Most Ron Paul supporters in this forum are liars or completely ignorant

[Beeewbs]

Every time I post facts about Ron Paul, almost all of his supporters deny them. It's getting really annoying to see such blatant dishonesty or absolute ignorance from people who claim to not be sheep.

Fact: Ron Paul does not believe in the separation of church and state.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Government does not have the authority to decide whether or not religion is allowed schools

The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

Fact: Ron Paul is against gay marriage and wants to keep it banned.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/20...-abandon-doma/

“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

Fact: Ron Paul is against abortion and wants to see it banned.


http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception.

I’m surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president’s signature. It’s a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let’s just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.

Fact: Ron Paul is ok with states banning gay sex:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962110/posts

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. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Using Ron Paul's own words, I have proven again and again these clear facts, but his supporters continue to pretend he doesn't have these stances.

[ZenBowman]

What is worse is that they will actively reinterpret his statements or put words in his mouth to justify their own beliefs. Sad, they have completely turned into Obamabots. They are now being willfully ignorant.

He is still the best candidate currently running, but 80%+ of his supporters are tools.

[b.spencer]

What is worse is that they will actively reinterpret his statements or put words in his mouth to justify their own beliefs. Sad, they have completely turned into Obamabots. They are now being willfully ignorant.

He is still the best candidate currently running, but 80%+ of his supporters are tools.

He is not the best candidate when he is one of the few Republican nuts who supports states in re-criminalizing homosexuality. I would never support a candidate who wishes to turn over to the states the ability to re-institute segregation. Why should I support someone who wishes to see me in prison just for being gay?

[ftwrestler]

Every time I post facts about Ron Paul, almost all of his supporters deny them. It's getting really annoying to see such blatant dishonesty or absolute ignorance from people who claim to not be sheep.

Fact: Ron Paul does not believe in the separation of church and state.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html




Fact: Ron Paul is against gay marriage and wants to keep it banned.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/20...-abandon-doma/




Fact: Ron Paul is against abortion and wants to see it banned.


http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm



Fact: Ron Paul is ok with states banning gay sex:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962110/posts



Using Ron Paul's own words, I have proven again and again these clear facts, but his supporters continue to pretend he doesn't have these stances.

sounds to me like he is for small gov in the states and letting them decide rather than actually declaring his position on most of what you named.

which is fine for the most part. i happen to disagree with the right to ban gay marriage.

[tk217]

sounds to me like he is for small gov in the states and letting them decide rather than actually declaring his position on most of what you named.

which is fine for the most part. i happen to disagree with the right to ban gay marriage.

I also happen to disagree with the right to ban gay marriage -- that is his personal stance which he is allowed to have -- but he is still putting it fourth as a state's right issue not a federal issue.

[BeefyMcNasty]

Every single one of your examples clearly shows that he wants the federal government out of those issue and to have them relegated to the states to allow local jurisdictions to decided what they think is best for their community. Tell me why you think the federal government should have more of a say on these issues than the states that directly represent the people should?

[Beeewbs]

sounds to me like he is for small gov in the states and letting them decide rather than actually declaring his position on most of what you named.

which is fine for the most part. i happen to disagree with the right to ban gay marriage.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

This sounds like he's not declaring his position?

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception.

And this?

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

And this? These statements where he's saying he doesn't believe in something or is against or for it and wants to use the government to enforce that stance is not declaring his position and his desire to enforce it?

This is what I'm talking about, people.

[Beeewbs]

Every single one of your examples clearly shows that he wants the federal government out of those issue

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception.

This would be done at the federal level. The only reason he wants the federal government out of certain things is so that states can enforce his stance against abortion and gay marriage. When someone says that he's against something and says it must be enforced, it makes it crystal clear.

[ftwrestler]

This sounds like he's not declaring his position?



And this?



And this? These statements where he's saying he doesn't believe in something or is against or for it and wants to use the government to enforce that stance is not declaring his position and his desire to enforce it?

This is what I'm talking about, people.

it sounds to me like he is a dodging the questions and giving sort of a bs "this is the law as of right now" typical politician answer

i very well could be reading into him wrong.

im not blindly following him either.

if i disagree with him i wont vote, if i agree with him i will. it is a mix of both.

[Beeewbs]

it sounds to me like he is a dodging the questions and giving sort of a bs "this is the law as of right now" typical politician answer

Huh? What questions? And how is it dodging anything to state flat out that he doesn't believe in church and state separation, that he supports keeping gay marriage banned and that he wants to ban abortion? Are you for real? There is no dodging, no vagueness. Clear statements.

