo
first off its a republic, secondly the reason why we have a federal government enforcing rights is because said state governments are smaller and regional and because of that much more able to be controlled by a majority that is a minority on a national scale. The ability for these potentially smaller factions to take control and be in direct conflict to what the federal government has outlined is unacceptable (tyranny of the minority concept), this is concept is elementary and is extensively talked about in the Federalist Papers, which as the Supreme Court would agree goes hand in hand with understanding the constitution and filling in the gaps and explaining intended purpose.(Fun Fact the court has used them interchangeably and even solely on basing court decisions)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
We're still largely in a grey area as to what grounds the Federal government has in getting involved with such things as abortion. Ultimately, any law passed by the states, still has to be Constitutionally ratified by the courts, so re-enacting something like slavery, just because the majority wanted it, isn't even remotely possible in this day and age.
The constitution leaves things open to the states under the idea of letting states do what they do best, handling day to day things the federal government does not need to have every new fire dept building plans pass by them, states are there to handle the local administrative things, it was not left like that with the intent that any issue, especially concerning rights, that had been unheard of by the founders be magically the domain of the states, as in "HAH the constitution says nothing about human cyborg relations therefore its up to the states! the founders would have said something if they didnt mean for it to be that way!"
@abominare No that is exactly what they meant read the 10th amendment. There is no weird wording, it is very clear that Congress deals between interstate issues and issues as defined by article 1 section 8. The only reason your used to the idea of Congress intefering to the extent they do is because of the stretching of the neccessary and proper clause.
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.
The government should not be legislating morality.
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.
The government should not be legislating morality.
Wait, sorry, totally misread the intent of your post. And before anyone quotes what I had here earlier it was very sarcastic, lol
States have always been the greatest "oppressors" (if you want to use that language) of rights in America, be it religious (pre-Cantwell) or segregation or what-have-you. To think devolving power over fundamental civil liberties to the states to determine for themselves is a good idea speaks more towards one's obsession about the federal government than it does about the welfare and freedom of citizens. Allowing states to determine (for example) same-sex marriage is in effect giving the stamp of approval for the government legislating morality (Christian morality on the "proper form" of marriage), unless you're going to say Mississippi or Alabama would happily allow gay marriage in lieu of federal intervention.
Some people have weird fetishes, but it seems that many Ron Paul supporters have a states' rights fetish in their own right...
OBAMA: This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell. FALSANI: You don’t believe that? OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
Good to know the OP isn't a religious nut. It's sad that when economic issues are facing the country, religion rather than economic ideology appears to be the biggest factor in choosing sides.
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.
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.
You....must be out of your mind. You don't know the first thing about Ron Paul's positions, and to think that somehow he was advocating states determining gay marriage in that clip is ludicrous. Seriously, do your homework and know what you're talking about. Look at all of his other statements about gay marriage, about how individual liberties are about treating everybody the same way; look at his conversations about the 1964 civil rights act. He was opposed to the Jim Crow laws and he said that the legislation did the right thing in stopping institutional discrimination which is obviously unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should always come to that conclusion before Congress is required to. People get hung up on this garbage about property rights and states' rights and it's all just a distraction. Sure, civil rights are a concern when you look at the history of states' rights, and for the record I do support the federal government ensuring equal rights for all and the supremacy clause does require the states to comply.
But the goddamn point when talking about the role of the states is right there in the constitution. It's not about legislating morality or oppression. The point is that local governments do a better job of governing than a far away federal government or monarchy. To see the writing of the Constitution as a rejection of states' rights is to completely misunderstand the entire document. They knew the perils of a too-powerful central government and wanted to keep the power in the hands of the people. The Federalist Papers were one side of the debate, and they don't represent the way everybody felt about. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was fiercely against a strong central government or even a central bank. The Constitution is fraught with compromises, and everything about our system of federalism is a result of compromise between the proponents of the state's and central governments. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Constitution but the role of the states is absolutely there and the tenth amendment is very clear; however, OF COURSE THAT DOESN'T GIVE STATES THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE. There is no question to me that the federal government is much much more powerful today than the founding fathers ever envisioned. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. There are good arguments for a strong central government and for a more socialist economic system.
