MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-05-2008, 10:38 PM   #181
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98

Having said all of that, gay marriage is not that important of an issue to me either. And I stand by Ron Paul.
Of course you do, but don't argue his social stances if you don't know them.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-05-2008, 10:45 PM   #182
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


I understand that. Can you please provide me with a link where Ron Paul said that he supports the right for states to decide on segregation.
Well if you support state's rights you open it up to that...

Quote:
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - Ron Paul
It's ridiculous to think that Ron says, "Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters...using it's own local standards." but wouldn't allow them to use it's own local standards for segregation or gay marriage.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-05-2008, 10:50 PM   #183
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:34 AM
I think there was an instance in which he said something similar to what BVS quoted, something about how state's rights were more important than laws on segregation. I'll have to look into it.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-05-2008, 10:51 PM   #184
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 11:34 AM
How can gay equality NOT be "that important of an issue" to you?

Anyone who is big on following the word of the constitution that this country is based on...it says that we're all created equal.

You can't believe in that and then say that gay equality is "not that important of an issue" to you.

You just can't.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-05-2008, 11:51 PM   #185
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
How can gay equality NOT be "that important of an issue" to you?

Anyone who is big on following the word of the constitution that this country is based on...it says that we're all created equal.

You can't believe in that and then say that gay equality is "not that important of an issue" to you.

You just can't.
If Ron Paul were to support a Federal legalisation of gay marriage, all the better. But gay marriage is not the most important issue to me. To me, taxes and the war in Iraq are the most important issues. And Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports my positions on both those issues. There are many candidates that don't support the legalisation of gay marriage, Ron Paul is not the only one.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-05-2008, 11:54 PM   #186
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well if you support state's rights you open it up to that...

Yes but just because Ron Paul supports state's rights doesn't mean he supports it for every issue. He is against the death penalty, for example. So he wouldn't support state's rights to choose death penalty. And I really don't think he supports segregation, either at the state or federal level. He has said he supports personal liberties and that everybody is equal, so I doubt he supports segregation.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-05-2008, 11:57 PM   #187
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
If Ron Paul were to support a Federal legalisation of gay marriage, all the better. But gay marriage is not the most important issue to me. To me, taxes and the war in Iraq are the most important issues. And Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports my positions on both those issues. There are many candidates that don't support the legalisation of gay marriage, Ron Paul is not the only one.
So, war and money are more important than civil rights?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 12:46 AM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 12:34 PM
I have no reason to vote for Ron Paul. Taxes aren't a big issue to me and any of the candidates I'd vote for already share his opposition to the war. I like some of his stances, dislike many others. However, please point me out if I'm wrong, but is there a top-tier democrat who is coming out in support of gay marriage as opposed to supporting civil unions? And if I am correct, most of the top-tiers would leave it up to the states. What is the difference between Paul's stance on gay marriage and the democrat contenders? I think it is somewhat disingenuous to criticize Paul's position without holding the democrats' feet to the same fire. Chances are pretty good many of us are going to vote for a candidate who holds fundamantally the same position even if we are personally in disagreement with it.

Re: death penalty. It is my understanding that Paul would abolish Federal death penalty, but would leave it up to the states to determine their own death penalty stance, although it does appear that he is personally against the death penalty even on a state basis. Appears all the top-tier democrats support death penalty state and federal for heinous crimes.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 01:20 AM   #189
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


So, war and money are more important than civil rights?
First of all, it is not as though Ron Paul opposes gay marriage. He just wants to leave the decision to the states. That is already a more liberal position than most or all of the Republican candidates. And tell me, how many of the Democrat candidates support a federal legalisation of gay marriage? Politicians all across America have all different positions on gay rights and gay marriage.

Secondly, I can ask you the same thing, is gay rights more important than all the bloodshed going on in Iraq?

Third, yes an end to the war in Iraq and me paying less money to the government are the most important issues to me. More important than gay rights. I don't think there is any candidate that is absolutely perfect for anybody. Like I said, if Ron Paul supported Federal legalization of gay marriage, that would be great. But if not, I am not going to give up on the positions of low taxes and America not policing the world in order to support a candidate who wants to federally legalise gay marriage.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 01:22 AM   #190
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
I have no reason to vote for Ron Paul. Taxes aren't a big issue to me and any of the candidates I'd vote for already share his opposition to the war. I like some of his stances, dislike many others. However, please point me out if I'm wrong, but is there a top-tier democrat who is coming out in support of gay marriage as opposed to supporting civil unions. And if I am correct, most of the top-tiers would leave it up to the states. What is the difference between Paul's stance on gay marriage and the democrat contenders? I think it is somewhat disingenuous to criticize Paul's position without holding the democrats' feet to the same fire. Chances are pretty good many of us are going to vote for a candidate who holds fundamantally the same position even if we are personally in disagreement with it.

Re: death penalty. It is my understanding that Paul would abolish Federal death penalty, but would leave it up to the states to determine their own death penalty stance, although it does appear that he is personally against the death penalty even on a state basis. Appears all the top-tier democrats support death penalty state and federal for heinous crimes.