[feedmelies]

The separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution.

What Paul believes and what he thinks the Constitution allows are two different things.

[tk217]

it sounds to me like he is a dodging the questions and giving sort of a bs "this is the law as of right now" typical politician answer

i very well could be reading into him wrong.

im not blindly following him either.

if i disagree with him i wont vote, if i agree with him i will. it is a mix of both.

I never agree fully with any political candidate -- I try to find a compromise with my own ideology and their's and those who I agree with most I would prefer in power than those I agree with the least.

[NCK MIZ]

I also happen to disagree with the right to ban gay marriage -- that is his personal stance which he is allowed to have -- but he is still putting it fourth as a state's right issue not a federal issue.

This. His opinion on the particular matters is pretty much irrelevant because he believes that it should all be left up to the state. So if he were president and followed his logic he would not have any say anyway. That's the difference between him and most candidates he has opinions on what he thinks is right and wrong, but doesn't think it is the federal govt.'s job to make laws based on their opinions.

[VlKlNG]

He is for States rights,not enforcing his own views

[hublife]

This. His opinion on the particular matters is pretty much irrelevant because he believes that it should all be left up to the state. So if he were president and followed his logic he would not have any say anyway. That's the difference between him and most candidates he has opinions on what he thinks is right and wrong, but doesn't think it is the federal govt.'s job to make laws based on their opinions.

This.


Repped

[ftwrestler]

Huh? What questions? And how is it dodging anything to state flat out that he doesn't believe in church and state separation, that he supports keeping gay marriage banned and that he wants to ban abortion? Are you for real? There is no dodging, no vagueness. Clear statements.

those statements are not clear. he said they were left up to the state.

but i will play your game. hypothetically lets say his did actually give an actual answer.

and do you know what a seperation of church and state means? It prevents churches from becoming a governing body. it does not discount them for having influence.

church does not nessecarily mean christians

he could be for uniting all the churches and religious bodies (include those who have none) taking their opinions into account.

i already said i disagree with his view on gay marriage, and i somewhat disagree with banning aborition. it should be banned for some but not all.

i feel abortion should be banned for those who were not victims of rape or incest, and of course therapudic abortions. But if you dont want the baby, tough ****. you had sex, you knew the risk, now you deal with it.

Life is sacred, and you created it. dont throw it away because you did not take into account the risk of what you did. If you dont want it put it up for adoption.

[potatoe]

Hey guess what, separation of church and state doesn't exist!!! Deal with it jpg.

[b.spencer]

This. His opinion on the particular matters is pretty much irrelevant because he believes that it should all be left up to the state. So if he were president and followed his logic he would not have any say anyway. That's the difference between him and most candidates he has opinions on what he thinks is right and wrong, but doesn't think it is the federal govt.'s job to make laws based on their opinions.

This is where most Ron Paul believers are wrong. It is not that it "all" should be left up to the states. Just certain issues, which happen to agree with his religious stances.

Consider Ron Paul's "We the People" act. What does he propose to remove from court jurisdiction at the Federal level?

Forbids all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law. Makes federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[58] and forbids federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.

He proposes to remove gay rights, abortion, and establishment cases from Federal law only. Other minority rights? Still totally decided on the Federal level and "enforced" on the state. Why only these areas? The conclusion is obvious. He objects to gays having civil rights protection, abortion being a guaranteed right, and he objects to clear cases of establishment being presented in Federal Court. ONLY those areas. Those areas are exactly where Republicans would act to criminalize abortion, homosexuality, and act to establish religion at the state level. Someone rips all over what civil rights I am supposed to have, that other have, or passes laws specifically designed to deprive me of the right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" I have no court recourse. I just have to accept being tossed into jail.

Ron Paul WANTS Christian morality police. He just wants the states to do it for him, so that he can say that he is "blameless."

[Mtguy8787]

This would be done at the federal level. The only reason he wants the federal government out of certain things is so that states can enforce his stance against abortion and gay marriage. When someone says that he's against something and says it must be enforced, it makes it crystal clear.

So the only reason he is advocating this approach -- i.e. giving up all of "his", i.e. the federal government control over such issues -- is so that they will...... hopefully..... change their laws to fit his view?

Doesnt sound like a very good way to achieve said goal of "getting the states to enforce his stance on those issues now, does it"?

