One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[North Calaveras]

Where is it defined as such? And why should it be limited to that definition. Also, his position on gay marriage is the same as his position on several other highly important civil rights, ones that affect even more people. It's a useful shorthand if nothing else.


And sometimes they aren't enough. That's why the system doesn't end there.

I never said it didn't or it shouldn't. Ron would decrease the Federal government's role, not dissolve the Federal government entirely.

this ^

most people on the left think " libertarian omg that means no government at all Somalia oh no!" He just wants to reduce it.

weve had more government control than any other time in US history and it continues to grow.

[Wikkiwallana]

But straight regular marriage is?


You are the one who didn't read if you think that.

1. No, it isn't. Marriage is a personal choice. nothing makes Gay marriage any different, except for the discrimination complex, because if it only affects 10% of the population, its terrible.

2. are all liberals this catty?

link 1

. To limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act. Explicitly permits states to continue making a public-policy exception when deciding the status of same-sex relationships independently of the decisions of other states, as states have in fact been permitted to do in the case of incestuous marriages.[69]

link 2

Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[200] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

He can claim whatever he wants, but his actions speak louder than words.

Link one is a law defending DOMA for fucks sake.

DOMA exists for no other purpose that to block gay marriage.

He has not proposed a similar bill for straight marriage.

Therefore he is only trying to block gay marriage.

[Death Metal]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

Patriot Act allowed for Wire taps, not indefinite imprisonment of american citizens.

Both, actually.

[Sibirsky]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

He happily extended the Patriot Act too if that makes you happy.

[Sailsia]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

Patriot Act allowed for Wire taps, not indefinite imprisonment of american citizens.

indeed. I'd like to see someone show me WHERE in the Patriot Act it gave the president the ability to detain US citizens without their due process.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's a myth. There was no surplus.

If there was a real, substantial surplus debt would decline not only as a percentage of GDP, but in actual dollar amounts.

What he's saying is that you don't really have a true surplus just because your national expenditures are outweighed by your revenue. You have to be paying down your debt (not even just paying on the interest, but actually reducing the principal) to have a substantive surplus. So all our extra money went to interest, but wasn't sufficient to diminish the principle amount on our debt. Your chart is accurate, but doesn't match with Sibirsky's definition of surplus.

Ok, thank you. I do note that it was growing until 2001, however.

[Sailsia]

you have no real rights, only what your allowed. Nothing is guaranteed only allowed until it is stripped away or held sacred.

Let's not get into semantics here. The laws of the USA recognize things that they are forbidden from taking away, and calls them "rights". Marriage is one of them.

So is due process, but apparently it doesn't bother you Obama took that one away

[Sibirsky]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

It would have been symbolic that Obama gives a flying fuck about the constitution.

A constitutional lawyer and professor who swore to uphold it care about it? That would be refreshing.

[The Aryan Nations]

Vetoing NDAA does not repeal the Patriot Act. All that line did was say something that he already had the power to do.

Vetoing it would have not mattered at all as far as executive power to detain goes.

He happily extended the Patriot Act too if that makes you happy.

Sib, im starting to hate my own countrymen... help

[Sailsia]

It would have been symbolic that Obama gives a flying fuck about the constitution.

A constitutional lawyer and professor who swore to uphold it care about it? That would be refreshing.

Indeed. You know what would also be refreshing? A Congressman who isn't corrupted, running for president. Oh, wait, I think I have one

[The Aryan Nations]

Let's not get into semantics here. The laws of the USA recognize things that they are forbidden from taking away, and calls them "rights". Marriage is one of them.

So is due process, but apparently it doesn't bother you Obama took that one away

only because when Obama wiped his ass with due process, it affected everyone instead of 10%. this is how the discrimination complex works.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Ron would decrease the Federal government's role, not dissolve the Federal government entirely.

Yes, but this is why I oppose him. I feel the federal government's agencies, policies, etc. need to be restructured to be more efficient, but that's because I feel the federal government has an even bigger role to play (I'm a big supporter of the Nordic model). But before we can do any of that, we've got to get the national debt under control. He's too small government for me.

