MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul

[phillyfan26]

1. I agree.

2. I just wanted to make it clear that he isn't the only one.

OK ... ?

So what's your defense of Ron Paul here?

 

[Infinity]

Obama comes pretty close.

How about responding to the rest of that post?

I know no one has been saying that, but the job of the President is to put all people equal under the law, so obviously them not giving marriage rights to gays is unequal.

 

[BonosSaint]

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898

Let's try this link for the capital punishment remarks.

 

[BonosSaint]

double post.

 

[phillyfan26]

I know no one has been saying that, but the job of the President is to put all people equal under the law, so obviously them not giving marriage rights to gays is unequal.

So, Ron Paul wouldn't be doing the (your words) job of the President, would he?

 

[Diemen]

I know no one has been saying that, but the job of the President is to put all people equal under the law, so obviously them not giving marriage rights to gays is unequal.

Right. So now that you've acknowledged that, wouldn't that make your previous statements (RP is for equality for all) lies?

 

[martha]

And he wants to leave it to the states, not federally ban it.

To paraphrase the American Prospect, the rights of a state are more important than the rights of a woman.

 

[nathan1977]

To paraphrase the American Prospect, the rights of a state are more important than the rights of a woman.

Like the rights of a state to enforce not murdering people?

 

[BVS]

You mean death penalty?

 

[nathan1977]

Sure.

 

[Infinity]

OK ... ?

So what's your defense of Ron Paul here?

No defense. Just saying that if you're looking for total equality of gays and straights, none of the candidates (except for Kucinich) will suit you.

 

[Infinity]

So, Ron Paul wouldn't be doing the (your words) job of the President, would he?

Yup, but neither would anyone else except Kucinich.

 

[phillyfan26]

Obama is.

 

[Infinity]

Right. So now that you've acknowledged that, wouldn't that make your previous statements (RP is for equality for all) lies?

No. I meant it when people accused him of being racist. They weren't lies, its not like I intentionally tried to make people think that he wants a federal legality of gay marriage.



And, after all of these posts, it should be worth mentioning that marriage issues have always been left to the states, so it is not much different in allowing the states to select gay marriage issues. And when it comes to gays serving in the military, which is a Federal issue, Ron Paul is for total equality.

 

[Infinity]

Obama is.

Not total. He doesn't want to give the title.

 

[phillyfan26]

No, he said the title is left up to states. Which is acceptable. Whereas Paul's plan ... uh ... ISN'T acceptable.

Let me explain it to you in a chart:

 

[Infinity]

No, he said the title is left up to states. Which is acceptable. Whereas Paul's plan ... uh ... ISN'T acceptable.

Let me explain it to you in a chart:

Put up all the charts you want, if I were to tell you that African Americans were allowed to have civil unions but I won't give them the title of marriage, would that be full equality? And it is just the title, so why not give it?

 

[phillyfan26]

It's not full equality. I never said it was. But look at where we are right now. Which plan is a significant step? Which isn't? Which gives rights? Which doesn't?

It is just a title, and I don't understand why he doesn't give it to them. But the candidate who gives the rights is making progress. The candidate who leaves it up to states isn't. End of story.

 

[martha]

Like the rights of a state to enforce not murdering people?

I don't support the death penalty, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Infinity]

It's not full equality. I never said it was. But look at where we are right now. Which plan is a significant step? Which isn't? Which gives rights? Which doesn't?

It is just a title, and I don't understand why he doesn't give it to them. But the candidate who gives the rights is making progress. The candidate who leaves it up to states isn't. End of story.

Well in that chart you put him up with Kucinich as if they both are saying the same thing. Yes Obama's is a more liberal position than Paul's but it is not full equality. I agree, end of story.

 

[phillyfan26]

I did not. I clearly ranked Kucinich 1 and Obama 2. I just put them both above the line of civil rights.

You keep spinning this around in circles. You keep attacking Obama's position despite the fact that it's progress and Paul's is not.

 

[Infinity]

I wasn't attacking Obama's position. I was merely saying that he is not for perfect equal rights. But, good we got it straightened out.

And for anyone else who comes upon this thread, i'll detail the chart a little more, because it is unfair to put Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton on the same level with everyone else.

1. Kucinich: Gay marriage legalization.

2. Obama: Civil union legalization.

3. Paul, Clinton: Leave the issue to the states.

4. Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee: Limit gay marriage.

