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

[Infinity]

I'm intrigued by this too. I can only assume it's bias against the conservative.

 

[Infinity]

No, it's not. I'm perfectly fine with leaving a title to states. He's already taken care of the civil rights aspect of it at that point.

Okay, so since it is just a "title," why can't he just have a federal legalization of gay marriage??? Aren't all of us equal???? What if I were to say that I support civil unions for Asians, but they shouldn't have the title of "marriage." Of course it is discriminatory.

 

[phillyfan26]

I don't agree with it, if that's what you want me to say.

But leaving a title up to the states and leaving civil rights up to states are not comparable.

 

[Infinity]

I don't agree with it, if that's what you want me to say.

But leaving a title up to the states and leaving civil rights up to states are not comparable.

Yea, its not comparable. But it is still discriminatory. But the point I was trying to make is that all of the candidates, except Dennis Kucinich discriminate against gays. And all of the Republicans are more discriminatory than Ron Paul is.

 

[martha]

Maybe Dennis Kucinich. Since you care about this issue so much, and you said earlier that gay equality is more important than taxes or war, you should support him.

Which is who I've said I'm voting for. Repeatedly.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yea, its not comparable. But it is still discriminatory. But the point I was trying to make is that all of the candidates, except Dennis Kucinich discriminate against gays. And all of the Republicans are more discriminatory than Ron Paul is.

You're missing the point entirely.

You seem to think that Paul's OK because there are other people discriminating out there.

Bullshit.

Obama's "discrimination" (I barely think that title applies, especially considering the real discrimination out there) is NOTHING compared to the idea that CIVIL RIGHTS should be left up to states.

 

[phillyfan26]

By the way, Obama's quote:

Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

 

[Infinity]

You're missing the point entirely.

You seem to think that Paul's OK because there are other people discriminating out there.

Bullshit.

Obama's "discrimination" (I barely think that title applies, especially considering the real discrimination out there) is NOTHING compared to the idea that CIVIL RIGHTS should be left up to states.

No, I didn't say Paul is okay because there are others discriminating. I'm saying that everyone acts like he is the only one who is discriminatory, yet most of the candidates except Dennis, discrimante. And Hillary has the exact same position as him. And all of the other Republican candidates have much more radically conservative positions on this issue than him.

And about the Civil Rights issue. His position is often misunderstood. His whole point is that we shouldn't classify people in groups and everyone should be looked at as an individual. So he does not support something that says "blacks and whites should be allowed to use the same buses, water fountains, etc."

He would instead support something like "all people should be allowed to use these buses, water fountains, etc."

His main goal is that we shouldn't look at people by the color of their skin, by their religion, by their sex, by their race, etc. He has repeatedly said this and I think he is the candidate that most cares about individual liberties and not classifying people by groups. Twist it around any way you want, but he cares about individual liberty more than anything.

 

[Infinity]

Which is who I've said I'm voting for. Repeatedly.

I know that. I was telling phillyfan that he should vote for him. But I read on one of the threads that you are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. But what if the Democratic candidate is Hillary or Barack? You just said in this thread that you won't vote for anyone who is discriminatory. So does that mean you won't vote at all? Or are you still going to vote Democratic? Even if the candidate is Hillary Clinton, who has the same position on gay marriage as Ron Paul does. Just curious.

 

[BVS]

Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

And I completely agree with Obama on this. You can't force church's to marry who they don't want to. But whatever it's called; civil union or marriage has to be equal under the law and society. Which I think is probably the most equal of all the stances.

Whereas Paul has actually supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which isn't even close to equality.

 

[BVS]

I'm intrigued by this too. I can only assume it's bias against the conservative.

Yeah, that's exactly what it is...

It's awful how you are so discriminated against.

 

[martha]

I know that. I was telling phillyfan that he should vote for him. But I read on one of the threads that you are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. But what if the Democratic candidate is Hillary or Barack? You just said in this thread that you won't vote for anyone who is discriminatory. So does that mean you won't vote at all? Or are you still going to vote Democratic? Even if the candidate is Hillary Clinton, who has the same position on gay marriage as Ron Paul does. Just curious.

