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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
phillyfan26 said:


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.

But to you they are unacceptable. Whether they are right or wrong, some people believe that gay marriage should be federally banned, others believe it should be up to the states, others believe that it should be federally legalized. So it is important that people are aware who is more conservative and more liberal on the position. What if it ends up being Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton? For someone whom gay marriage is the biggest issue would vote for Clinton because her position is more liberal than of Romney's. Even though they are all unacceptable to you, and if gay marriage is the biggest issue to you, if all their other positions were the same, you would then vote for Clinton over Romney. Why is that? Because Clinton's position is MORE liberal. It may be unacceptable to you, but then of course Romney's position is MORE unacceptable.

Again, let me use the gambling example. AND I'M IN NO WAY SAYING THAT GAMBLING AND GAY MARRIAGE ARE COMPARABLE. Personally, I think casinos should be allowed to operate in every state, and states shouldn't be able to ban casinos from opening business. So if there was a candidate who wanted a federal ban on gambling, and there was another one who wanted to leave the issue to the states, even though I don't love either of their positions, the guy who wants to leave it to the states is the position that is better for me and more acceptable, so I would choose him. It would be misinformative to say that both candidates are equally unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
No, they are unacceptable, not just to me. They just are. They are wrong. Those who believe gay marriage should be banned federally are wrong. Those who believe it should be up to states are wrong. It's not an opinion issue. It's an issue of acknowledging the facts or not.

If it's Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton, the gays are screwed for at least another four years.
 
You know Infinitum98, I'm glad that you're excited by a candidate, I'm happy that you're so willing to defend your choice for president, and that the man you are supporting is getting you to participate so much in the election process. It really and truly makes me happy when people get excited and participate, no matter what their leanings. It makes me feel that democracy has a chance.



BUT.

As I was reading a biography of Dr. King to my class, like I do every January, I thought of you. There is no way you, or anyone else, can justify a "states rights" platform and make anyone think it promotes civil rights. No way. Anyone who thinks so needs to study American history a little more, and really look closely at what went on before federal intervention. Look at how southern states were finally forced to integrate, look at the need for a federal anti-lynching law and why it took so long to get one, look at the voting rights issues, look at educational issues.

Really look. Because your naive insistence that the states will do the right thing has made you a gullible young person. I won't say what Paul's insistence has made him.
 
phillyfan26 said:
No, they are unacceptable, not just to me. They just are. They are wrong. Those who believe gay marriage should be banned federally are wrong. Those who believe it should be up to states are wrong. It's not an opinion issue. It's an issue of acknowledging the facts or not.

If it's Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton, the gays are screwed for at least another four years.

OKAY. But if it is Mitt vs. Hillary who would you vote for? Under Mitt no gays in any state would have any chance of getting married. Under Hillary, of course it wouldn't be perfect equal rights for gays, but it certainly would give more of a chance to gays to marry. You keep saying they are all unacceptable, okay, fine, but you won't admit that Mitt Romney's position is more conservative than Ron Paul's or Hillary Clinton's.
 
It IS more conservative than Paul's or Clinton's. I addressed this a while ago.

I'm saying it doesn't matter at all!

I'd vote for Hillary, as Romney's wrong on most issues.
 
martha said:
You know Infinitum98, I'm glad that you're excited by a candidate, I'm happy that you're so willing to defend your choice for president, and that the man you are supporting is getting you to participate so much in the election process. It really and truly makes me happy when people get excited and participate, no matter what their leanings. It makes me feel that democracy has a chance.



BUT.

As I was reading a biography of Dr. King to my class, like I do every January, I thought of you. There is no way you, or anyone else, can justify a "states rights" platform and make anyone think it promotes civil rights. No way. Anyone who thinks so needs to study American history a little more, and really look closely at what went on before federal intervention. Look at how southern states were finally forced to integrate, look at the need for a federal anti-lynching law and why it took so long to get one, look at the voting rights issues, look at educational issues.

Really look. Because your naive insistence that the states will do the right thing has made you a gullible young person. I won't say what Paul's insistence has made him.

Well said.

