BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Infinitum98 said:
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.
Infinitum98 said:
Having said all of that, gay marriage is not that important of an issue to me either. And I stand by Ron Paul.
Infinitum98 said:
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.
"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
namkcuR said: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.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well if you support state's rights you open it up to that...
Infinitum98 said: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.
phillyfan26 said:
So, war and money are more important than civil rights?
BonosSaint said: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.
Infinitum98 said:
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.
melon said: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.
gherman said:
Do you think states today would elect for racist policies? If so, then on what basis?
gherman said:but simply, it is the principle of property rights and self determination that formed a basis for the the opposition to civil rights laws.
gherman said:The Civil Rights Act was even opposed by Martin Luther King.
financeguy said:It appears that some liberals do actually have a big problem with democracy when the results don't suit them.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Care to elaborate?
financeguy said:
For example, opposition to allowing states how best to regulate their own affairs.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But what does it have to do with liberals? We've seen states regulate their own affairs and allow gay marriage and conservatives started asking for a federal ammendment banning it...
So once again your attempt to corner liberals fails.
financeguy said:
For example, opposition to allowing states how best to regulate their own affairs.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But what does it have to do with liberals? We've seen states regulate their own affairs and allow gay marriage and conservatives started asking for a federal ammendment banning it...
So once again your attempt to corner liberals fails.
Irvine511 said:
this is a perfect example.
conservatives seem to hate the federal government, unless they can use it to impose their own sense of morality on others. why does someone in Mississippi care what goes on in regards to marriage laws in Massachusetts -- unless we're going to fess up to the truth that the label "conservative" is meaningless, and that the Republican Party is nothing more than a religious organization at present and they fully embrace big spending, big budget Christianism whenever they can.
I'm guessing you're confusing JFK with MLK here. Kennedy was assassinated before the Civil Rights Act was passed, and had definitely been dragging his feet over it (though not on account of his beliefs about property rights); King was assassinated almost 4 years after the Civil Rights Act passed, and while he saw its guarantees as inadequate to address African-Americans' socioeconomic situation and worried (correctly) that its passage might cause many Movement supporters to think "mission accomplished" and move on, he certainly didn't oppose it.gherman said: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.
Of course it encouraged racism...where on earth are you getting this portrait of the segregated South from? Why do you suppose that, oh, pretty much every white business owner just happened to share the same "ridiculous" sentiments as all the rest when it came to allowing black people in their stores and restaurants, on their buses and in their schools? How many Southern blacks do you suppose had access to enough capital, education and for that matter personal safety to exercise that same "right"? Why did the incidence of white-on-black lynchings, beatings, and arson shoot back up when the Civil Rights Movement moved into full swing--you think the Klan was just tweaked about their property rights being infringed upon? Have you ever read prosegregationist literature from the '50s and '60s? Its tonic chord wasn't property rights and individual freedom, it was protecting 'our Anglo-Saxon Christian heritage' from the threatening horde of blacks, atheists and Commie Jews massing at the gate. How many black and white Southerners old enough to remember those times have you actually talked to about how things worked back then?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...simply, it is the principle of property rights and self determination that formed a basis for the the opposition to civil rights laws...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.
Infinitum98 said:Well you can't count Ron Paul as one of those conservatives can you? That is if he actually said he wants to leave gay marriage to state's rights. I know that he is for equality of gays and straights in the military. So these two points are already much more liberal than the rest of his party.
financeguy said:For example, opposition to allowing states how best to regulate their own affairs.
melon said:Perhaps its no wonder that the only people who seem to support him are straight white men.
gherman said: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.