I'm not saying that Ron Paul is necessarily correct, but the line of criticism around civil rights is ridiculous and it's a huge smokescreen. I am saying that he is by far the best Republican candidate and if he doesn't win I'll easily vote for Obama. In the general election we should have a genuine choice about the direction of our country. On one hand a small central government with stronger states and a truly capitalist economic system, or a strong central government with weaker states and a more socialist system where we pay more taxes and get more services in return. I don't even know which is better. I do know that our foreign policy needs to change drastically, whoever wins. Our financial system needs to be completely overhauled, real health care reform has to happen, and our tax code has to make sense. Plus a million other problems that need fixing. The national conversation about the states' role should be about governing, about education systems and drug laws, they don't pose a threat to civil liberties. But yeah, guys, go ahead and keep arguing about how states' rights are going to lead to lynch mobs or whatever while the grown ups talk about the real problems.
Furthermore, I really think the conversation in this thread called "Republican Nomination" should be about comparing the Republican candidates to each other and who has the best plan for America, not bashing conservatives or bashing Obama. If you really hate Ron Paul, elaborate on which other candidate would be better. Or not, I don't care. This thread is falling off the deep end kind of fast. I never thought I would miss xdaunt...
OBAMA: This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell. FALSANI: You don’t believe that? OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
Good to know the OP isn't a religious nut. It's sad that when economic issues are facing the country, religion rather than economic ideology appears to be the biggest factor in choosing sides.
That is such a mature way to think about religion, and I've written a few papers about just that. I don't think such a belief has to contradict at all with the teachings of Christ. I also don't think evolution necessary has to contradict with religion either, but that's probably a discussion for another thread. The literal interpretations and fanaticism of Christianity in our country is a very sad and destructive force though, and I have a lot of respect for Obama for saying this out loud. Is there any chance you could link the source interview by the way?
OBAMA: This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell. FALSANI: You don’t believe that? OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
Good to know the OP isn't a religious nut. It's sad that when economic issues are facing the country, religion rather than economic ideology appears to be the biggest factor in choosing sides.
That is such a mature way to think about religion, and I've written a few papers about just that. I don't think such a belief has to contradict at all with the teachings of Christ. I also don't think evolution necessary has to contradict with religion either, but that's probably a discussion for another thread. The literal interpretations and fanaticism of Christianity in our country is a very sad and destructive force though, and I have a lot of respect for Obama for saying this out loud. Is there any chance you could link the source interview by the way?
Truth be told he's just as much of a retard as every other politician. I have no doubt that deep down Obama knows Christianity and God is a load of crock but it's not in his political interests to admit it. Likewise with Ron Paul on gay rights - he's too pussy to actually just openly say: "Gay is OK." That's the problem with the Republican party and America in general - too many Pentecostal evangelicals who need to have their fundamentalism appeased.
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.
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.
You....must be out of your mind. You don't know the first thing about Ron Paul's positions, and to think that somehow he was advocating states determining gay marriage in that clip is ludicrous. Seriously, do your homework and know what you're talking about. Look at all of his other statements about gay marriage, about how individual liberties are about treating everybody the same way; look at his conversations about the 1964 civil rights act. He was opposed to the Jim Crow laws and he said that the legislation did the right thing in stopping institutional discrimination which is obviously unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should always come to that conclusion before Congress is required to. People get hung up on this garbage about property rights and states' rights and it's all just a distraction. Sure, civil rights are a concern when you look at the history of states' rights, and for the record I do support the federal government ensuring equal rights for all and the supremacy clause does require the states to comply.
