MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul - Page 22 - 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 01-14-2008, 10:17 PM   #421
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 10:15 PM
no it would not be immoral. Whether or not they have the title, they would have all the same rights that a married couple would have.

I have to admit it's getting pretty tiresome watching you dance around the issue. You misspoke. Ron Paul is not for equality. Whether or not the other candidates are equal, better than, or worse than Paul is besides the point. Ron Paul is not for equality under the law. Kucinich and Obama are - they would give equal rights, which is what the law is supposed to provide.

You have lost this fight. Accept it and move on already.
__________________

Diemen is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:19 PM   #422
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


It's like talking to a brick wall, honestly.

I could have said the same about you.
__________________

Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:21 PM   #423
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
I could have said the same about you.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:23 PM   #424
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:15 PM


All those posts where you kept insisting that Paul and Clinton's stance is the same as everyone else's, and then I having to continuously explain that it is not the same...yea like talking to a brick wall.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:24 PM   #425
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:15 PM
I never insisted that Paul and Clinton's stances are the same as everyone else's, though!

I just said that the differences are minor!

You're the one who refused to read my posts!
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:28 PM   #426
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
no it would not be immoral. Whether or not they have the title, they would have all the same rights that a married couple would have.

I have to admit it's getting pretty tiresome watching you dance around the issue. You misspoke. Ron Paul is not for equality. Whether or not the other candidates are equal, better than, or worse than Paul is besides the point. Ron Paul is not for equality under the law. Kucinich and Obama are - they would give equal rights, which is what the law is supposed to provide.

You have lost this fight. Accept it and move on already.
Lost what fight? I don't think you've noticed, but i've never insisted that Ron Paul is for total equality of gays and straights. And the times i've said he was for equal rights, it has been in response to comments about race. But now since you mentioned it, I will say that all the candidates (except Kucinich) are for equality of all, not including gays.

And while Obama's position is progress, you can't say that they would have equal rights, since they would not have the right to call themselves "married" like everyone else would. If we took away the rights of all African Americans to call themselves "married," they sure as hell would be upset, call it immoral, and call it unequal.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:29 PM   #427
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


All those posts where you kept insisting that Paul and Clinton's stance is the same as everyone else's, and then I having to continuously explain that it is not the same...yea like talking to a brick wall.


Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Romney has an absolutely worse position
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
It IS more conservative than Paul's or Clinton's. I addressed this a while ago.
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
I have said over and over and over that YES, he's "more liberal" on the issue than some of the other Republicans.
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
It's not exactly the same.
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Yes. I'll even write it clearly: Ron Paul does not have the same views as the rest of the Republicans.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:29 PM   #428
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
I never insisted that Paul and Clinton's stances are the same as everyone else's, though!

I just said that the differences are minor!

You're the one who refused to read my posts!
Did you not look at your chart? It implied everyone except Obama and Kucinich are the same in their position.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:31 PM   #429
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:15 PM
My chart stated that everyone but Obama and Kucinich fail to guarantee equal rights for everyone.

I cannot have made this any clearer if I tried.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:35 PM   #430
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
I will say that all the candidates... are for equality of all, not including gays.
This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You seriously need to get off this compulsion to talk about Ron Paul's pro-equality stance.

Once again, I will repeat. You are either for equality for all, or you're not. You can't be for equality, except the gays. If that's your stance, then you are not for equality!
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:40 PM   #431
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 07:15 PM
Quote:
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment

Paul Joseph Watson

Sunday, January 13, 2008


Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder. "Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.
deep is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 11:01 PM   #432
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
no it would not be immoral. Whether or not they have the title, they would have all the same rights that a married couple would have.
Except the right to claim the *legal status* "married," which for many opponents of gay marriage would appear to be what their opposition most boils down to. Promoting civil unions as an alternative is a concession to those folks, no matter how you slice it.

I do think this phase of the thread has passed its sell-by date, though...might be best to call it a day for now.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 11:52 PM   #433
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Except the right to claim the *legal status* "married," which for many opponents of gay marriage would appear to be what their opposition most boils down to. Promoting civil unions as an alternative is a concession to those folks, no matter how you slice it.
Exactly, that is what i've been trying to say.

Quote:
I do think this phase of the thread has passed its sell-by date, though...might be best to call it a day for now.
I agree.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-14-2008, 11:56 PM   #434
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CherokeeRose
Austin NAACP Defends Ron Paul
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 04:42 AM   #435
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:15 PM
I am surprised that he doesn't have more support here
Quote:
The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.