But yes, in some of these cases, he isn't "for liberty of the individual", per say, but "getting the federal government out of it", as he is a constitutionalists. Which is a good thing. For you, as a member of the local and/or state community, which is going to be easier for the government to be in sync with you (the community)?

***

Sitting around and saying "people 'should' respect gay's rights. NO PEOPLE 'SHOULD' RESPECT GAYS RIGHTS! THAT'S MY POSITION!!!" -- isn't going to change anything.

The practical fact of the matter is that when the federal government is micromanaging such details, first off, parts of the nation that might otherwise move in another direction, can be, and are, prevented from doing so.

The reality is that if you imagine a river flowing towards a distant point, which represents a more ideal state, and you try to get a nation like America that is so big, so diverse, to all flow along this same course, its not going to happen. Even if most people desire to move towards a better vision. Its not going to happen, because not only are different people's personal visions very different, but the course that one stream might take to get from the source to the goal might by nature be very different.

Trying to take one vision of how things 'should' be.... right now... and trying to make 300 million people fit into that, is like having multiple children and trying to treat them like the Father of the Von Trapp family in Sound of Music. While you WANT them to all end up at a certain place, the plain reality is that the nation is NOT going to start all marching to the same beat.

Nor would I want to live in such a nation....


By getting the Federal government out of it, you allow some streams to start moving, even if others dont start moving in the same way.

This is far more important than practically insignificant issues like gay marriage. Using the Von Trapp analogy, even if this approach, which has a lot of parallels to how people see themselves & this nation, even if this results in the kids doing something 'good', really, it isn't.

[Mafiafolife77]

So basically, you're one of those retards who actually care what his opinion is on abortion and trivial sh!t instead of actually listening to his position on his most prominent platforms, which include such issues as the economy, the deficit, the countless, worthless gov't programs/departments sucking taxpayer money down the drain, ending the federal reserve, I could go on forever.

It's just sad that people are dumb enough to care about such pointless political issues when we are facing such issues like the 3 wars were in and the 15 trillion dollars that were in the hole for. But yeah OP go ahead and focus on what he thinks about abortion and gay marriage, glad to know you're living so comfortably that you are able to concern yourself over such garbage.

[b.spencer]

So the only reason he is advocating this approach -- i.e. giving up all of "his", i.e. the federal government control over such issues -- is so that they will...... hopefully..... change their laws to fit his view?

Doesnt sound like a very good way to achieve said goal of "getting the states to enforce his stance on those issues now, does it"?

But yes, in some of these cases, he isn't "for liberty of the individual", per say, but "getting the federal government out of it", as he is a constitutionalists. Which is a good thing. For you, as a member of the local and/or state community, which is going to be easier for the government to be in sync with you (the community)?

. . . . .

I am curious then. WAS the Federal government correct in its anti-segregation measures and passing such measures as the Voting Rights act? Given your argument above, it would suggest that your answer would be no, and that the states were perfectly legitimate in having segregationist laws because it was what was "in sync" with the local community?

[aceshin]

Hey guess what, separation of church and state doesn't exist!!! Deal with it jpg.

Oh really? Respected constitutional scholar Richard Beeman begs to differ.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/t...rch-and-state/

inb4 you refuse to watch what he says because it was on the daily show.

[tk217]

I am curious then. WAS the Federal government correct in its anti-segregation measures and passing such measures as the Voting Rights act? Given your argument above, it would suggest that your answer would be no, and that the states were perfectly legitimate in having segregationist laws because it was what was "in sync" with the local community?

From a state authority point of view - No.

From a federal point of view - Yes.

From a constitutional point of view - No.

The correct path should have been a constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery, then another amendment to outlaw segregation. It seems more pathetic to the libertarian than anything for the need to have these amendments -- why can't people be a little less of an ******* and a little more logical?

[b.spencer]

From a state authority point of view - No.

From a federal point of view - Yes.

From a constitutional point of view - No.

The correct path should have been a constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery, then another amendment to outlaw segregation. It seems more pathetic to the libertarian than anything for the need to have these amendments -- why can't people be a little less of an ******* and a little more logical?

Would not a Federal constitutional amendment in this case be the very highest level of Federal overlordship, from the Paulist POV? An amendment is the highest level of the Federal government dictating direction to the states?

[tk217]

Would not a Federal constitutional amendment in this case be the very highest level of Federal overlordship, from the Paulist POV? An amendment is the highest level of the Federal government dictating direction to the states?

The need to ask this question forces me to ask have you ever read any work by John Locke or Rousseau?