But the goddamn point when talking about the role of the states is right there in the constitution. It's not about legislating morality or oppression. The point is that local governments do a better job of governing than a far away federal government or monarchy. To see the writing of the Constitution as a rejection of states' rights is to completely misunderstand the entire document. They knew the perils of a too-powerful central government and wanted to keep the power in the hands of the people. The Federalist Papers were one side of the debate, and they don't represent the way everybody felt about. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was fiercely against a strong central government or even a central bank. The Constitution is fraught with compromises, and everything about our system of federalism is a result of compromise between the proponents of the state's and central governments. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Constitution but the role of the states is absolutely there and the tenth amendment is very clear; however, OF COURSE THAT DOESN'T GIVE STATES THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE. There is no question to me that the federal government is much much more powerful today than the founding fathers ever envisioned. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. There are good arguments for a strong central government and for a more socialist economic system.
I'm not saying that Ron Paul is necessarily correct, but the line of criticism around civil rights is ridiculous and it's a huge smokescreen. I am saying that he is by far the best Republican candidate and if he doesn't win I'll easily vote for Obama. In the general election we should have a genuine choice about the direction of our country. On one hand a small central government with stronger states and a truly capitalist economic system, or a strong central government with weaker states and a more socialist system where we pay more taxes and get more services in return. I don't even know which is better. I do know that our foreign policy needs to change drastically, whoever wins. Our financial system needs to be completely overhauled, real health care reform has to happen, and our tax code has to make sense. Plus a million other problems that need fixing. The national conversation about the states' role should be about governing, about education systems and drug laws, they don't pose a threat to civil liberties. But yeah, guys, go ahead and keep arguing about how states' rights are going to lead to lynch mobs or whatever while the grown ups talk about the real problems.
Furthermore, I really think the conversation in this thread called "Republican Nomination" should be about comparing the Republican candidates to each other and who has the best plan for America, not bashing conservatives or bashing Obama. If you really hate Ron Paul, elaborate on which other candidate would be better. Or not, I don't care. This thread is falling off the deep end kind of fast. I never thought I would miss xdaunt...
Paul doesn't have the balls to say: "It's up to the states to decide... However I personally think gays should have the right to marry." He doesn't want to offend the religious nuts in America so deliberately withholds his own personal views.
On August 20 2011 07:08 Elegy wrote: "Letting states decide" on civil rights issues is one of the greatest jokes in American history....
There's a school district in Mississippi and several counties in Georgia that until 2008 held separate racially segregated proms. (Yes, that means at "white prom", black students are *not allowed* to attend)
States rights ftw lol
Source? I'm not doubting you, but I really want to see this because I can't fathom that shit...
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.
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.
You....must be out of your mind. You don't know the first thing about Ron Paul's positions, and to think that somehow he was advocating states determining gay marriage in that clip is ludicrous. Seriously, do your homework and know what you're talking about. Look at all of his other statements about gay marriage, about how individual liberties are about treating everybody the same way; look at his conversations about the 1964 civil rights act. He was opposed to the Jim Crow laws and he said that the legislation did the right thing in stopping institutional discrimination which is obviously unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should always come to that conclusion before Congress is required to. People get hung up on this garbage about property rights and states' rights and it's all just a distraction. Sure, civil rights are a concern when you look at the history of states' rights, and for the record I do support the federal government ensuring equal rights for all and the supremacy clause does require the states to comply.
But the goddamn point when talking about the role of the states is right there in the constitution. It's not about legislating morality or oppression. The point is that local governments do a better job of governing than a far away federal government or monarchy. To see the writing of the Constitution as a rejection of states' rights is to completely misunderstand the entire document. They knew the perils of a too-powerful central government and wanted to keep the power in the hands of the people. The Federalist Papers were one side of the debate, and they don't represent the way everybody felt about. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was fiercely against a strong central government or even a central bank. The Constitution is fraught with compromises, and everything about our system of federalism is a result of compromise between the proponents of the state's and central governments. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Constitution but the role of the states is absolutely there and the tenth amendment is very clear; however, OF COURSE THAT DOESN'T GIVE STATES THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE. There is no question to me that the federal government is much much more powerful today than the founding fathers ever envisioned. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. There are good arguments for a strong central government and for a more socialist economic system.