[North Calaveras]

Let's not get into semantics here. The laws of the USA recognize things that they are forbidden from taking away, and calls them "rights". Marriage is one of them.

So is due process, but apparently it doesn't bother you Obama took that one away

thank you Sailsia

[Sailsia]

Patriot Act allowed for Wire taps, not indefinite imprisonment of american citizens.

Both, actually.

source?

[Sailsia]

So is due process, but apparently it doesn't bother you Obama took that one away

thank you Sailsia

no problem. just pointing out hypocrasy

[Wikkiwallana]

Because I'm not arguing for Obama. I'm arguing against Ron Paul. If you want someone other than Obama, I'm fine with that. I'm simply here to explain why it shouldn't be Ron Paul.

Imagine, we're trapped in a walled off area of land. There are two popular ideas on how to get out. Build a latter, or tunnel under the wall. While others attempt to decide which option will work, since we either use our only resources to build shovels or the latter, you sit there and say why both options are bad, without giving a constructive idea on how to get out. Guess who the other trapped people are going to be least likely to value the opinion of. (hope you guessed yourself)

No, I haven't said anything for or against Obama. I've simply pointed out that one specific option is horrible. Let's call Ron Paul the tunnel option. I've simply pointed out that the wall is mounted on solid bedrock and tunneling would be a futile endeavor. I have not said one thing about ladders, except to ask when they did anything homophobic, as some people have claimed they did.

[Death Metal]

A constitutional lawyer and professor who swore to uphold it care about it? That would be refreshing.

Indeed. You know what would also be refreshing? A Congressman who isn't corrupted, running for president. Oh, wait, I think I have one

Okay, give me one that doesn't wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Because Ron Paul does.

[Sibirsky]

He happily extended the Patriot Act too if that makes you happy.

Sib, im starting to hate my own countrymen... help

How can I?

They seem all too happy to ignore the systematic and consistent stripping of basic civil rights.

[Sailsia]

Ron would decrease the Federal government's role, not dissolve the Federal government entirely.

Yes, but this is why I oppose him. I feel the federal government's agencies, policies, etc. need to be restructured to be more efficient, but that's because I feel the federal government has an even bigger role to play (I'm a big supporter of the Nordic model). But before we can do any of that, we've got to get the national debt under control. He's too small government for me.

I am a fan of a modified Nordic model as well, but I feel the difference between say, Norway, and the US is size. In my view, it would be easier to implement such a model from a state by state basis versus delegating it to one entity.

[The Aryan Nations]

Sib, im starting to hate my own countrymen... help

How can I?

They seem all too happy to ignore the systematic and consistent stripping of basic civil rights.

there is only one solution; i must become an Astronaut, because i am Sickened by my own species...

[Sibirsky]

A constitutional lawyer and professor who swore to uphold it care about it? That would be refreshing.

Indeed. You know what would also be refreshing? A Congressman who isn't corrupted, running for president. Oh, wait, I think I have one

He's got my vote on March 6, or whenever Super Tuesday is.

[Wikkiwallana]

And it screws people over. We can do better.

Obama has not done any better though. This threads is about Obama vs Paul, not Paul vs SomeMysteriousSuperLeader

We're already doing better than boom and bust, and have been for decades. Why would I want to go back to that, when almost any other choice means I don't?

[The Aryan Nations]

Indeed. You know what would also be refreshing? A Congressman who isn't corrupted, running for president. Oh, wait, I think I have one

He's got my vote on March 6, or whenever Super Tuesday is.

and mine for the Texas Primary! (you dont even need to register in any party to vote in primaries in Texas. this should be universal)

[The Aryan Nations]

Obama has not done any better though. This threads is about Obama vs Paul, not Paul vs SomeMysteriousSuperLeader

We're already doing better than boom and bust, and have been for decades. Why would I want to go back to that, when almost any other choice means I don't?

so.. 2008-2010 never happened?

[Sailsia]

Indeed. You know what would also be refreshing? A Congressman who isn't corrupted, running for president. Oh, wait, I think I have one

Okay, give me one that doesn't wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Because Ron Paul does.

Did he sign the NDAA? Nope. As I said before, Obama completely waved any entitlement he had to a second term when he signed that.