I really do think I would vote for the Devil himself as a Democrat before I'd vote for any of the Republicans running this time.

 

[martha]

Twist it around any way you want, but he cares about individual liberty more than anything.

With
one
glaring
exception.

 

[Diemen]

I know that. I was telling phillyfan that he should vote for him. But I read on one of the threads that you are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. But what if the Democratic candidate is Hillary or Barack? You just said in this thread that you won't vote for anyone who is discriminatory. So does that mean you won't vote at all? Or are you still going to vote Democratic? Even if the candidate is Hillary Clinton, who has the same position on gay marriage as Ron Paul does. Just curious.

I'm not Martha, but I'll answer this for myself. While there are still many candidates out there, I will vote for the one I think best supports the issues I find important and the one who I think has the best chance of winning. Out of all the candidates out there, none of the Republicans beat any of the Democratic candidates as far as supporting the issues I find important. At this stage, my vote is not with Hillary.

If it ends up that Hillary is the official nominee, I will still vote for her, because in contrast the number of views I support that she does as well is still a lot more than the Republican candidate. Would I want to vote for someone who perpetuates discrimination. No. But considering the alternative would be far worse, it's a choice I'd have to make.

As far as you trying to make an issue about Obama being discriminatory - under his policy homosexual couples would have all the same rights afforded to them by the government as heterosexual couples receive, but they may or may not be called marriages (and Obama justifies his position quite well with regards to religious denominations). Under Ron Paul's policy, homosexual couples will undoubtedly be denied those rights in some states, hence perpetuating real discrimination. That is a huge difference.

 

[Diemen]

Who's doing the twisting now?

Twist it around any way you want, but he cares about individual* liberty more than anything.

*provided you're heterosexual

 

[financeguy]

As far as you trying to make an issue about Obama being discriminatory - under his policy homosexual couples would have all the same rights afforded to them by the government as heterosexual couples receive, but they may or may not be called marriages (and Obama justifies his position quite well with regards to religious denominations). Under Ron Paul's policy, homosexual couples will undoubtedly be denied those rights in some states, hence perpetuating real discrimination. That is a huge difference.

Barack Obama broke bread with Rev Donnie McClurkin for heavens' sakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DONNIE_MCCLURKIN#Views_on_homosexuality

Quotes from Barack Obama's associate Donnie McClurkin:-

"The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity."[7]

He then describes himself as going through a process by which he became "a saved and sanctified man". McClurkin has stated that homosexuality is a curse.[4] "



Gimme a fucking break.

 

[financeguy]

Yeah, that's exactly what it is...

It's awful how you are so discriminated against.

Discriminated against? No, but true conservatives are certainly in the minority these days. Ron Paul as I see it is the only conservative standing in this election.

 

[BVS]

Quotes from Barack Obama's associate Donnie McClurkin:-

"The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity."[7]

He then describes himself as going through a process by which he became "a saved and sanctified man". McClurkin has stated that homosexuality is a curse.[4] "



Gimme a fucking break.

Barack also distanced himself from those comments. If we're going to go back to, "see who this person hangs out with" Paul would lose hands down. So let's actually stick with their own platforms and not who they hang out with...

 

[BVS]

Ron Paul as I see it is the only conservative standing in this election.

You don't think he's more libertarian than conservative?

 

[financeguy]

Barack also distanced himself from those comments. If we're going to go back to, "see who this person hangs out with" Paul would lose hands down. So let's actually stick with their own platforms and not who they hang out with...

He still has him working for him in some way shape or form.

Show me a racist or homophobe that is currently working - right now - with Ron Paul and playing a prominent part in his campaign, as McClurkin is with Obama's.

And no, David Duke being seen in the same neighboorhood as Ron Paul twenty years ago doesn't count.

 

[financeguy]

You don't think he's more libertarian than conservative?

Nah, I think he's a paleo-lib/'old rightist'. I agree with Melon on this.

 

[financeguy]

By the way, I do concede that Ron Paul has questions to answer regarding those newsletters sent out in his name.

