I have enough reasons to not vote for Ron Paul

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
and none of them have to do with those suspect newsletters...

my reasons?

1: he doesn't believe in evolution
well...this is simple enough, i don't trust those who don't say that evolution is "just a theory" with running a country.

2: he endorsed Petrouka in the Constitution Party's '04 bid...
Michael Petrouka believes that homosexual sex should be criminalized under federal law...

3: he thinks "don't ask, don't tell" is a good system
it's a program which makes the statement "my boyfriend and i stayed in and watched boondock saints the last time i saw him" an offense worthy of discharge when coming from a man...
he said

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.

...but the current policy classifies any indication that someone is a homosexual as "disruptive behavior"

honestly, that's enough for me.
3 big nails in the coffin

but here's a 4th
he doesn't think the state government should be kept out of the bedroom...
he actually thinks that state and local governments have the right to regulate sexual conduct

that last one disturbs me to no end...




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
OK, I'll play.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1: he doesn't believe in evolution
well...this is simple enough, i don't trust those who don't say that evolution is "just a theory" with running a country.


First of all, religious ideas/beliefs should have no bearing on political contests. Period.

From the Constitution of the United States:

Article. VI.
[...]
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


If his personal religious beliefs are a problem for you, then I think you have the problem, not RP. Religious bigotry/discrimination can be perpetrated even by atheists.


The theory of Evolution removes God from the equasion. I don't believe that either, but I won't deny that animals evolve. I believe God made it that way, and to put forth a theory that omits God's role in it would be unacceptable to any Christian. Doesn't make it right, but he has the right to believe how he likes -- just like you.

At least make it about the issues, not personal feelings.



2: he endorsed Petrouka in the Constitution Party's '04 bid...
Michael Petrouka believes that homosexual sex should be criminalized under federal law...


What else does/did Petrouka support? Or did he just run on an "I hate gays" platform?

en.wikipedia.org...


Peroutka emphasizes the Bible and America's Christian heritage. He opposes abortion without exception and believes homosexual "sodomy" should be criminalized. He opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment believing the federal government should not be granted jurisdiction over marriage. He advocates for free market capitalism. He supports the right to keep and bear arms and strongly opposes the war in Iraq, calling in ungodly, immoral, and unconstitutional.[6]. He supports the right to homeschool and believes the federal government should not regulate or fund education.


OK so I can see why Paul would endorse this guy, religious/sexual orientation positions notwithstanding. Supports the Constitution; opposed the Iraq war; supports free market; supports getting the federal government out of our indoctrination - excuse me, education system; supports the second amendment.


3: he thinks "don't ask, don't tell" is a good system
it's a program which makes the statement "my boyfriend and i stayed in and watched boondock saints the last time i saw him" an offense worthy of discharge when coming from a man...
he said

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.

...but the current policy classifies any indication that someone is a homosexual as "disruptive behavior"


So equal rights and treating everyone the same is a bad idea? Sexual conduct on duty in inexcusable for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Dr. Paul simply states that there should be no discrepancies in policy for "disruptive behavior" based on gay/straight. Sounds about right. I do think though, if what you say about the classification of "disruptive behavior" applies only to gays, that should be fixed. I'm certain Paul would agree with that.


honestly, that's enough for me.
3 big nails in the coffin


This just tells me that perhaps you haven't done too much research on RP. Here, check out his positions on the issues before you make judgement. www.ronpaullibrary.com... - www.ronpaul2008.com...


but here's a 4th
he doesn't think the state government should be kept out of the bedroom...
he actually thinks that state and local governments have the right to regulate sexual conduct


That is completely at odds with is position on civil liberties. Can you provide a source for this? Doesn't sound like Paul at all. No secret that he wants to give the bulk of the power back to the states, but he is very big on individual liberties. His position is that we should be able to do whatever we like, so long as we're not hurting anyone else in the process. I like that idea, I dunno about you.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Don’t get me wrong I’m not asking for these personally. But if you have sources for these I’d go ahead and put them up for all to see.

By my calculations the Ron Paul loonies should be by here any minute demanding them and cursing you for speaking ill of their savior.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I'm no looney, and while RP does have some "fringe" support, that's not all he's got.

I do, however, tire of seeing people make claims about his positions without researching his positions. All I ask is that people do their homework and make their decisions based on issues, not feelings.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

[edit on 1/16/08 by The Axeman]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
I do, however, tire of seeing people make claims about his positions without researching his positions. All I ask is that people do their homework and make their decisions based on issues, not feelings.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

[edit on 1/16/08 by The Axeman]


Nor do I. However, it also bothers me that you and other Paul supporters assume that everyone who disagrees with you “hasn’t done their homework”.

I’ve researched Paul just as evenly and fairly as I have every candidate on both sides. That’s how I’ve come to the conclusions and opinions I have. I don’t make decisions based on nothing, and I tire of being accused of such.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Well, I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. But to say what he said regarding Paul's positions, and me having done the homework, Paul's positions and what he claims don't jive.