I did not read a word of this post before I posted my post. But I agree 100%. And yes, about the death penalty, Ron Paul is against it and he never said he wants to leave that to the states.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 01:26 AM   #191
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 12:34 PM
Generally, however, all his comments are abolishing it on the Federal level. Other than personal opposition, he is silent on state death penalty so you'd have to show me that he supports total ban on the death penalty other than his comments that he would vote against death penalty in any legislative body in which he held a vote which indicates an acceptance of states' jurisdiction in death penalty policy. All that being said, he is in stronger opposition to it than the other candidates.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 02:41 AM   #192
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Yes but just because Ron Paul supports state's rights doesn't mean he supports it for every issue. He is against the death penalty, for example. So he wouldn't support state's rights to choose death penalty. And I really don't think he supports segregation, either at the state or federal level. He has said he supports personal liberties and that everybody is equal, so I doubt he supports segregation.
This makes no sense what so ever...

Read his quote again. He would support my state in their pursuit of sodomy laws... WTF? Listen up!!!
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-06-2008, 08:39 AM   #193
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:34 PM
If Ron Paul is against capital punishment, that's one thing he's got going for him. I'm opposed to capital punishment.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 12:59 PM   #194
New Yorker
 
gherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Posts: 2,525
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I'll say this again, for purposes of clarity.

Ron Paul is precisely an example of how Americans vote on image, rather than substance, not an exception to the rule.

Ron Paul has excellent marketing behind him, so much so that there was a time where I found him interesting too. The details, though, make him far less attractive, and, in fact, make him completely undesirable.

1) The details of his economic policies are unsupported by mainstream economists, and, in fact, are completely reactionary. And I'm not even talking about his interest in reducing spending and cutting taxes. Paul's interest in eliminating the Federal Reserve completely and returning to the gold standard is the most dangerous aspects of his economic policy. However, if he did eliminate the income tax and institute a 20%+ national sales tax, it would have a devastating effect on our economy. Ask Canada and the U.K. about how popular the GST/VAT is. Don't forget, too, that a 20%+ sales tax will be in addition to any state or local sales taxes (ask Canadians about that too).

2) His social stances are, again, rather abhorrent. Treating issues of civil rights as issues of "states' rights" hark back to the days of slave versus free states, and, in the 20th century, states with racial segregation laws. No, I don't think Ron Paul wants to reinstitute either specifically, but when Paul states that the states should be able to determine their own level of civil rights, it is literally no different when 19th century U.S. President John Tyler advocated that a state's "free" or "slave" status should be determined at the state level, with no input from the federal government.

In short, despite the marketing, Paul is not progressive at all. He is probably the most reactionary of all the candidates in this election--Huckabee included. Sure, I am personally quite interested in a candidate who would be serious about cutting spending, balancing budgets, preserving individual freedom, etc., but Paul is most definitely not the right man for this job. His specific stances do not live up to the hype whatsoever.

Here's hoping that a future election can someday find a candidate that takes the spirit of Ron Paul with actual substance behind it.
Saying that Paul goes against "mainstream economists" is an easy cop out. The greatest economists of all time such as Smith, Hayek, Mises, and Friedman would all be in the same boat with Paul. What is "mainstream" anyway?


Doesn't Canada have an income tax along with a national sales tax?
Ron Paul wishes to end the Income tax and replace it with nothing. He may be open to a national sales tax but 20%!? I don't think so.



The response to states rights is uninformed. States rights form one of the bases of our government. The Civil Rights Act was even opposed by Martin Luther King. As soon as he was assassinated, guess what, we got a Civil Rights Act. The movement for "civil rights" was about revolutionary change in hearts and minds, not by allowing the government to dictate what property owners did with their own property. We can't agree with everyone, and not one is entitled to have something that is owned privately by someone else. Racism is a behavior, while property rights is an "inalienable right" another basis to our country.
Do you think states today would elect for racist policies? If so, then on what basis? Allowing private landowners to decide whatever they wish with their own property is not encouraging racism it encourages right to ownership. Blacks have the same right.
What if you decide that you don't want to allow any Russian immigrants into your home or business? Ridiculous yes, but who knows you may have your own personal reasons. Who can argue with you? Its your home and you can decide who you invite into your home or business, but if the government said that you had to allow Russians entry into your home or business because it was a federal law then wouldn't you feel a bit violated? It is the first analogy I could pull out of my ass, but simply, it is the principle of property rights and self determination that formed a basis for the the opposition to civil rights laws. The government can't legislate racist behaviour or force morality (it tries), it can only enforce individual rights, property rights, and states rights. The federal government overstepped itself and stepped on the states right to decide how they handle the issues by the electing populous within the state.
__________________
gherman is offline  
Old 01-06-2008, 01:34 PM   #195
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gherman

Do you think states today would elect for racist policies? If so, then on what basis?
Have you ever heard of Mississippi? Do you really know anything about the modern history of the American South?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com