I wonder, what would've happened if the issue of civil rights for African Americans was left up to the states?
 
martha said:
You know Infinitum98, I'm glad that you're excited by a candidate, I'm happy that you're so willing to defend your choice for president, and that the man you are supporting is getting you to participate so much in the election process. It really and truly makes me happy when people get excited and participate, no matter what their leanings. It makes me feel that democracy has a chance.



BUT.

As I was reading a biography of Dr. King to my class, like I do every January, I thought of you. There is no way you, or anyone else, can justify a "states rights" platform and make anyone think it promotes civil rights. No way. Anyone who thinks so needs to study American history a little more, and really look closely at what went on before federal intervention. Look at how southern states were finally forced to integrate, look at the need for a federal anti-lynching law and why it took so long to get one, look at the voting rights issues, look at educational issues.

Really look. Because your naive insistence that the states will do the right thing has made you a gullible young person. I won't say what Paul's insistence has made him.

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm not saying that the position that the states get to choose is the right path to legalize gay marriage. I've admitted that Dennis Kucinich is the only one for total equality of gays and straights. You are missing the point in my posts. All I have been saying is that leaving it to the states is more liberal than federally banning gay marriage, while I have constantly admitted that federally legalizing gay marriage is more liberal than leaving it to the states. But at the same time, it should be worth noting that Ron Paul is the only Republican who doesn't want to take Federal action to limit or ban gay marriage, and who is the only Republican for full equality of gays and straights in the military.

But it comes down to what issues matter the most to the voter. For someone who's most important issue is gay marriage rights, obviously they will support Kucinich and if he doesn't get nominated they would support Obama, who supports civil unions even though he doesn't want to give the title of marriage to gays. And i'm not naive or gullible about it. I see the issue, and I see who is best for the issue of gay marriage legalization, and i'll say it again, it is Kucinich.

But for me, the most important issues are non-intervension and low taxes. And the only candidate that fits both those measures is Ron Paul. I wish there were other candidates like him, but there are not, so i'm doing the best I can to try to get him nominated and which is why i'm spending all this time talking about the gay marriage issue, even though it is not the most important issue to me.
 
Infinitum98 said:


Thanks for the kind words.

You're welcome. I meant them. Every word.


Infinitum98 said:

I'm not saying that the position that the states get to choose is the right path to legalize gay marriage.


Now, I'm not just talking about gay rights. I'm talking about civil rights, which includes gay rights. If you feel Ron Paul is worth voting for, then vote for him. I want you to participate. But don't give him credit where it is not due. That's all.
 
martha said:


Now, I'm not just talking about gay rights. I'm talking about civil rights, which includes gay rights. If you feel Ron Paul is worth voting for, then vote for him. I want you to participate. But don't give him credit where it is not due. That's all.

About the civil rights issue, he does not want to leave the states to decide whether segregation of races is allowed or not. Because that would be unconstitutional according to him since he is for individual equality on all levels, so he would definitely not allow any sort of segregation or discrimination based on race, like some people might think he would. So I think he really is for equal rights for all with the exception of the gay marriage issue that he wants to leave to the states. But then again, most of the candidates are also for equal rights for all with the exception of the gay marriage issue.
 
Infinitum98 said:
All I have been saying is that leaving it to the states is more liberal than federally banning gay marriage, while I have constantly admitted that federally legalizing gay marriage is more liberal than leaving it to the states.

Here's the thing:

I don't give a shit about liberal vs. conservative on this issue.

I don't care that Paul is "more liberal" than the worst option out there. I don't. It doesn't matter.

Paul's NOT for the civil rights and equality. Don't give me the BS line about him being better than the guys who are worse. I don't give a shit. He's not for civil rights and equality. Bottom line.
 
Infinitum98 said:
But then again, most of the candidates are also for equal rights for all with the exception of the gay marriage issue.

Why does this matter?

He's not and they're not. OK. He's not for equal rights.

Ron Paul's not for equal rights.
 
Infinitum98 said:
But then again, most of the candidates are also for equal rights for all with the exception of the gay marriage issue.