If people who opposed Paul would give any reasons rather than just calling us "fringe" or "looneys" or "kooks" then I might change my mind.

Personally I don't see how any red-blooded American could not be in line with Dr. Paul's position, but that's just me. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but, present company excluded of course, a lot of people simply buy whatever the idiot box tells them and never give it a second thought.

I try really hard not to assume. I make observations, and come to conclusions based on those observations. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.

This isn't a popularity contest (or at least it shouldn't be). It is (should be) about who is the best person for the job.

What pisses me off is that more people vote on "American Idol" than vote for the leader of our country. What a sad observation that is.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I’m slow, The Axeman got here first. But this part of my response is still useful:


he thinks "don't ask, don't tell" is a good system


“If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there is heterosexual behavior that is disruptive then it should be dealt with.

So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.”




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


about the edited evolution clip you’ve posted before that you’re talking about. I know it sounded bad, so here’s the whole transcript with the deleted words in brackets:


"'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.']
www.lewrockwell.com...



[edit on 16-1-2008 by captainplanet]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Awe come on guys, madness has been Ron Paul bashing since the beginning. This is just his own thread to do it. No one's going to change his mind.

I think rather than people researching Ron Paul they should research their OWN candidate of choice. Few people do. They just run with the herd. How else do you explain 2 terms of GWB?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


first of all... i haven't been bashing ron paul since the beginning. i actually thought i liked him at first... well, once i heard about him... then i did the research and found out that he really disagrees with my views on certain things

my candidate of choice: kucinich
i did my research
i disagree with him on guns
that's it
and he'd never get his position on guns past the supreme court, so that settles things on that issue

and i'm not talking about the "edited evolution clip"
paul has repeatedly claimed that it's just a theory
axeman, this isn't about a RELIGIOUS test, it's a SCIENTIFIC test.
just like i'd expect my presidential candidate to pass in every other high school level test, i'd expect them to pass the science one as well
his religion has a problem with it, i don't care
when you spout the ignorant "it's just a theory" line, you just don't understand science

axe, there's no excuse for supporting someone that wants to uphold the constitution and yet put the government in people's bedrooms...
actually...the constitution party, on close examination, seems to have a tad of a christian theocratic bent to it...



So equal rights and treating everyone the same is a bad idea? Sexual conduct on duty in inexcusable for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Dr. Paul simply states that there should be no discrepancies in policy for "disruptive behavior" based on gay/straight. Sounds about right. I do think though, if what you say about the classification of "disruptive behavior" applies only to gays, that should be fixed. I'm certain Paul would agree with that.


ok, but ron paul doesn't. he has clearly stated that he thinks the current policy is good.
the current policy is that if someone FINDS OUT THAT YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL, you are to be kicked out of the military.
it's not about sexual conduct, it's about being openly homosexual
closeted homosexuality = ok
open homosexuality = not ok

that's not equal rights.

here's the source on the "government in the bedroom"
he may have a "civil liberties" stance...


"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."


that's his statement

www.lewrockwell.com...
^that's the source

he may say it's ridiculous, but he says states can decide how to regulate what people do in their bedrooms.
i don't like that
i don't want ANYONE telling me what i do with a consenting adult in the privacy of my own bedroom
granted, this particular law may not apply to me (i'm not sure about the full law), but there are laws in states like MO that outlaw oral sex in the same manner...


apc

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Then your problem is with the states, not with Ron Paul. It's none of the Federal Government's business, and that's what Paul believes.

>
Oh, and could you please reference the law here in Missouri that makes homosexual sodomy a crime?

I see sodomy.org references 566.090...


1. A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if:

...

(3) He has deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex.


But this is the real 566.090...


566.090. 1. A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct in the first degree if such person purposely subjects another person to sexual contact without that person's consent.

2. Sexual misconduct in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor unless the actor has previously been convicted of an offense under this chapter or unless in the course thereof the actor displays a deadly weapon in a threatening manner or the offense is committed as a part of a ritual or ceremony, in which case it is a class D felony.


There is no (3).

[edit on 16-1-2008 by apc]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there's no excuse for supporting someone that wants to uphold the constitution and yet put the government in people's bedrooms...

That all depends on one thing !!!!!
WHO owns the bedroom ???
If the bedroom is a US Military Barracks then yes
it is disruptive. If it is in a front line combat zone
tent where other soldiers are sleeping, then yes
it is disruptive. If it is in a foxhole and another
male soldier tries to kiss another male soldier,
yes it is disruptive.

Being a soldier is a job. And like any business
if it has internal disruptions it can't function.


apc

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
ack

[edit on 16-1-2008 by apc]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
ack

LOL ..... sorry apc
was I gettin too graphic there for ya ???

