|
Ron Paul chances? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| spiflicated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
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. |
And he voted YES on banning gay adoptions.
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
While all these people are trumpeting this guy as a defender of the Constitution, he also supports a constitutional amendment for school prayer. Shaolin_Z can be assured that he isn't for Muslim prayer in the schools, though.
I'm very happy that he doesn't even have the smallest possibility of being elected. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| wow, if you guys think Paul is bad for taking a few conservative positions among his largely libertarian philosophy, you must think the other pubs running are Satan's children. There is nothing even REMOTELY libertarian about them. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| quote: | Originally posted by spiflicated
And he voted YES on banning gay adoptions.
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
While all these people are trumpeting this guy as a defender of the Constitution, he also supports a constitutional amendment for school prayer. Shaolin_Z can be assured that he isn't for Muslim prayer in the schools, though.
I'm very happy that he doesn't even have the smallest possibility of being elected. |
*FIRST OFF, the ontheissues site has been proven to have a few errors on some of his stances that I have discovered on various forums. For example, they have Ron Paul listed as supporting "increase in intelligence spending without civil oversight." This is simply not true. Paul voted against this. Check clerk.house.gov for the real information.
You and Benson have a fundamental misunderstanding of this guy. Benson seems to think he is some kind of homo-phoebe, when clearly if he states "I think the government should stay out of our bedrooms" it means just that. You have to keep in mind, he has a streak of voting 'no' on a lot of issues that might seem to make him a hard core right winger, but if you just do a tiny bit of research, you'll see his reasons are far different than other Republicans, that being the gov't doesn't have a right to ban or support gay marriage (for example).
Here is a great quote to illustrate this point:
| quote: | | “Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” |
People, on both sides, just are too stupid to understand this point. All over the place I see people going, "I'm glad he's pro-life." No, he's not. He's actually said he is pro-choice (before partial birth) but does not believe the gov't should have any say in the matter. |
|
|
| spiflicated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
wow, if you guys think Paul is bad for taking a few conservative positions among his largely libertarian philosophy, you must think the other pubs running are Satan's children. There is nothing even REMOTELY libertarian about them. |
I think Libertarians are much scarier than Republicans.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
*FIRST OFF, the ontheissues site has been proven to have a few errors on some of his stances that I have discovered on various forums. For example, they have Ron Paul listed as supporting "increase in intelligence spending without civil oversight." This is simply not true. Paul voted against this. Check clerk.house.gov for the real information. |
This example has nothing to do with Ron Paul voting to ban gay adoption or with him voting for a constitutional amendment for prayer in school.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
You and Benson have a fundamental misunderstanding of this guy. Benson seems to think he is some kind of homo-phoebe, when clearly if he states "I think the government should stay out of our bedrooms" it means just that. You have to keep in mind, he has a streak of voting 'no' on a lot of issues that might seem to make him a hard core right winger, but if you just do a tiny bit of research, you'll see his reasons are far different than other Republicans, that being the gov't doesn't have a right to ban or support gay marriage (for example).
Here is a great quote to illustrate this point:
People, on both sides, just are too stupid to understand this point. All over the place I see people going, "I'm glad he's pro-life." No, he's not. He's actually said he is pro-choice (before partial birth) but does not believe the gov't should have any say in the matter. |
I seriously doubt Ron Paul's reason for voting to ban gay adoption had anything to do with keeping the government out of people's bedrooms and a great deal to do with hate and bigotry. And I had nothing to say about his voting record on abortion.
I understand his point and his belief in limited government. I disagree with it. The Supreme Court disagrees with it; the majority of Congress disagrees with it; the majority of the American people disagrees with it.
I definitely think Ron Paul's support for amending the constitution to allow prayer in school would violate our civil liberties granted under the first amendment to support a Christian agenda in public schools. I'm sure Ron Paul wouldn't want his children to be forced to say Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish prayers, so I don't understand why he thinks it's okay to force his beliefs on others. |
|
|
| Haunted |
guys, i like Ron Paul, except for his stance on gay marriage, I feel he would be a good candidate and turn things around for the Republican party...but what's the point of even following the Republican election if Democrats will win?
you guys can't seriously think that Republicans even have a CHANCE of winning 2008, Bush really ruined their image.
Ron Paul has good intentions, but you have to remember if he gets elected he will have to follow Republican ideals, it isn't a one man show. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Haunted you guys can't seriously think that Republicans even have a CHANCE of winning 2008, Bush really ruined their image.
|
The current crop of republican candidates has little chance of winning in a general election at this point barring some drastic change in the country and/or a Hillary nomination.
The chances for Republicans would change drastically if a Hagel or Thompson were to enter the race though, as both have a much broader appeal than the current crop. Thompson is who the insiders are hoping for, as he is the closest thing to their patron saint, Reagan, that you can find today.