At this point in time, he has not addressed them satisfactorily and in my own personal opinion this raises serious and valid questions over whether he is fit to be President of a multicultural society like the US.

It's a pity, because I thought he was going to make a big impact.

So at this point in time, if I had a vote which of course I don't, I probably would not vote for Ron Paul.

 

[BVS]

He still has him working for him in some way shape or form.

But he isn't creating platform or shaping legislation, he's just a freakin gospel singer.

Show me a racist or homophobe that is currently working - right now - with Ron Paul and playing a prominent part in his campaign, as McClurkin is with Obama's.

Well apparently the guy he allows to write in his book and claim for his own.

He's a little closer associated than a gospel singer on tour with Obama...

 

[martha]

It still bugs me that that Donnie guy gets the time of day from Obama, much less on tour with him.

 

[BVS]

By the way, I do concede that Ron Paul has questions to answer regarding those newsletters sent out in his name.

At this point in time, he has not addressed them satisfactorily and in my own personal opinion this raises serious and valid questions over whether he is fit to be President of a multicultural society like the US.

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

No, I didn't say Paul is okay because there are others discriminating. I'm saying that everyone acts like he is the only one who is discriminatory, yet most of the candidates except Dennis, discrimante. And Hillary has the exact same position as him. And all of the other Republican candidates have much more radically conservative positions on this issue than him.

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.

And about the Civil Rights issue. His position is often misunderstood. His whole point is that we shouldn't classify people in groups and everyone should be looked at as an individual. So he does not support something that says "blacks and whites should be allowed to use the same buses, water fountains, etc."

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

He would instead support something like "all people should be allowed to use these buses, water fountains, etc."

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?

His main goal is that we shouldn't look at people by the color of their skin, by their religion, by their sex, by their race, etc. He has repeatedly said this and I think he is the candidate that most cares about individual liberties and not classifying people by groups. Twist it around any way you want, but he cares about individual liberty more than anything.

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

 

[Infinity]

And I completely agree with Obama on this. You can't force church's to marry who they don't want to. But whatever it's called; civil union or marriage has to be equal under the law and society. Which I think is probably the most equal of all the stances.

Whereas Paul has actually supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which isn't even close to equality.

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.

 

[Infinity]

With
one
glaring
exception.

I don't think you remember, we talked about this last month. In the eyes of pro-life people, a fetus, especially late term one deserves liberty too. Maybe not in your eyes.

 

[Infinity]

I'm not Martha, but I'll answer this for myself. While there are still many candidates out there, I will vote for the one I think best supports the issues I find important and the one who I think has the best chance of winning. Out of all the candidates out there, none of the Republicans beat any of the Democratic candidates as far as supporting the issues I find important. At this stage, my vote is not with Hillary.

If it ends up that Hillary is the official nominee, I will still vote for her, because in contrast the number of views I support that she does as well is still a lot more than the Republican candidate. Would I want to vote for someone who perpetuates discrimination. No. But considering the alternative would be far worse, it's a choice I'd have to make.

As far as you trying to make an issue about Obama being discriminatory - under his policy homosexual couples would have all the same rights afforded to them by the government as heterosexual couples receive, but they may or may not be called marriages (and Obama justifies his position quite well with regards to religious denominations). Under Ron Paul's policy, homosexual couples will undoubtedly be denied those rights in some states, hence perpetuating real discrimination. That is a huge difference.

I know its a huge difference, I said it earlier. But it is still discrimination. The only person on either side who is truly fair and equal about the gay marriage issue is Dennis Kucinich.

 

[Infinity]

By the way, I do concede that Ron Paul has questions to answer regarding those newsletters sent out in his name.

At this point in time, he has not addressed them satisfactorily and in my own personal opinion this raises serious and valid questions over whether he is fit to be President of a multicultural society like the US.

It's a pity, because I thought he was going to make a big impact.

So at this point in time, if I had a vote which of course I don't, I probably would not vote for Ron Paul.

Yea Wolf Blitzer questioned him about those newsletters on his show and he had full response, I saw it on a yahoo video, but it had no link so I couldn't post it, if I find it, i'll post it.