5. Romney: Ban gay marriage.

 

[nathan1977]

I don't support the death penalty, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't support the death penalty either. I believe the government should pass laws that keep people from murdering other people. That does take away the rights of some people to murder other people, but I hardly think that murder is a right that should be defended.

Unfortunately for some, that applies to abortion as well.

 

[phillyfan26]

I wasn't attacking Obama's position. I was merely saying that he is not for perfect equal rights. But, good we got it straightened out.

And for anyone else who comes upon this thread, i'll detail the chart a little more, because it is unfair to put Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton on the same level with everyone else.

No, it's very fair to put them on the same level. They don't guarantee the civil rights.

 

[Infinity]

No, it's very fair to put them on the same level. They don't guarantee the civil rights.

No it isn't fair. Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton want to give the states the rights to choose whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, whereas someone like Mitt Romney wants to use the power of the Federal government to ban anyone in any state to get married, even if the state approves of gay marriage.

It is like with any other law. You can't say that a President who wants a federal ban on gambling is the same as a President who wants the state to decide for themselves their own gambling laws. Someone who is pro-gambling will obviously choose the second President, who is willing to let the states decide their own rights.

Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton's positions on gay marriage are certainly more liberal than the positions of McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson.

 

[phillyfan26]

No it isn't fair. Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton want to give the states the rights to choose whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, whereas someone like Mitt Romney wants to use the power of the Federal government to ban anyone in any state to get married, even if the state approves of gay marriage.

It is like with any other law. You can't say that a President who wants a federal ban on gambling is the same as a President who wants the state to decide for themselves their own gambling laws. Someone who is pro-gambling will obviously choose the second President, who is willing to let the states decide their own rights.

Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton's positions on gay marriage are certainly more liberal than the positions of McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson.

You just compared a civil rights issue to gambling laws.

I'm done with you.

You're off the deep end.

 

[Infinity]

You just compared a civil rights issue to gambling laws.

I'm done with you.

You're off the deep end.

Way to dodge.

I used the gambling as an example of being liberal, did I say that gambling is just as important as civil rights??????? All I was trying to say is that a person who wants to leave gambling rights to the states is more liberal than a person who wants to federally ban gambling. I was trying to find another example to prove my point that a person who wants to leave gay marriage rights to the states is more liberal than a person who wants to federally ban gay marriage. Hence, Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are more liberal on the issue than Mitt Romney is. It is simple reasoning.

 

[phillyfan26]

I'm not dodging at all.

Your comparison is absurd, because the issue doesn't have merits on both sides.

Your reasoning is ridiculous. You're saying that Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are better on the issue than Mitt Romney is.

So what?

Neither of them are at acceptable levels. Neither of them hold liberal positions. Being more liberal than the most extreme conservative position doesn't make your position liberal.

Romney has an absolutely worse position, but all the positions you mentioned can be grouped into one: unacceptably wrong positions. And that's what I did in that chart.

 

[Infinity]

I'm not dodging at all.

Your comparison is absurd, because the issue doesn't have merits on both sides.

Your reasoning is ridiculous. You're saying that Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are better on the issue than Mitt Romney is.

So what?

Neither of them are at acceptable levels. Neither of them hold liberal positions. Being more liberal than the most extreme conservative position doesn't make your position liberal.

Romney has an absolutely worse position, but all the positions you mentioned can be grouped into one: unacceptably wrong positions. And that's what I did in that chart.

I didn't say they are at acceptable levels. For some people they are on acceptable levels, for others not.

But since you said before that it is okay to group all of them together with the other Republicans and I was arguing against that.

And I know that being more liberal doesn't make it liberal. It is not even the point whether their position is liberal or not. You said it, it is about being MORE liberal. You said earlier that Romney, Paul and Clinton are on the same level since all their positions are "unacceptable." But they are not on the same level, they are more liberal, less conservative, you can say it either way.

 

[phillyfan26]

I didn't say they are at acceptable levels. For some people they are on acceptable levels, for others not.

But since you said before that it is okay to group all of them together with the other Republicans and I was arguing against that.

And I know that being more liberal doesn't make it liberal. It is not even the point whether their position is liberal or not. You said it, it is about being MORE liberal. You said earlier that Romney, Paul and Clinton are on the same level since all their positions are "unacceptable." But they are not on the same level, they are more liberal, less conservative, you can say it either way.

But what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter that they're more liberal. They can be grouped together, because their positions are all completely and utterly unacceptable.