I wonder why Americans who waffle on this issue can't just look around them at the rest of the Western world, to countries which have gay marriage and haven't descended into some type of Soddom & Gomorrah and think "huh....maybe this thing works!"
 
anitram said:
I wonder why Americans who waffle on this issue can't just look around them at the rest of the Western world, to countries which have gay marriage and haven't descended into some type of Soddom & Gomorrah and think "huh....maybe this thing works!"

Because you're all going to hell, I imagine.
 
phillyfan26 said:


Here's the thing:

I don't give a shit about liberal vs. conservative on this issue.

I don't care that Paul is "more liberal" than the worst option out there. I don't. It doesn't matter.

Paul's NOT for the civil rights and equality. Don't give me the BS line about him being better than the guys who are worse. I don't give a shit. He's not for civil rights and equality. Bottom line.

Why does this matter?

He's not and they're not. OK. He's not for equal rights.

Ron Paul's not for equal rights.

I don't really care what side of the issue you are or if you give a shit or not. If you are going to say that Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage is the same as the rest of the Republicans, I will respond and correct you.
 
Austin NAACP Defends Ron Paul
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.
 
Infinitum98 said:
I don't really care what side of the issue you are or if you give a shit or not. If you are going to say that Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage is the same as the rest of the Republicans, I will respond and correct you.

:banghead:

What I am saying is ... the differences between him and the other Republicans are a moot point. Making it a states issue isn't substantial.

I have said over and over and over that YES, he's "more liberal" on the issue than some of the other Republicans.

Honestly, it's like you read everything I write and just repeat yourself anyway.
 
phillyfan26 said:


:banghead:

What I am saying is ... the differences between him and the other Republicans are a moot point. Making it a states issue isn't substantial.

I have said over and over and over that YES, he's "more liberal" on the issue than some of the other Republicans.

Honestly, it's like you read everything I write and just repeat yourself anyway.

You've said many times, including with your chart, that Paul's stance is unacceptable, so is the rest of the Republicans, and you've grouped them together as unacceptable. You have said that MANY times.
 
Infinitum98 said:
You've said many times, including with your chart, that Paul's stance is unacceptable, so is the rest of the Republicans, and you've grouped them together as unacceptable. You have said that MANY times.

What the fuck?

Of course I did. When did I deny this?

My post was addressing you telling me that I'm saying his policy is exactly the same. It's not exactly the same. But it's not substantially different. Both are unacceptable.

It's amazing that I've made over 40 posts in this thread and you have no clue what the hell I'm talking about.
 
phillyfan26 said:


What the fuck?

Of course I did. When did I deny this?

My post was addressing you telling me that I'm saying his policy is exactly the same. It's not exactly the same. But it's not substantially different. Both are unacceptable.

It's amazing that I've made over 40 posts in this thread and you have no clue what the hell I'm talking about.

Yes of course you did. THATS THE REASON WHY I'VE BEEN POSTING OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT PAUL DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME VIEWS AS THE REST OF THE REPUBLICANS.

You're point is that they are both unacceptable to you.

My point is that Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton's position on gay marriage is more liberal than the other Republicans.

I think we both proved our points, so lets just end it.
 
You have a point?

You keep posting that he does not have the same views.

Yes. I'll even write it clearly: Ron Paul does not have the same views as the rest of the Republicans.

We're past that? Good. You don't need to continually post it. Why? Because I understand it.

Now, my point, which is still continuing to sail over your head, is that, while Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton's position is "more liberal" and not the same as the other Republicans ... it's similar.

And it's not nearly different enough for me to not categorize it as unacceptable.

It's not unacceptable to me, as in my opinion. It's factually, morally, and intellectually unacceptable.
 
Infinitum98 said:


Yes because he is for individual liberty and equality,

I thought this was covered already. You are essentially lying here.

If you want to leave the civil rights of an entire class of people up to a vote, you are not for equality. Period.

So since Ron Paul really isn't for true equality, it would perhaps serve his and your interests better if you didn't constantly misrepresent him by claiming he is.
 
phillyfan26 said:


Now, my point, which is still continuing to sail over your head, is that, while Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton's position is "more liberal" and not the same as the other Republicans ... it's similar.

