MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul - Page 20 - 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, 05:38 PM   #381
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 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, 08:12 PM   #382
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
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, 02:48 AM   #383
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 02:18 AM
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 offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 05:31 AM   #384
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 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, 06:38 AM   #385
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
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, 01:54 PM   #386
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 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, 02:31 PM   #387
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
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, 02:36 PM   #388
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 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, 02:47 PM   #389
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
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, 02:48 PM   #390
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 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  
Old 01-14-2008, 04:29 PM   #391
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


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.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 04:55 PM   #392
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 PM
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.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 05:07 PM   #393
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:18 PM
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.
martha is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:16 PM   #394
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
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.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:18 PM   #395
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 PM
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.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:27 PM   #396
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
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?
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:29 PM   #397
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
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.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:46 PM   #398
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Thanks for the kind words.
You're welcome. I meant them. Every word.


Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98

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 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 07:14 PM   #399
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


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.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 07:17 PM   #400
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
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.
__________________

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 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×