EPTOn August 20 2011 13:56 jon arbuckle wrote:
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. 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.
Show nested quote +
On August 20 2011 13:19 Senorcuidado wrote:
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 12:47 Kiwifruit wrote:
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 11:43 Senorcuidado wrote:
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...
On August 20 2011 06:53 abominare wrote:
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.
On August 20 2011 05:34 Senorcuidado wrote:
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.
On August 20 2011 05:08 abominare wrote:
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.
On August 20 2011 05:00 Senorcuidado wrote:
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.
On August 20 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:
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.
On August 20 2011 04:37 Senorcuidado wrote:
[quote]
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
[quote]
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.
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. 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.
How do you even know all this? Aren't you just some unemployed guy who drinks coffee and hangs around with a cat and dog all the time?