I also remember back when stories came out about
our own gubment creating a chemical that would render
our enemies passive and make them do that sort of
thing to their fellow soldiers.

Now we have it happening in our own military.

Maybe our military is spraying that crap over our
population as we speak and some of them go sign
up for Uncle Sam.

What are the odds of that ??
Being hit with our own creation ......


edit: spelling

[edit on 16-1-2008 by SimonSays]


apc

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
No I just click things faster than I can see what I'm clicking on which resulted in a double post.

I assure you, it is impossible to get too graphic for me.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



he has clearly stated that he thinks the current policy is good.


He called it a decent policy and then went on to explain how it should be interpreted....he clearly stated it is a important problem if not interpreted equally on individuals of all natures.


he may say it's ridiculous, but he says states can decide how to regulate what people do in their bedrooms.


Then they should be changing the constitution to make it official on all levels. If it’s not fully established, then the supreme court ends up making unconstitutional decisions, as he pointed out. That article was about unconstitutional court rulings

He’s against “no child left behind” but recently suggested on a radio show that if you really want to have it, amend the constitution and do it right.

He is a strict constitutionalist, he just wants us to do things right so they are more efficient and we can stop wasting money.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

when you spout the ignorant "it's just a theory" line, you just don't understand science


It would appear that numerous, NUMEROUS, very educated, informed people that study such things disagree with you.


Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.
Science Against Evolution


AND


I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books – Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box – describe this phenomenon.
God and Science


Care to argue with scientists who's life is devoted to such pursuits? Or continue to make absolute statements about other peoples knowledge?

Now I am sure that the sources will be attacked, probably prior to anyone reading them.


Yet that makes the point no less valid.

The point to this is, through all the hype and trash this election is causing, one common all to present accusation is that RP supporters dismiss any ideals except those that fit within their own perceptions of correct. THEN here we have the same actions in a thread against Paul.

Axe, it would appear I must defend your position here. While I don't agree with you on your candidate choice, I also don't think a candidate should be dismissed for religious reasons or "pieces of the whole" as it were. I also think that "out of context" posting in regards to a candidate is wrong no matter which candidate is being supported, yes even mine.

Semper



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
madnessinmysoul,

kucinich.
I'm glad you picked the other brave man.
A few of my friends, who could not stomach re-registering as a Republican to vote for Paul, are picking Kucinich as their guy.

BTW, Kucinich, and Ron Paul are Friends..Does that make Kucinich a hater of homosexuality?..just sayin'



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
BTW, Kucinich, and Ron Paul are Friends..

LOL
I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.

And both are underdogs in their parties.
I wonder if it's something in the water ???



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonSays

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there's no excuse for supporting someone that wants to uphold the constitution and yet put the government in people's bedrooms...

That all depends on one thing !!!!!
WHO owns the bedroom ???
If the bedroom is a US Military Barracks then yes
it is disruptive. If it is in a front line combat zone
tent where other soldiers are sleeping, then yes
it is disruptive. If it is in a foxhole and another
male soldier tries to kiss another male soldier,
yes it is disruptive.


well...i was talking about state sodomy laws...not don't ask don't tell there...

anyway... there isn't any evidence of any of that being the cause of soldiers being discharged. i haven't heard a single case of homosexual soldiers kissing in a foxhole or having sex in front of a barracks

"don't ask, don't tell" has to do with the KNOWLEDGE that someone is a homosexual, not with disruptive behavior.
it's not "don't ask, don't disrupt"



Being a soldier is a job. And like any business
if it has internal disruptions it can't function.


yes, but being openly homosexual isn't an internal disruption. i'm not talking about being openly homosexual by constantly trying to bed other soldiers (which seems to be a classic myth about what would happen if don't ask don't tell was abolished), i'm talking about being able to use the pronoun "he" when talking about your significant other back home instead of "she"

reply to post by semperfortis
 


there are more scientists named steve than there are scientists that disagree with evolution...

en.wikipedia.org...

and it's quite consistent with physical evidence. if it wasn't this small minority of scientists that disagree with it would have been able to disprove it and we'd be moving on to finding out a new SCIENTIFIC theory

and behe?
come on... behe is a chump in terms of arguments. he's repeatedly been dismantled. his specially designed flagella motor has been shown to have a proceeding step in the form of an injecting mechanism of another cell

...and it isn't a major trend.

and i'm not posting anything out of context...
especially since i'm providing sources when they are asked for

there are other policies i certainly don't agree with, i was just pointing out things that don't normally get talked about with regards to ron paul.

reply to post by spacedoubt
 


there's a difference between being someone's friend and endorsing a candidate. i never said endorsing a candidate made you adopt his views, either. i just thought it was a patently irresponsible move to endorse anyone who supports the criminalization of homosexual acts...

[edit on 1/17/08 by madnessinmysoul]






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join