I'm not saying that Ron Paul is necessarily correct, but the line of criticism around civil rights is ridiculous and it's a huge smokescreen. I am saying that he is by far the best Republican candidate and if he doesn't win I'll easily vote for Obama. In the general election we should have a genuine choice about the direction of our country. On one hand a small central government with stronger states and a truly capitalist economic system, or a strong central government with weaker states and a more socialist system where we pay more taxes and get more services in return. I don't even know which is better. I do know that our foreign policy needs to change drastically, whoever wins. Our financial system needs to be completely overhauled, real health care reform has to happen, and our tax code has to make sense. Plus a million other problems that need fixing. The national conversation about the states' role should be about governing, about education systems and drug laws, they don't pose a threat to civil liberties. But yeah, guys, go ahead and keep arguing about how states' rights are going to lead to lynch mobs or whatever while the grown ups talk about the real problems.
Furthermore, I really think the conversation in this thread called "Republican Nomination" should be about comparing the Republican candidates to each other and who has the best plan for America, not bashing conservatives or bashing Obama. If you really hate Ron Paul, elaborate on which other candidate would be better. Or not, I don't care. This thread is falling off the deep end kind of fast. I never thought I would miss xdaunt...
Paul doesn't have the balls to say: "It's up to the states to decide... However I personally think gays should have the right to marry." He doesn't want to offend the religious nuts in America so deliberately withholds his own personal views.
Well he did answer the question "should gays be allowed to marry?" on 20/20 (where they pulled that quote in the video) with "sure, they can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. . . gay couples can do whatever they want, in fact I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Still, he often has to be overly careful with these answers like everybody else though, and that bothers me. Whatever the issue, everybody has to say things just right to hopefully convey their opinion without pissing off the religious right. I'm pretty tired of it.
On August 20 2011 07:08 Elegy wrote: "Letting states decide" on civil rights issues is one of the greatest jokes in American history....
There's a school district in Mississippi and several counties in Georgia that until 2008 held separate racially segregated proms. (Yes, that means at "white prom", black students are *not allowed* to attend)
States rights ftw lol
Source? I'm not doubting you, but I really want to see this because I can't fathom that shit...
Racially segregated proms have been held in Montgomery County — where about two-thirds of the population is white — almost every year since its schools were integrated in 1971. Such proms are, by many accounts, longstanding traditions in towns across the rural South, though in recent years a number of communities have successfully pushed for change. When the actor Morgan Freeman offered to pay for last year’s first-of-its-kind integrated prom at Charleston High School in Mississippi, his home state, the idea was quickly embraced by students — and rejected by a group of white parents, who held a competing “private” prom. (The effort is the subject of a documentary, “Prom Night in Mississippi,” which will be shown on HBO in July.) The senior proms held by Montgomery County High School students — referred to by many students as “the black-folks prom” and “the white-folks prom” — are organized outside school through student committees with the help of parents. All students are welcome at the black prom, though generally few if any white students show up. The white prom, students say, remains governed by a largely unspoken set of rules about who may come. Black members of the student council say they have asked school administrators about holding a single school-sponsored prom, but that, along with efforts to collaborate with white prom planners, has failed. According to Timothy Wiggs, the outgoing student council president and one of 21 black students graduating this year, “We just never get anywhere with it.” Principal Luke Smith says the school has no plans to sponsor a prom, noting that when it did so in 1995, attendance was poor.
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.
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.
