quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Who is Ron Paul?

He's one of the Republican's that votes no on all the gay-rights bills. He has great qualities too, but I mean really, it's like a candidate saying "I will get rid of our deficit, make sure the gov't isn't spying on you ever again, preserve our constitution, and oh yeah make sure those pesky women don't have equal rights, damn bitches."

Way to go me for dissenting...lol.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

hmmm...I missed the part in the Constitution that mentions the government's role in supporting gay people.

Actually, I don't think it is in the Constitution.

That's why Paul voted against it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson He's one of the Republican's that votes no on all the gay-rights bills. He has great qualities too, but I mean really, it's like a candidate saying "I will get rid of our deficit, make sure the gov't isn't spying on you ever again, preserve our constitution, and oh yeah make sure those pesky women don't have equal rights, damn bitches." Way to go me for dissenting...lol.

On Gay Marriage
Just to back up Capitalizt, because I fear he may have been overly blunt, their is no place in the constitution that pertains to marriage. Therefore, Ron Paul does not believe the government should back gay marriage nor oppose it. I suppose you can think of not supporting it as in a sense opposing it, but then I feel you're simply trying to make everything black and white.


Clarifying Gov't Role in Marriage and Abortion
He actually has a very similar stance on abortion. He says he is pro-life (as I am sure as a Libertarian he would feel people have the right to be gay), but he feels the gov't has no right to legalize or ban abortion. He feels these matters should be handled by state legislatures.

Again, sorry if I'm being a pest, but I'd really like to start a facebook group to get his name out in colleges. I really think a lot of students today would be for what Ron Paul represents, but won't notice him under the other political celebrities.

___________________
Lost Souls

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 However they've also done their work in trying to appease to the base of the Republican party, which is decisively, well, very much to the far Right.

this base your talking about isn't at all entirely fundamentalist. your definition of this base does not accurately describe the 50-60 odd million votes that the Republican nominee will get. this is still a centrist/right country as a whole.

i guarantee you the front-runners of the Democratic party, Hillary, Barack, Edwards are and will be pandering elements of that so-called base you describe until November all while hedging their bets with the far left crazies on the other hand. as unscrupulous and unprincipled as that fact may be, i would not expect anything less from the Democratic party.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this base your talking about isn't at all entirely fundamentalist.

I wasn't trying to imply that to the entire GOP base was fundamentalist. If that was what you interpreted, then I either misspoke or was misunderstood. Rather, the fundamentalist Christian base has effectively been courted by the Republicans and have combined with the current neoconservative base that's currently driving the policy of your party and Administration. There is some overlap between the two (some neocons are fundie Christians and vice versa), but clearly there is also a separation with some GOP base supporters being in one or the other. The combination of the two groups creating the bulk sum of the base and majority of GOP voters come November 2008 really isn't a point of contention, is it?

quote:

your definition of this base does not accurately describe the 50-60 odd million votes that the Republican nominee will get.

I'd contend that it does, at least right now. Of course there's plenty of room until now to the '08 elections, but if a vote were to occur right now the bulk sum of voters of any of your Republican candidates would likely fall into one or both of these two powerful categories creating your base.

quote:

this is still a centrist/right country as a whole.

Really? A centrist/right country? On what issues? Iraq? Social Security? Universal Healthcare? The economy? Tax cuts for the affluent? Abortion (i.e. wanting to uphold Roe v Wade)? Separation of church and State? Minimum wage? Stem cell research? The environment? Evolution (to which I found interesting that 3 out of 10 or 30% of your candidates don't believe in evolution)? No Child Left Behind? A Unitary Executive Authority that bypasses Congress whenever it damn well pleases? Congressional oversight?

Which one of those issues favors a Right agenda that the majority of Americans are in agreement? (hint: very few if any).

quote:

i guarantee you the front-runners of the Democratic party, Hillary, Barack, Edwards are and will be pandering elements of that so-called base you describe until November all while hedging their bets with the far left crazies on the other hand. as unscrupulous and unprincipled as that fact may be, i would not expect anything less from the Democratic party.

The pandering to the base is the mantra of both sides of the aisle when it comes to elections. The question you have to ask yourself is, which base is truly closer to the majority of public opinion on things? Because in all of those issues that I just mentioned to which are arguably the most important issues facing our candidates, it's painfully obvious as to where the Left core base stands (in agreement to the majority of public sentiment) as opposed to the Right core.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Neither of the two parties has the best interests of the nation as a whole at this point.

Their only concern is fighting each other for power, not changing the status quo, and keeping the public distracted by visceral issues instead of doing what is good for the country.

A libertarian like Paul cannot be elected (unless he is just being a libertarian on the surface and not at the core) because the special interests that effectively run this country, which I might add are almost without fail only representing a tiny minority of the country, will not stand for someone that is interested in taking them off the dole.