December 30, 2003
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 11:10 AM   #436
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God
Well, that's not factual, otherwise...
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 11:20 AM   #437
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Well, that's not factual, otherwise...


could you show me where it says "God."

i seen intentionally vague references to a "creator" but nothing so specific as to name the Judeo-Christian God.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 12:54 PM   #438
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




could you show me where it says "God."

i seen intentionally vague references to a "creator" but nothing so specific as to name the Judeo-Christian God.
Please reread my post.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 12:56 PM   #439
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Please reread my post.


darn it. read too quickly.

fair enough.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 10:18 PM   #440
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Ron Paul, Dr. No-body, beats Rudy and Fred -- again
Well, he's hanging in there. Not only that, but Rep. Ron Paul thumped two reputed Republican heavyweights in the Michigan primary -- former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Who'd have predicted that a couple of months ago?

Giuliani, you may recall if you can remember anything as distant as last summer, was the longtime GOP national front-runner in polls. He ran strongly against everybody in his party, even former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won one last night, taking his home state from Sen. John McCain, who won there in 2000. Everybody wondered if anyone had a chance against the hero of 9/11, who defied standard Republican theocracy with his liberal social views.

But guess what? Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texas congressman and ob-gyn who delivers babies and a strict view of the Constitution, beat Giuliani in Michigan. And beat him good. Not only that ...

he doubled Giuliani's totals of 24,000 votes, or 2.8%, getting more than 52,000 votes, or 6.3%, of the total Republican ballots.

Paul even beat Thompson this time, the real consistent conservative who was supposed to be the next Ronald Reagan until he actually announced his campaign in September. Thompson got about 31,000 votes, or 3.7%, which is more than Rudy but still less than the nobody congressman with the libertarian views whom few people but his passionate partisans took seriously months ago. He's often called Dr. No for his consistent congressional votes against spending.

Paul was so written off that Fox News banned him from its recent debate in New Hampshire. Oops, now the Paulunteers are organizing a boycott of Fox sponsors in return for the snub, a move that Dennis Kucinich's fans are now calling for against MSNBC for barring him from Tuesday's Democratic debate in Las Vegas.

True, Romney killed all his Republican competitors in Michigan, as he had to, with more than 326,000 votes, nearly 39%, with McCain trailing at 29.7%, or 248,000. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee garnered less than half of Romney's votes, 135,000, or 16%.

And it's also true that Thompson and Giuliani didn't really campaign seriously in Michigan. Or New Hampshire. Or Iowa except for a last-minute Thompson bus tour. Obviously, both Giuliani and Thompson are intentionally laying back, trying to make the rest of the Republican field overconfident. No doubt.

Paul hasn't won anything yet, either, except the continued devotion of his followers and growing national attention, including two national TV appearances on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" plus a full hour on "Meet the Press." On Tuesday, Richard Viguerie, the noted conservative author, announced he's launching a website to support Paul. Viguerie called Paul "truly a principled conservative in the grand tradition of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan."

Paul just keeps picking up his 6% to 10% each time there's a vote. But Paul also beat Giuliani in Iowa. And he came pretty close to Giuliani in New Hampshire and did, in fact, beat Thompson there. And now in Michigan, Paul beat them both rather handily. He does it by going against virtually all the views of his GOP colleagues, including opposing the Iraq war.

Fueled by the generous donations of Paul believers, the congressman was probably the most successful GOP fundraiser in the fourth quarter, acquiring nearly $20 million then and, according to his website, more than $834,000 more so far this month. He's already launched an eight-state ad blitz and has been campaigning in recent days in South Carolina, where he has three offices and will return later this week, and across Nevada. He got skunked in Wyoming, where Romney won, but imagine if Paul scored big one day in the wild West, where many people believe government got too big about 100 years ago.

Paul's website and new campaign blog claim to have quietly organized more than 7,800 precinct captains around the country. Meantime, Giuliani's top staff is going unpaid this month to save dwindling funds. Is there a pattern here?

So, while the "front-running" Republicans each win one state and no one builds up a head of steam, Paul just keeps hanging around, like a bad cold. Some of the other Republican candidates should be careful, lest they get the sniffles one of these days.

-- Andrew Malcolm

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
__________________

Infinity 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 10:15 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
×