Ron Paul's partisans dig in after strong showing in Minn. caucuses - Polidicks

[QUOTE=imptastick;34620355]These are not all accurate[/QUOTE] Wrong. [QUOTE=imptastick;34620355]I don't know his stance on all of the above but he is against the death penalty[/QUOTE] Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), stated in an Aug. 25, 2007 interview with John Lofton titled "Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul on God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; and Much More" on The American View: [quote]"Well, all states have the right to impose capital punishment. But I have become so skeptical of the federal government that under our system... the federal government has made so many mistakes and with DNA evidence now revealing so many errors that I don't even like the idea of our federal government pretending that they know whose life they are going to take because of their total ineptness in just about everything they do. [b]As far as the state goes, yes capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime.[/b]"[/quote] [QUOTE=imptastick;34620355]said that gay marriage should be left up to the states, which is not directly opposing. [/QUOTE] He specifically stated that he would have voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act had he been in Congress at the time: [quote]Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism." He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. [b]The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.[/b] Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. [b]It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[/b] Speaking in support of the Marriage Protection Act in 2004, he urged those of his fellow congressional representatives who “believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage” to vote for the bill because its passage, requiring only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress, would be much more readily achieved than the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, as a Constitutional amendment, would require not only much larger majorities in both Houses but also ratification by the state legislatures. [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm[/url][/quote] [quote]When asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, [b]“Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”[/b] [url]http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html[/url][/quote]

[QUOTE=Cone;34620447]Giving states individual rights only gives them more power. This means that, should someone stupid or otherwise malignant become state governor (which is much more likely than it is a president to be as it draws less attention), people will suffer. I'd rather have a single competent leader than loads of potential leaders, sixty percent of which will deny my rights.[/QUOTE] They have these things called State legislatures...

[QUOTE=Cone;34620447]Giving states individual rights only gives them more power. This means that, should someone stupid or otherwise malignant become state governor (which is much more likely than it is a president to be as it draws less attention), people will suffer. I'd rather have a single competent leader than loads of potential leaders, sixty percent of which will deny my rights.[/QUOTE] You could have a stupid or otherwise maligant become federal president.

Snip late

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620477]You could have a stupid or otherwise maligant become federal president.[/QUOTE] But we don't have the whole world looking when someone elects a state governor, do we?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620403] Yes, because it's a state's right to decide on abortion, not the federal government.[/QUOTE] it's nobody's right to decide who can get an abortion and who can't

[QUOTE=Cone;34620490]But we don't have the whole world looking when someone elects a state governor, do we?[/QUOTE] That is a retarded logic. What does the whole world matter, they have no say nor can they vote. Only those voting need to see. When New Jersey had is governor race, it was the only damn thing on television.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620521]What does the whole world matter, they have no say nor can they vote. Only those voting need to see.[/QUOTE] Because people in other countries may see things others don't. Things they can then tell to people in America.

[QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Opposes gay marriage[/quote] No, he doesn't. He just opposes the government being too involved with marriage or defining it. Yes, he says he sees marriage as between a man and woman but that does not make him a bigot.

For the love of god don't vote a republican for president.

[QUOTE=Falchion;34620630]For the love of god don't vote a republican for president.[/QUOTE] Unless it's Ron Paul :v:

[QUOTE=Falchion;34620630]For the love of god don't vote a republican for president.[/QUOTE] Tell that to the rest of the nation, brainwashed by Fox News. If you hate him and all Republicans alike, you can at least view our support for Ron as damage control.

[QUOTE=The golden;34620651]He wants to leave same-sex marriage up to the state and community, most of which have already banned it. He's also against abortion. And he wants to keep privatized healthcare.[/QUOTE]And he has said he would vote for the DOMA.

[QUOTE=Falchion;34620630]For the love of god don't vote a republican for president.[/QUOTE] Good thing he's a Libertarian in Republicans clothing.

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34620664]Good thing he's a Libertarian in Republicans clothing.[/QUOTE]He's running on their ballot.

[QUOTE=Bones85;34620472]Wrong. Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), stated in an Aug. 25, 2007 interview with John Lofton titled "Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul on God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; and Much More" on The American View: [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=reeBBg4bf50#t=126s[/url] Media tags do not work for specific times in youtube videos. and on gay marriage he says all marriage should be left out of government control [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84&feature=related[/media]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620672]He's running on their ballot.[/QUOTE] At one point in time, the Republican Party was more libertarian than conservative, and still has traces of that. Better than the Democratic Party that never was liberatarian at all.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620698]Better than the Democratic Party that never was liberatarian at all.[/QUOTE]That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[QUOTE=The golden;34620651]He wants to leave same-sex marriage up to the state and community, most of which have already banned it. [/quote] Which. Does. Not. Make. Him. A. Bigot. Those stances are based almost entirely off of political reasons, not for personal views on same-sex marriage. I'm not particularly fond of those stances of his, but I don't point the finger and yell "BIGOT YOU HATE GAYS!" [quote] He's also against abortion. And he wants to keep privatized healthcare.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant to this particular argument.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620715]That doesn't bother me in the slightest.[/QUOTE] Same here, because I have Paul and libertarians to vote for for libertarianism.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620735]Same here, because I have Paul and libertarians to vote for for libertarianism.[/QUOTE] No bro fiscal conservartism is bad!!!