The U.S. has effectively become an oligarchy in the last 30 years, if you don't believe me, look up the definition of oligarchy in the dictionary and then look closely at how small the political gene pool really is. Both sides may talk like they hate each other, but they like each other a lot more than they like the rest of us.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings On Gay Marriage Just to back up Capitalizt, because I fear he may have been overly blunt, their is no place in the constitution that pertains to marriage. Therefore, Ron Paul does not believe the government should back gay marriage nor oppose it. I suppose you can think of not supporting it as in a sense opposing it, but then I feel you're simply trying to make everything black and white.

From what i understand he feels it should be the states decision on gay marriage. Not federal.

___________________
. . .. . .. . . . .. . .

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt hmmm...I missed the part in the Constitution that mentions the government's role in supporting gay people.

Hmmmm, your absolutely right. Because the constitution doesn't support black people or women either.

quote:

Actually, I don't think it is in the Constitution. That's why Paul voted against it.

Ron Paul voted to AMEND to the constitution to ban gay marriage. Looks like there's a hint that Ron Paul wants the constitution to mention the gov'ts role in oppressing gay people.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings On Gay Marriage Just to back up Capitalizt, because I fear he may have been overly blunt, their is no place in the constitution that pertains to marriage. Therefore, Ron Paul does not believe the government should back gay marriage nor oppose it. I suppose you can think of not supporting it as in a sense opposing it, but then I feel you're simply trying to make everything black and white.

If that's his stance NOW (is it?) then I can believe you. But at the time he voted (3 years ago?), he sincerely thought that it was the constitution's role to make sure that gays couldn't get married.

Ron Paul doesn't not "not support it," he actively opposes it from what I'm seeing in his voting records. That's pretty black and white on his behalf, not mine.

And it's more than just gay marriage that irks me about him. It's his voting record:

quote:

The Federal Marriage Amendment would enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman and prohibiting federal and state laws from conferring same-sex couples with marital status and “the legal incidents thereof.” The amendment would thereby endanger civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The House of Representatives voted on the amendment on July 18, 2006, needing a two-thirds majority to approve the amendment. The amendment failed to reach a two-thirds majority by a vote of 236- 187-1 (Roll Call Vote 378, 2nd Session). Ron Paul voted to block gay marriage. [EDIT: I MISREAD. HE DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS. HE IS STILL OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE, BUT NOT IN THE FORM OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., offered an amendment to the Child Safety Act (H.R. 3132), adding the provisions of the HRC-supported Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which would give the federal government jurisdiction to help local law enforcement confront hate violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability. Ron Paul voted NO. Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced May 26, 2005, that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability” of the victim. As of Sept. 29, 2006, the measure had 160 co-sponsors: Democrats 149; Republicans 10; Independents 1. Ron Paul voted NO. Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual service people, and allow them to serve openly in the military. Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this. Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation (formerly called the Permanent Partners Immigration Act) introduced June 21, 2005, that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits legal spouses of U.S. residents enjoy. Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this.

He's not anymore terrible than the typical Rpeblican that appeals to the right by voting against all pro-gay measures, but that's reason enough for me not to vote for him ever.

quote:

Clarifying Gov't Role in Marriage and Abortion He actually has a very similar stance on abortion. He says he is pro-life (as I am sure as a Libertarian he would feel people have the right to be gay), but he feels the gov't has no right to legalize or ban abortion. He feels these matters should be handled by state legislatures.

If this were true then he would not have voted to amend a gay marriage ban into the constituion.

quote:

Again, sorry if I'm being a pest, but I'd really like to start a facebook group to get his name out in colleges. I really think a lot of students today would be for what Ron Paul represents, but won't notice him under the other political celebrities.

Well make sure you don't try to spread him to the gays on campus, because they'll probably picket you by throwing rainbows and Madonna CDs on you n shit.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

Last edited by Jake Benson on May-07-2007 at 00:15

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson If this were true then he would not have voted to amend a gay marriage ban into the constituion.

source for this please

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail source for this please

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec...ContentID=34269

Dont bother. I misread. Read the guy above Ron Paul (who actually had the same voting record except for the marriage amendment). Wow, what an idiot I am. I would not have argued for so long had Shaolin_Z told me to site my sources like you just did. Thanks, and I'm getting new contacts now.

My bad. =(

But don't get me wrong. Ron Paul is still opposed to gay marriages, but not in the form of a constitutional amendment, as stated clearly here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

So overall, he's still against hate crimes against gays, gays being recognized in the military, and any other benefit for gay couples that straight couples have.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

My favorites are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

On the democratic side, I like Barack Obama.

___________________