[Mtguy8787]

Every time I post facts about Ron Paul, almost all of his supporters deny them. It's getting really annoying to see such blatant dishonesty or absolute ignorance from people who claim to not be sheep.

[B]Fact: Ron Paul does not believe in the separation of church and state.

1.) It shouldnt matter what writings said 200 years ago about the issue, as a deciding factor in today's decisions.

2.) I don't know what's worse -- people who want to enforce a Christian nation (one set of living values), like Huckabee, or people who want to impose another set of living values ('secularism'), in the name of separation of church and state. Not only is it funny, because they, as supposedly 'free thinkers' (because they are atheists & proud of it).... but their justification is essentially the same as the religious people they are opposing.

Christian fundamentalist:

"We want to impose Christian value... have a Christian nation. Why? What is the justification? Because of ' the Bible' What is the justification for that? What, you don't believe in the bible?"

Atheist "separation of church and state nut", aka "Secular fundamentalist"

"We want to impose a set of secular values. Why? What is the justification? Because of 'seperation of church and state. What is the justification for that? What, you don't believe in separation of church and state?"

***

In this context, arguing over whether the founders really intended for this or that interpretation of seperation of church and state, or whether this or that interpretation of a supreme court ruling, is like arguing over which interpretation of the bible. The 'moral authority' of both is simply taken for granted, and the real motivation behind both is purely emotions. For the religious nut, well... of course you have to follow the bible.

For the "atheist nut", it is based on an absurdly disempowering view of self, whereby s/he perceives themselves to be "imposed on" and victimized by the slightest display of remotely religious behavior, in a setting that they are forced to go to. I.e. they genuinely feel victimized by the Valedictorian being allowed to say "lets bow our heads in prayer" at the school's graduation.

This is typically blown up to absurd proportions and double standards, i.e. if the valedictorian were to say "lets all clap, in wishing us good luck in the future", well what if I don't want to. I know lot's of people who, being cynical in nature, wouldnt want to. But most of them wouldnt feel "imposed upon" nor victimized.


All this gets to the point where they feel their blood boil, at the mere thought of allowing some other community of people to have any semblance of religious related activity, by their imagining of all these "victims".

I find it laughably absurd to think of how such a person (being a free thinker and not wrapped up in emotions.... because theyre an atheist, unlike those religious people), can feel imposed upon -- even victimized -- by being made to be 'exposed to the religious expression of others'.... yet would probably not feel imposed upon by being made to be 'exposed to the political expressions of others'.

In any case, the essence of Sep. Church and State is that at that time, religious behavior was forced upon others -- noncompliance being illegal.

For today's 'modern atheist', whose 'enlightenment' would not be complete without at least one book by Richard Dawkins, this has been taken to mean "being made by the state to be in the presence of any religious expression, or even more absurdly -- but just as common -- 'being made by the state to be in a scenario, where others may be allowed by the school to express religiously"

[b.spencer]

The need to ask this question forces me to ask have you ever read any work by John Locke or Rousseau?

I am asking the question, because, from what I have seen from the Paulists on the R/P, virtually any exercise of Federal power is decried as almost evil. After reading what is written over and over again, sometimes I wonder if they think there is even a point to the Federal union in the first place.

And in answer to your question -- Locke, yes. Rousseau, no.

[leafs43]

Everything posted by the OP has to do with states rights, and doesn;t understand the position Ron Paul takes.

[paul_v]

I am curious then. WAS the Federal government correct in its anti-segregation measures and passing such measures as the Voting Rights act? Given your argument above, it would suggest that your answer would be no, and that the states were perfectly legitimate in having segregationist laws because it was what was "in sync" with the local community?

Segregation is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. States can't pass laws that violate the US Constitution. That's why banning gay marriage won't hold up to the Constitution since it's discriminating against gender. Only way to ban gay marriage is to pass a new Amendment.

[b.spencer]

Segregation is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. States can't pass laws that violate the US Constitution. That's why banning gay marriage won't hold up to the Constitution since it's discriminating against gender. Only way to ban gay marriage is to pass a new Amendment.

This one reason why I object to Mr. Paul so much. The actions he proposes to take in certain areas allow the states to pass laws that violate the US Constitution under the 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments --as found by lower courts so far -- by proposing to remove from the Federal Court system any method of hearing a case about gay rights. The same applies to abortion, the Establishment Clause, and apparently other areas.

I simply cannot support a man who views Constitutional rights and seems to think they are not unalienable, but granted and taken by the majority.