And it's not nearly different enough for me to not categorize it as unacceptable.

It's not unacceptable to me, as in my opinion. It's factually, morally, and intellectually unacceptable.

Okay, nothing is sailing over my head. I'm not going to agree or disagree with you when you say it is similar. Why? Because there is no way to quantify or characterize how similar or how different it is. And while Barack Obama's stance is DIFFERENT than Ron Paul's or Hillary Clinton's, in terms of TRUE equality, I would also call that immoral or unacceptable.
 
Diemen said:


I thought this was covered already. You are essentially lying here.

If you want to leave the civil rights of an entire class of people up to a vote, you are not for equality. Period.

So since Ron Paul really isn't for true equality, it would perhaps serve his and your interests better if you didn't constantly misrepresent him by claiming he is.

In that post I was replying to martha about the race issue. So Ron Paul and all the other candidates (except Dennis Kucinich) are for equality of all except in cases of gay marriage. Fair?


The reason why I keep saying "equality" even though nobody (except Kucinich) is for TRUE equality is that the average person tends to think that "equality for all" only has to do with race. So I don't want the average person to think that Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton or anyone else is racist. If you are going to accuse me or Ron Paul of lying, then I can also accuse Barack Obama of lying since he said just today on the campaign trail:

"All Democrats are for equality. All Democrats are for civil rights."

When the average person sees that a person is not for true equality, they automatically think: RACIST. It is sad that the average person doesn't think about gay equality in this case, but nonetheless, it is true. So basically, I don't want to mistaken the casual observer. So let me rephrase telling the whole truth:

Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are for true equality of all except in the case of gay marriage. The only candidate that is for TRUE equality of all is Dennis Kucinich.
 
Last edited:
Infinitum98 said:
Okay, nothing is sailing over my head. I'm not going to agree or disagree with you when you say it is similar. Why? Because there is no way to quantify or characterize how similar or how different it is. And while Barack Obama's stance is DIFFERENT than Ron Paul's or Hillary Clinton's, in terms of TRUE equality, I would also call that immoral or unacceptable.

It's like talking to a brick wall, honestly.

Absolutely you can talk about degrees of similarity. Obama has a similar policy to Kucinich, as both, at the core, are guaranteeing rights.

Paul has a similar policy to the other Republicans, as both, at the core, are not guaranteeing rights.

Guaranteeing rights is the issue.

AND, you cannot accuse Obama as immoral or unacceptable and call Paul "for equality" at the same time. You're on one side or the other.
 
Infinitum98 said:


In that post I was replying to martha about the race issue. So Ron Paul and all the other candidates (except Dennis Kucinich) are for equality of all except in cases of gay marriage. Fair?

You're either for it or not. None of this exception bullshit.

Kucinich and Obama are "for equality" (i.e.: guarantee of rights for everyone).
 
In that post I was replying to martha about the race issue. So Ron Paul and all the other candidates (except Dennis Kucinich) are for equality of all except in cases of gay marriage. Fair?

Sure. Though that certainly doesn't say much of Paul or the other candidates, so I don't know why you'd want to keep repeating it so often. Besides, as pfan pointed out, you can't be "for equality, except..." Equality is not equality unless everyone gets it.

Oh, I would add Obama to the exception, as he is for giving gays full rights under the law. How you can call that immoral or unacceptable is beyond me. He is giving them all the rights that everyone else has. The title of marriage is for religion to bestow.
 
Last edited:
Diemen said:


Sure. Though that certainly doesn't say much of Paul or the other candidates, so I don't know why you'd want to keep repeating it so often. Besides, as pfan pointed out, you can't be "for equality, except..." Equality is not equality unless everyone gets it.

Oh, I would add Obama to the exception, as he is for giving gays full rights under the law. How you can call that immoral or unacceptable is beyond me. He is giving them all the rights that everyone else has. The title of marriage is for religion to bestow.

The title of marriage is also under legal terms. And would it or would it not be immoral to give African Americans civil unions but not the right to call themselves married? It would be immoral, hence Obama's position is also immoral.
 
Back
Top Bottom