MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul - Page 23 - 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 01-12-2008, 12:00 AM   #331
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


Actually, it just seems that way when you go into every thread talking about Ron Paul, raving about Ron Paul, commenting on Ron Paul, looking for mentions about Ron Paul, and spinning every other candidates' actions into Ron Paul.
Well as a Ron Paul fan I feel I have to, especially since the media is so biased against him. I don't spin every other candidate's actions into Ron Paul. I've said positive things about Barack Obama, since I like him. But i'm glad now people realize that he's actually the most liberal out of all the Republicans on the gay rights issue.
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 12:05 AM   #332
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


But then why won't he give civil rights to gays if he's so anti-classification?

Well isn't every candidate for equal rights? Yet most of them don't believe gays should have equal marriage rights as straights. As Diemin said before, and I agree with him, I vote for the person that best fits all my issues, there is no candidate that 100% fits my views, and I don't think anybody's candidate of choice is like that. All I can say is that he atleast wants to leave gay marriage issues to the states. Which by the way, marriage issues have been decided by the states historically anyway. At least Ron Paul is not taking steps to "not recognize" gay marriage as McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, and especially Romney (who wants a federal ban on gay marriage) are.

I think if gay marriage was the biggest issue with me, i'd be voting for Dennis Kucinich.
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 12:08 AM   #333
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


Uh ... I'm having a hard time coming up with a response to this. Uh ... good? I mean that's like saying, "He would support all children going to school." How is that noteworthy?
For example, he wouldn't give minorities special rights in college applications, he thinks all students should have equal rights. Or he wouldn't have classified hate crimes. Or he wouldn't discriminate against gays serving in the military. I meant to say he looks at individual liberties.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 12:14 AM   #334
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


And to be honest this has really been my point all along. He just has too many questionable remarks coming out of his mouth, but not really . And yes in society we do sometimes judge people by a few quotes, but his record has gone beyond just a few quotes. I don't know if he's a bigot or not, from what I've seen I would say, yes, but I don't know for sure. And like you said, this brings up questions as to if he's fit to be the President of the U.S.
I understand. I am going to try to find this video of him from Wolf Blitzer. And I would agree that it was stupid of him to let those things get into his book without him reviewing it. But honestly, do you really think that any Presidential candidate would want that in their book, even if they are racist? Why would they do such a thing that would definitely hurt their chances in getting elected. Anyway, if I believe that he was really racist, I wouldn't vote for him since his racist can effect me, since i'm a minority. But i'll try to find that video of him.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 01:04 AM   #335
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: 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
I meant to say he looks at individual liberties.
Except for full-grown women. Their liberties are secondary to whatever "liberties" a collection of cells might have.

How can a guy claim to be for "small government" yet think the government has a say in a women's medical decisions? I really can't figure that one out.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 03:07 AM   #336
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Kucinich is the most equal. Obama is second. Hillary and Ron Paul are tied for third. And the rest of the Republicans are fourth.

So Paul isn't as bad as the other ones.
Well I haven't actually looked deeply into Kucinich's plan, but I know he stands for gay marriage. That's great, but you can't force churches to perform marriages they don't want to...

So here comes all the grey!!!

And honestly so far Obama's is the most equal I've seen.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-12-2008, 03:12 AM   #337
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


I understand. I am going to try to find this video of him from Wolf Blitzer. And I would agree that it was stupid of him to let those things get into his book without him reviewing it. But honestly, do you really think that any Presidential candidate would want that in their book, even if they are racist? Why would they do such a thing that would definitely hurt their chances in getting elected. Anyway, if I believe that he was really racist, I wouldn't vote for him since his racist can effect me, since i'm a minority. But i'll try to find that video of him.
Come on, that's a huge thing... how can you take it so easy?

Many bigots have ran for office, why do you think he's different?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-12-2008, 03:28 AM   #338
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Except for full-grown women. Their liberties are secondary to whatever "liberties" a collection of cells might have.

How can a guy claim to be for "small government" yet think the government has a say in a women's medical decisions? I really can't figure that one out.
Do you have short term memory loss? We just had this argument last month. A fetus in late term is not a collection of cells, just in case you didn't know, but you'll probably forget in a month. Secondly, THE LIBERTIES OF A WOMAN ARE NOT SECONDARY SINCE THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF THE WOMAN COME BEFORE THE LIFE OF THE FETUS. SO, SINCE MOST LAWMAKERS AGREE THAT IN A CASE OF THE THREAT TO THE WOMAN'S LIFE, ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED, THE LIFE OF THE FETUS IS SECONDARY.

Third, let me explain this to you: YOU MAY NOT BELIEVE THAT A FETUS DESERVES LIBERTY, BUT SOME PEOPLE DO, SUCH AS RON PAUL.

I know you are not going to agree with me, and I won't agree with you. You are asking me why a person believes in liberty for all is pro-life. And I told you why he believes that. You don't believe that a fetus deserves liberty, he does and that is why he is pro-life.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 03:33 AM   #339
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well I haven't actually looked deeply into Kucinich's plan, but I know he stands for gay marriage. That's great, but you can't force churches to perform marriages they don't want to...

So here comes all the grey!!!