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34620729]Irrelevant to this particular argument.[/QUOTE] What are we arguing, anyway? Is it whether or not he's better than the other Republican candidates? (I'm for him 100% on getting the nomination) Or is it whether or not he's a better choice than Obama? (This should only be asked [I]after[/I] he wins the nomination, not before as I think the only real way to honestly compare the two is to get them in the same (debate) room and see what happens)

[QUOTE=Retardation;34620812]semantics. also, his decision to leave it to the states clearly shows that he is not too fond of the homosexual community - clearly indicated by this lack of affiliation with them. if he would actually support gay people, he would speak out in favor of them,[B] not brush the questions under the rug by going "oh well I dunno leave it to the states[/B]"[/QUOTE] Which he hasn't. "In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't 'impose' their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations". "When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, 'I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.'" "He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense." [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage]source[/url] How is there anything "clear" about this? He clearly wants more power to be on the state level in things not just related to same-sex marriage. [QUOTE=Hidole555;34620855][B]What are we arguing, anyway? [/B] Is it whether or not he's better than the other Republican candidates? (I'm for him 100% on getting the nomination) Or is it whether or not he's a better choice than Obama? (This should only be asked [I]after[/I] he wins the nomination, not before as I think the only real way to honestly compare the two is to get them in the same (debate) room and see what happens)[/QUOTE] I was contesting the notion that Ron Paul is a bigot against homosexuals, not on whether he deserves the Presidency or is better than the other candidates.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34620887] I was contesting the notion that Ron Paul is a bigot against homosexuals, not on whether he deserves the Presidency or is better than the other candidates.[/QUOTE] He doesn't like gays, he admits that, but he respects their right to marry. [URL="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/"]http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620403]Here He opposes the federal government dealing with all forms of marraige, not just gay marriage. Because the more local control a school has, the better off it is. You see billions poured into that department for years, so why are we not all geniuses? (This is a hyperbole, please don't decry that as literal geniuses.) This will curb inflation and get our economy. Paul opposes the death penalty but leaves it to the states to enforce/not enforce. Because the federal government is too bloated than it should be. If cut down to its rightful size, this tax would be completely unnecessary. Any lost income will be replaced by excise taxes. Income taxes imply the government has a right to your payment of your hard labor. Because they're unnecessary. Yes, because it's a state's right to decide on abortion, not the federal government.[/QUOTE] So he wants the Articles of Confederation? Because it sounds like he wants the states to run everything. Which is exactly what the Articles of Confederation did. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620735]Same here, because I have Paul and libertarians to vote for for libertarianism.[/QUOTE] Hate to tell ya, but its been dead....for awhile.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34620595]No, he doesn't. He just opposes the government being too involved with marriage or defining it. Yes, he says he sees marriage as between a man and woman but that does not make him a bigot.[/QUOTE] Yes, he does. He opposes gay marriage, and he clearly stated that. In addition to that, he supports the Defense of Marriage Act and also cosponsored a bill that bars federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. If that's not bigoted to you then I don't know what is.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34620887]Which he hasn't. "In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't 'impose' their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations". "When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, 'I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.'" "He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense." [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage]source[/url] How is there anything "clear" about this? He clearly wants more power to be on the state level in things not just related to same-sex marriage. I was contesting the notion that Ron Paul is a bigot against homosexuals, not on whether he deserves the Presidency or is better than the other candidates.[/QUOTE] Which contradicts [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm"]previously[/URL] [URL="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html"]posted[/URL] stuff. So what your post is saying is he's either doing this political thing that's come to be known as "flip-flopping", or he's a colossal idiot that contradicts himself.

[QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Opposes gay marriage[/QUOTE] Yes, but he's not enough of a bigot to force it on people. He thinks the states should make the decision.

[QUOTE=Overv;34621340]Yes, but he's not enough of a bigot to force it on people. He thinks the states should make the decision.[/QUOTE] And let the states force it on people :v:?

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;34621102]So he wants the Articles of Confederation? Because it sounds like he wants the states to run everything. Which is exactly what the Articles of Confederation did.[/QUOTE] The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it left the government with no judicial branch and a laughably weak executive branch.