MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul - Page 26 - 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 01-13-2008, 11:16 AM   #376
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:46 PM
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:

__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 11:18 AM   #377
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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:

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?
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 11:21 AM   #378
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:46 PM
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.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 12:28 PM   #379
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 05:28 PM   #380
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 06:38 PM   #381
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:46 PM
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.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-13-2008, 09:12 PM   #382
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:46 AM
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.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 03:48 AM   #383
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


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.
__________________
nathan1977 is online now  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:31 AM   #384
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
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.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 07:38 AM   #385
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


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.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 02:54 PM   #386
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
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.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 03:31 PM   #387
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


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.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 03:36 PM   #388
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:46 PM
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.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 03:47 PM   #389
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 03:48 PM   #390
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
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.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 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 01:46 PM.


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