And honestly so far Obama's is the most equal I've seen.
It is not about forcing a church to perform marriage. It is about legally giving the title of "married" to gay couples. So a church may not perform the marriage, but full equality means that allowing gays to gain the title of "marriage" in the legal sense. Nobody is forcing the church to do anything.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 03:49 AM   #340
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


It is not about forcing a church to perform marriage. It is about legally giving the title of "married" to gay couples. So a church may not perform the marriage, but full equality means that allowing gays to gain the title of "marriage" in the legal sense. Nobody is forcing the church to do anything.
Yeah you didn't look at the whole post did you?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-12-2008, 03:51 AM   #341
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Come on, that's a huge thing... how can you take it so easy?

Many bigots have ran for office, why do you think he's different?
Because his platform is about liberty and equality for all. I'm sure bigots who have ran for office had racist platforms and were obvious bigots. For example, like that guy who ran whose platform was to return to white supremacy. Ron Paul's platform is nothing to do with racism. Further, if you look at his policies through the years, you can see they were all for equality and in many cases, he has stuck up for the black community. As in the case of the war on drugs. He wants to end the war on drugs, which would be positive news for African Americans involved in drugs. He has also brought up on numerous occassions that it is unjust that ratio of the # African Americans who go to jail to the # of African Americans who go on trial is much higher then that of White Americans and is statistcally significant. He claims that MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi are his heros because they preferred non-violent means of protesting the government, and they all happen to be minorities. Also, there is a video of him saying that he used to be a Barack Obama supporter. I don't know if he meant Barack for President or Barack for Senate, but he has said he supported him.

Another thing is about the war on terror issue, i'm not saying that any of the other candidates are racist, but Ron Paul is against policing the Middle East (and the rest of the world). If he is for white supremacy, I don't think he would fight this hard against policing the Middle East and against the War in Iraq. Now, i'm in no way saying that people who are pro-war are racist against Muslims. But there are people who are pro-war simply because they hate Muslims. And in the last debate, Ron Paul challenged Rudy Giuliani saying that Rudy was grouping all the Muslims as terrorists. Whether he was right or wrong, he did stick up for Muslims.

From what i've seen, heard and read about Ron Paul, I truly don't believe he is racist. I truly believe that he believes in liberty and equality, just like every other candidate. So to answer your question, I think he is different becuase of all the things I know about him and he is serious about issues that matter to me and many others such as America's policing of the world. He believes in tax cuts for all and argues heavily that inflation hurts the middle class more than anyone. You don't normally see a Republican sticking up for the middle class. So looking at his platform, I believe he cares for all people, whether middle class, white, black, Muslim, Iraqi, or anyone.

Speaking of Racism, I don't know if I heard correctly in the last debate, but when Ron Paul and John McCain were talking about free trade with the Middle East, didn't John McCain say something like "the only thing that al-Qaeda wants to trade with us are burkhas," with a chuckle? I think that was a pretty racist remark.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 03:52 AM   #342
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yeah you didn't look at the whole post did you?
Oh about Obama? Yes he is the most equal with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who wants to give the title of marriage to gays.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 05:41 AM   #343
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Because his platform is about liberty and equality for all.
I hate to belabor the point, but no, it is not. If his platform really was about liberty and equality for all, he wouldn't be leaving equal rights for homosexuals up to the states.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 06:31 AM   #344
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:19 AM
Actually, all this stuff Infintium has provided about Paul has been interesting and I agree for most practical purposes there's not much difference between him and the democrats on the position of gay marriage.

But I won't be voting for him and here's why.

1. I think the taxes thing is a conservative/libertarian wet dream.
The way he wants to incorporate it is dangerous, in my opinion, abolishing taxes on the theory that we will have sufficient revenue, when neither side shows any particular interest in cutting spending, the difference is where they intend to spend.
The President doesn't have sufficient pull to control Congressional spending. But, in the event it could work, I would work the other way around--cut the spending (and there is enough unnecessary spending going around without willy-nilly cutting programs that may help people). I'd pay down this monstrous debt we're saddled with. And then, when we have actually proven we are fiscally responsible, then maybe I would ease the transition by lowering taxes, holding, lowering again, monitoring as we go along perhaps with the ultimate but patient goal of abolishing taxes. (However, personally, I'm not for abolishing the income tax. I don't think the tax is the problem, the waste is) His position on a tax revolution is flawed.

2. While I think states rights are fine for some things, there is an inequity in basic human rights between state to state. Texas will always execute more people than, say, Pennsylvania (although it appears we will be having an execution shortly as the governor recently signed a death warrant) and definitely more than New Jersey. And Infintium hasn't given me really any evidence that Paul will seek to abolish the death penalty completely, although I believe he thought he was (Paul does take the position the federal death penalty should be abolished). The federal government isn't all-wise, the states certainly aren't and leaving some things in the hands of the state is tantamount to denying rights.

3. Affirmative action may be legalized discrimination. But nonprotection is de facto discrimination. The pragmatic US motto is "All men are created equal, but some are created more equal than others". We have seen in our past what occurs when there are not legislative protections. Those legislative protections came into being because they were necessary (although you can make an argument they could be better implemented.) Case by case, you can call what Paul proposes equal, but when it comes out in the wash, we will still have those who are let in and those who are left out and it will have nothing to do with their abilities and everything to do with a comfort factor and perceptions. What Paul calls equality, I call sanctioned freedom to discriminate. Perhaps he has a higher faith in people than I do.
But people will do what they can do. What discrimination we've ended has come when the government finally said "You can't."
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-12-2008, 01:07 PM   #345
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: 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
he does and that is why he is pro-life.
And he's full of shit when he (and you) say that he's for "liberty." When the state gets to decide when a woman has a child or not, THAT'S NOT LIBERTY!!
__________________

__________________
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 01:19 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