MrS |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| quote: | Originally posted by spiflicated
I seriously doubt Ron Paul's reason for voting to ban gay adoption had anything to do with keeping the government out of people's bedrooms and a great deal to do with hate and bigotry. |
You sir are an idiot. Do research and stop wasting my time. The vote against gay adoption was for a bill that was supporting federal funding for gay adoption. He is not saying homosexuals can't adopt all together, just the government shouldn't pay them to do so.
| quote: | Originally posted by spiflicated
I understand his point and his belief in limited government. I disagree with it. The Supreme Court disagrees with it; the majority of Congress disagrees with it; the majority of the American people disagrees with it. |
It's a strict constitutional stance, which everybody except you accepts it as such. Now, whether or not you think we should stick so strictly to the constitution is, I suppose, open for debate. Nor would I say the American people disagree with it, as most of them have no idea who Ron Paul is, and most don't even know what a Libertarian is. AND Congress is constantly participating in unconstitutional acts, so of course they disagree with him.
| quote: | Originally posted by spiflicated
I definitely think Ron Paul's support for amending the constitution to allow prayer in school would violate our civil liberties granted under the first amendment to support a Christian agenda in public schools. I'm sure Ron Paul wouldn't want his children to be forced to say Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish prayers, so I don't understand why he thinks it's okay to force his beliefs on others. |
WRONG. WRONG. Research. If you clicked on just one link on that ridiculous site you would've actually learned something. For the prayer proposal here is why and what he supports:
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools."
Hard to disagree with that point, especially with your that is violates anything set up in the constitution. Nice try though. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
A good example of how controlled the media is:
ABC News left Ron Paul out of their Republican Debate Poll and this "See Who's in the Running for 2008" PDF. |
I watched MSNBC after the debate. In the 90 minutes following it, they had EVERY CANDIDATE on for a 5 minute interview...except, guess who? |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Haunted
you guys can't seriously think that Republicans even have a CHANCE of winning 2008, Bush really ruined their image.
|
that's what people said in 2004. And even after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and Falluja and the whole fiasco in Iraq, people still re-elected Bush.
Now of course, speaking as you are from "New Joizey" you might consider this unthinkable, but there is one post in this thread which you probably missed. Let me recap: America is a center-RIGHT nation as a whole. It leans right of center. |
|
|
| spiflicated |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
You sir are an idiot. Do research and stop wasting my time. The vote against gay adoption was for a bill that was supporting federal funding for gay adoption. He is not saying homosexuals can't adopt all together, just the government shouldn't pay them to do so.
|
I wouldn't be so quick to begin name-calling. The specific bill had to do with Washington, D.C. - a federally controlled, regulated, and funded district, and not the federal government providing funds for a state.
He also doesn't believe that the federal government should define marriage; however, in the collection of federal income taxes, customs documents, and the recognition of international marriages the federal government must define who is and is not married. Dr. Paul may be trying to side-step the issue, but he is clearly a homophobe.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
It's a strict constitutional stance, which everybody except you accepts it as such. Now, whether or not you think we should stick so strictly to the constitution is, I suppose, open for debate. Nor would I say the American people disagree with it, as most of them have no idea who Ron Paul is, and most don't even know what a Libertarian is. AND Congress is constantly participating in unconstitutional acts, so of course they disagree with him.
|
When I stated that the majority of people disagreed with Dr. Paul, I obviously conceded that there are some that must agree with him. The majority of Americans agree that the reach of the federal government goes beyond Dr. Paul's short-sighted view of the rights and responsibilities of our federal government.
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
WRONG. WRONG. Research. If you clicked on just one link on that ridiculous site you would've actually learned something. For the prayer proposal here is why and what he supports:
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools."
Hard to disagree with that point, especially with your that is violates anything set up in the constitution. Nice try though. |
Hmmmmm, nice try. Although the words may seem to appease your sense of fairness, the group prayers in public schools are still coercive and has negative impact on those that do not participate, see below quote:
| quote: |
When I started at my new school this year, I was surprised that my home room teacher began every day by having our class say the Lord’s Prayer. I didn’t want to say it because I’m not a practicing Christian, and I told her so. She said it was okay and I could just go stand in the hall while the rest of the class was praying. She was nice about it, but I hate the idea of having to get up and leave the class with everybody staring at me. Should I even have to do that?
No, you shouldn’t. Public school teachers can’t lead classes in prayer or readings from religious books. Even non-denominational (not from any particular religion) prayer is unconstitutional because teachers can’t promote any kind of prayer in public school.
It doesn’t make it okay just because she says you don’t have to participate. Officially organized prayer at school is coercive, even if it’s called “voluntary.” Like your case: you’re forced to either pray or to protest in front of your classmates, which might be embarrassing or get you harassed.
|
Source = http://aclupa.org/education/student...yerinschool.htm |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I watched MSNBC after the debate. In the 90 minutes following it, they had EVERY CANDIDATE on for a 5 minute interview...except, guess who? |
And people say we have a free press, right :rolleyes:. |
|
|
|
|
