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

[BVS]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

Well if you support state's rights you open it up to that...

"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

It's ridiculous to think that Ron says, "Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters...using it's own local standards." but wouldn't allow them to use it's own local standards for segregation or gay marriage.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think there was an instance in which he said something similar to what BVS quoted, something about how state's rights were more important than laws on segregation. I'll have to look into it.

 

[namkcuR]

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.

 

[Infinity]

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.

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.

 

[Infinity]

Well if you support state's rights you open it up to that...

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

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.

So, war and money are more important than civil rights?

 

[BonosSaint]

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.

 

[Infinity]

So, war and money are more important than civil rights?

First of all, it is not as though Ron Paul opposes gay marriage. He just wants to leave the decision to the states. That is already a more liberal position than most or all of the Republican candidates. And tell me, how many of the Democrat candidates support a federal legalisation of gay marriage? Politicians all across America have all different positions on gay rights and gay marriage.

Secondly, I can ask you the same thing, is gay rights more important than all the bloodshed going on in Iraq?

Third, yes an end to the war in Iraq and me paying less money to the government are the most important issues to me. More important than gay rights. I don't think there is any candidate that is absolutely perfect for anybody. Like I said, if Ron Paul supported Federal legalization of gay marriage, that would be great. But if not, I am not going to give up on the positions of low taxes and America not policing the world in order to support a candidate who wants to federally legalise gay marriage.

 

[Infinity]

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.

I did not read a word of this post before I posted my post. But I agree 100%. And yes, about the death penalty, Ron Paul is against it and he never said he wants to leave that to the states.

 

[BonosSaint]

Generally, however, all his comments are abolishing it on the Federal level. Other than personal opposition, he is silent on state death penalty so you'd have to show me that he supports total ban on the death penalty other than his comments that he would vote against death penalty in any legislative body in which he held a vote which indicates an acceptance of states' jurisdiction in death penalty policy. All that being said, he is in stronger opposition to it than the other candidates.

 

[BVS]

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.

This makes no sense what so ever...

Read his quote again. He would support my state in their pursuit of sodomy laws... WTF? Listen up!!!

 

[verte76]

If Ron Paul is against capital punishment, that's one thing he's got going for him. I'm opposed to capital punishment.

 

[gherman]

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.

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. The movement for "civil rights" was about revolutionary change in hearts and minds, not by allowing the government to dictate what property owners did with their own property. We can't agree with everyone, and not one is entitled to have something that is owned privately by someone else. Racism is a behavior, while property rights is an "inalienable right" another basis to our country.
Do you think states today would elect for racist policies? If so, then on what basis? 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.
What if you decide that you don't want to allow any Russian immigrants into your home or business? Ridiculous yes, but who knows you may have your own personal reasons. Who can argue with you? Its your home and you can decide who you invite into your home or business, but if the government said that you had to allow Russians entry into your home or business because it was a federal law then wouldn't you feel a bit violated? It is the first analogy I could pull out of my ass, but simply, it is the principle of property rights and self determination that formed a basis for the the opposition to civil rights laws. The government can't legislate racist behaviour or force morality (it tries), it can only enforce individual rights, property rights, and states rights. 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.

 

[martha]

Do you think states today would elect for racist policies? If so, then on what basis?

Have you ever heard of Mississippi? Do you really know anything about the modern history of the American South?

 

[martha]

but simply, it is the principle of property rights and self determination that formed a basis for the the opposition to civil rights laws.

What's it like in your world? Are their rainbows everywhere? Puppies and kittens?

Were you paying attention during your American history classes?

 

[financeguy]

It appears that some liberals do actually have a big problem with democracy when the results don't suit them.

 

[martha]

The Civil Rights Act was even opposed by Martin Luther King.

Any sources on this?

 

[BVS]

It appears that some liberals do actually have a big problem with democracy when the results don't suit them.

Care to elaborate?

 

[financeguy]

Care to elaborate?

For example, opposition to allowing states how best to regulate their own affairs.

 

[BVS]

For example, opposition to allowing states how best to regulate their own affairs.

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]

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.

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.

 

[martha]

For example, opposition to allowing states how best to regulate their own affairs.

This as a reply to the question of "states' rights" is disingenuous. If the states in question were to encourage all their qualified voters to vote, and then those qualified voters actually voted to allow themselves to be excluded from public and private property, then we could talk about it.

Plus, the notion of "states' rights" is anti-democratic. Protecting the rights of all minorities against the abuse of the majority is what democracy is all about. Especially when "regulating their own affairs" really means imposing sanctions for involuntary behavior and skin color.

 

[Infinity]

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.

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.

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.

 

[yolland]

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.

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.

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.

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?

To answer your question, no, I don't think any states are actually itching to reinstate a full-fledged Jim Crow regime. But melon was addressing present-day civil rights implications such as gay rights (as well as pointing out the historical smoke-and-mirrors act involved in denying the reality and effects of structural discrimination), not suggesting that it's literally 1964 all over again.

 

[melon]

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.

Except Paul has actually been vocally in opposition to the Supreme Court case that decriminalized sodomy, for instance. Part of his "states' rights" platform includes allowing states to recriminalize that at their whim. Secondly, not only does he seem to support the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but Paul has also supported a federal law that would forbid courts from overturning that law (which, I'm sure, would be deemed unconstitutional, since you can't pass a law that forbids the judiciary from reviewing its constitutionality).

Paul's stances are a substantial step backwards, in terms of civil rights. Perhaps its no wonder that the only people who seem to support him are straight white men.

 

[melon]

For example, opposition to allowing states how best to regulate their own affairs.

A mature democracy balances the rights of the majority with protections for the rights of the minority. We can look to historical Northern Ireland as an example of what happens when a democracy does not.

 

[financeguy]

Perhaps its no wonder that the only people who seem to support him are straight white men.

No, sorry, wrong.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

The writer is (a) openly gay
(b) hispanic

So this Paul supporter only fills one of your three criteria.

All I need to do now is find one female supporter of Ron Paul to complete disprove your case, which I don't think will be difficult.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Melon meant that as an absolute.

 

[melon]

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?

"Mainstream," in terms of monetary policy, is currently monetarism. Considering that Paul resoundedly rejects that, by nature of his advocacy for the gold standard, Friedman would not support this stance. Not only was he the economist that made the most contributions to monetarist theory, but he has openly rejected the gold standard as "impractical."

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.

So has Paul ever openly stated what he would cut to pay for this? Economists, further, have explained that a revenue-neutral elimination of the income tax would actually require a 55% national sales tax (although 23% has been banded around a lot over the last few years, the number itself seems to be random).

Has Paul also figured into the fact that most polls indicate that Americans want their cake AND to eat it too? The substantial cuts required to make it revenue neutral would likely lead to...well, substantial public opposition.

Frankly, eliminating the income tax is only a pipe dream for the rich. Most people pay more in property and sales taxes than they ever do in income taxes.

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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 preceded MLK's assassination by four years. So there goes that argument.

And the rest of your argument is whimsical, at best. Private organizations, residences, and churches have long been able to discriminate as to who they wish to deal with, but businesses do not have that right, as they deal with the public. If one doesn't like that, then they can feel free to close their business. One does not have an "inalienable right" to business.