You....must be out of your mind. You don't know the first thing about Ron Paul's positions, and to think that somehow he was advocating states determining gay marriage in that clip is ludicrous. Seriously, do your homework and know what you're talking about. Look at all of his other statements about gay marriage, about how individual liberties are about treating everybody the same way; look at his conversations about the 1964 civil rights act. He was opposed to the Jim Crow laws and he said that the legislation did the right thing in stopping institutional discrimination which is obviously unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should always come to that conclusion before Congress is required to. People get hung up on this garbage about property rights and states' rights and it's all just a distraction. Sure, civil rights are a concern when you look at the history of states' rights, and for the record I do support the federal government ensuring equal rights for all and the supremacy clause does require the states to comply.
But the goddamn point when talking about the role of the states is right there in the constitution. It's not about legislating morality or oppression. The point is that local governments do a better job of governing than a far away federal government or monarchy. To see the writing of the Constitution as a rejection of states' rights is to completely misunderstand the entire document. They knew the perils of a too-powerful central government and wanted to keep the power in the hands of the people. The Federalist Papers were one side of the debate, and they don't represent the way everybody felt about. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was fiercely against a strong central government or even a central bank. The Constitution is fraught with compromises, and everything about our system of federalism is a result of compromise between the proponents of the state's and central governments. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Constitution but the role of the states is absolutely there and the tenth amendment is very clear; however, OF COURSE THAT DOESN'T GIVE STATES THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE. There is no question to me that the federal government is much much more powerful today than the founding fathers ever envisioned. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. There are good arguments for a strong central government and for a more socialist economic system.
I'm not saying that Ron Paul is necessarily correct, but the line of criticism around civil rights is ridiculous and it's a huge smokescreen. I am saying that he is by far the best Republican candidate and if he doesn't win I'll easily vote for Obama. In the general election we should have a genuine choice about the direction of our country. On one hand a small central government with stronger states and a truly capitalist economic system, or a strong central government with weaker states and a more socialist system where we pay more taxes and get more services in return. I don't even know which is better. I do know that our foreign policy needs to change drastically, whoever wins. Our financial system needs to be completely overhauled, real health care reform has to happen, and our tax code has to make sense. Plus a million other problems that need fixing. The national conversation about the states' role should be about governing, about education systems and drug laws, they don't pose a threat to civil liberties. But yeah, guys, go ahead and keep arguing about how states' rights are going to lead to lynch mobs or whatever while the grown ups talk about the real problems.
Furthermore, I really think the conversation in this thread called "Republican Nomination" should be about comparing the Republican candidates to each other and who has the best plan for America, not bashing conservatives or bashing Obama. If you really hate Ron Paul, elaborate on which other candidate would be better. Or not, I don't care. This thread is falling off the deep end kind of fast. I never thought I would miss xdaunt...
Paul doesn't have the balls to say: "It's up to the states to decide... However I personally think gays should have the right to marry." He doesn't want to offend the religious nuts in America so deliberately withholds his own personal views.
Well he did answer the question "should gays be allowed to marry?" on 20/20 (where they pulled that quote in the video) with "sure, they can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. . . gay couples can do whatever they want, in fact I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Still, he often has to be overly careful with these answers like everybody else though, and that bothers me. Whatever the issue, everybody has to say things just right to hopefully convey their opinion without pissing off the religious right. I'm pretty tired of it.
If Ron Paul was the trail-blazing libertarian badass he purports to be and as you revere him, he should have no qualms at all about who he offends and who he doesn't. Not* playing by the rules has given him more political traction as of late among impressionable twenty-somethings (q.v. this thread, debt ceiling thread, credit downgrade thread, etc.) than playing the game would or could ever give him. The GOP establishment that's pushing Huntsman and Romney is losing control to the wave propping up Ron Paul, Bachmann, and Perry, so if he had no problem saying it would be no big deal if Iran got nukes, he should have no qualms about being firm on any issue whatsoever, no matter how ludicrous his propositions may sound.
But that 20/20 quotation is a bad example, because it's pretty straightforward. Generally speaking, you'd have to be hopelessly naive to believe that someone supporting total deregulation, states rights, and promoting religious intervention into civil matters is advocating anything approaching freedom.
EPT
