It's The Constitution of the U.S.

Originally posted by baphomet420
funny, when i was a kid (and im not that old) i was taught, even if you did not vote for, or support the president, you should still show respect, as he IS your president...

I was taught that all men are equal, and that respect is earned and not simply given.

Simply because someone is voted into the office of President does not mean they have earned my respect, and it does not mean that I owe them my respect for that simple fact either.

You know who I don't respect? Those who are dishonest and who act against the best interests of my country and myself.

...Well.. you get where this is going.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by vexati0n

 

I'm pro-gay-marriage. I'm pro-choice. I believe nothing that happens in anyone's bedroom or doctor's office, if it's consensual, is anyone's business but those who are involved. Ron Paul, on the other hand, believes very strongly in legislating "morality" and that it is Washington's duty to tell the People what is and is not appropriate behavior in private.

Ron Paul is often called by his fellow Representatives in Congress "Dr. No" because he is so adamant about not voting for any piece of legislation that is not Constitutionally authorized. So often does Paul vote no on legislation that often times he is the sole "no" vote on legislation, which quite obviously contradicts your uninformed opinion.

Frankly, given your admission that you are "pro gay marriage" and "pro choice", and given your criticism that Paul believes "very strongly in legislating morality" you clearly are only parroting what others have told you and have no idea they are telling you this because of Ron Paul's strong stance on states rights issues.

In terms of abortion, Ron Paul is a staunch adversary of federally sponsored abortion programs, but generally believes that maternal and fetal health is best handled by the individual or states. Further, your insistence that Ron Paul wants to intrude into your bedroom is nonsense, especially if you are making the leap from "pro-choice" to intrusions on a bedroom, or even "gay marriage". In both cases, Ron Paul, could care less what you do in your bedroom, assuming what you do in there is lawful. By lawful, it should be pointed out that Ron Paul is against the drug war and would view any drug use done in your bedroom as lawful. He certainly doesn't care who you are having sex with in your bedroom and if you think that abortions are generally handled in the bedroom, then you are way too ignorant.

You are deliberately lying and clearly don't know Ron Paul as well as you think you do. Ron Paul is 100% against abortion and says on his website he will pass a Sanctity of Life act. He will also work to stop taxpayer funds from going to Planned Parenthood. Check it yourself: www.ronpaul2012.com...

...which begs the question, just what the hell are you doing in your bedroom to cause all this protest of Ron Paul. All he has suggested is that you should not cause harm or defame anyone, so what are you up to, sport?

Excuse me, but the whole deal with privacy is that it doesn't matter what we are doing in our rooms, no one should be looking. I would think you of all ATS posters would realize that.

As a pro-choice liberal, Ron Paul's views do not hold with mine either. A lot of things you said about him are true but you are wrong about his view on abortion. As for gay marriage, sure he wants it to be left up to states - which is why he isn't going to do anything about the Defense of Marriage Act (Unconstitutional) and will take what should be a simple civil right and leave it up to the states to "decide". Who gets off thinking that certain things are decidable by the people? In this case, it's not, and Ron Paul and many conservatives want to "leave it up to the states" because they are too cowardly to admit that they don't believe that marriage should be a right, not a privilege.

I agree with the original person quoted, in that even when these issues bother me about Ron Paul, I still like him a lot and agree with him on what I believe are more important issues, such as foreign policy. I just really don't like it when people think he's some godlike messiah and try to paint him as if he has no flaws and everyone everywhere should agree with him on every issue.

We've been on a steady road towards statism.

We are forced to look at politics as a right/left issue. Where on the right, you have capitalism and on the left you have socialism.

Add in a x.y axis and put anarchy on one side, and statism on the other. We've been heading towards big government and statism.

Anything to move us BACK towards center balance is seen as radical, but maybe it has to be because we are so far gone.

We've managed to get ourselves in a spot of super big government that is saying it is providing for us but making us broke, telling us it is keeping us safe by sticking it's hands down our pants and our children's pants, and classifying any and everything that it isn't supposed to - namely documents that show government inefficiency and corruption.

It's a pickle all right. It's really only serving itself and it's "chosen people" right now -who aren't even people - it's CORPORATIONS.

Being a fan of Ron Paul is giving me a hard lesson on 'FREEDOM OF THE MEDIA".
We've been really worried about our 2nd amendment rights, while we didn't notice the media was being strangled.

This running around not telling anything 'but the official story' should have been a sign. Our media is no better than China's state controlled media....except for alternative media and the web. Now they want to censor the web.

It's actually going someplace very radical - for Americans - It's called dictatorship.
We have GOT to pull it back.
But what did so many of us do in 2008- vote for Obama b/c he was a constitutional lawyer?
And we got NDAA? Can't we have a vote of no-confidence or something? I don't have confidence in anyone that would sign that. That includes Saxby Chambliss and all those stupid congressmen that were in on it too.
I wish we could get rid of them all with one big election.

reply to post by spacekc929

You are deliberately lying and clearly don't know Ron Paul as well as you think you do. Ron Paul is 100% against abortion and says on his website he will pass a Sanctity of Life act. He will also work to stop taxpayer funds from going to Planned Parenthood. Check it yourself: www.ronpaul2012.com...

You are deliberately jumping to conclusions to make the unfounded accusation that I am a liar:

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[140] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[141] In 2005, 2007, 2009, and again in 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level.[142] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[143][144][145] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction.

en.wikipedia.org...

Excuse me, but the whole deal with privacy is that it doesn't matter what we are doing in our rooms, no one should be looking. I would think you of all ATS posters would realize that.

No one is looking in that clowns bedroom, at least to the best of my knowledge. However, the bedroom is not some sort of sanctuary that becomes a "get out of jail free card" to use as a trump card later. You don't have the right to murder someone just because it was done in your bedroom.

As a pro-choice liberal, Ron Paul's views do not hold with mine either. A lot of things you said about him are true but you are wrong about his view on abortion.

I get that you would like me to be wrong, but there is nothing you posted that bears this assertion out, nor disproves anything I said.

As for gay marriage, sure he wants it to be left up to states - which is why he isn't going to do anything about the Defense of Marriage Act (Unconstitutional) and will take what should be a simple civil right and leave it up to the states to "decide". Who gets off thinking that certain things are decidable by the people? In this case, it's not, and Ron Paul and many conservatives want to "leave it up to the states" because they are too cowardly to admit that they don't believe that marriage should be a right, not a privilege.

If you believe that marriage is a right and not a privilege - and it most certainly is a right (unalienable right and not your measly simpering "civil right") - then why are you so obsessed on being granted the right to obtain a license to be married? A license, by legal definition, is the grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. This whole "gay marriage" issue is just another missed opportunity for true freedom lovers and instead was hijacked by "liberal pro-choice" "civil rights" loving sycophants. Instead of people everywhere debating whether the state has a compelling argument to license marriage, people are now debating over who gets these licenses. Please! Your sanctimonious "liberal pro-choice" "civil rights" nonsense is wholly unimpressive.

I agree with the original person quoted, in that even when these issues bother me about Ron Paul, I still like him a lot and agree with him on what I believe are more important issues, such as foreign policy. I just really don't like it when people think he's some godlike messiah and try to paint him as if he has no flaws and everyone everywhere should agree with him on every issue.

None of which has anything to do with me, so if you want to ride the high horse then keep up, sport, or eat my dust.