• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sell Me on Ron Paul

joko104 said:
No one is more beholding to the Religious Right than Ron Paul. He is, by far, the most Evangelical Christian rightwinger among the Republicans. By his voting record. By his 180 degree flipflops for the Religious rightwing, for his view that Biblical doctrines coopt the US Constitution, and his wanting to pass legislation that in effect would define all abortions as premeditated 1st degree murder and otherwise outlaw all abortions under any circumstance. Those and other reasons he has vowed everything the Evangelicals want (he voted in the past to outlaw gays from adopting children and to ban stem cell research - and more ) is why Paul has gone up in Iowa caucus polls. Over 50% of Republican caucus attendees are Evangelical, rightwing Christians and the ministers bring their congregations to the caucuses in chruch buses.
Click to expand...

I'd rather abortion be outlawed than allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely by the U.S. military.
 
joko104 said:
his wanting to pass legislation that in effect would define all abortions as premeditated 1st degree murder and otherwise outlaw all abortions under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

I don't feel like copying 1perry reply to you on this. Hopefully it links correctly.

Those and other reasons he has vowed everything the Evangelicals want (he voted in the past to outlaw gays from adopting children
Click to expand...

I believe you got that from Ontheissues which is wrong.

The 1999 bill he voted on was - H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587: An amendment to "prohibit" any "federal funding" for the joint adoption of a child between "individuals" who are not related by blood or marriage in D.C.

Doesn't say he voted to ban anything other than federal funding to give people incentive to adopt. Nothing about banning gays to adopt.

and to ban stem cell research
Click to expand...

Paul supports stem-cell research generically, as evidenced by his authoring the Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007 (H.R. 457; H.R. 3444 in 2005), a bill "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credits against income tax for qualified stem cell research, the storage of qualified stem cells, and the donation of umbilical cord blood". However, Paul believes the debate over the embryonic category of stem-cell research is another divisive issue over which the federal government has no jurisdiction:

Paul joined with his conservative colleagues in voting "no" on HR 2560, the Democrats' version of a federal ban on human cloning.[218] The Bush White House had strongly opposed HR 2560, saying "The Administration is strongly opposed to any legislation that would prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for research, which would require the destruction of nascent human life."[219]

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
I'd rather abortion be outlawed than allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely by the U.S. military.
Click to expand...

Your gender symbol does explain your view that you'd rather deny control of their own bodies to 100 million women and in real effect to over 1 million a year, than even the remote risk that you might be unjustly imprisoned - though thousands of men are unjustly convicted and imprisoned each year otherwise. If that becomes women being put to death for an abortion, that too is less important to you than your own personal freedom even at the remotest risk. Afterall, you aren't female so why do you care? You care only about YOU.

Thus you and I are 100% opposite. I care more about my daughter and her mother's safety than my own. I guess each man has his own priorities and your's is singularly yourself.

The male domination attitude of Ron Paul - and so many of his supporters who are overwhelming male - is another reason the vast majority of even Republican women truly dislike and even fear him. He is a male loose cannon on the deck in relation to women, particularly since he now believes fundamentalist Bible interpretations coopt the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

At least you acknowledge your vote is singularly for your own interests at any price to anyone and everyone else. Spoken like a true Paulite.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Your gender symbol does explain your view that you'd rather deny control of their own bodies to 100 million women and in real effect to over 1 million a year, than even the remote risk that you might be unjustly imprisoned - though thousands of men are unjustly convicted and imprisoned each year otherwise. If that becomes women being put to death for an abortion, that too is less important to you than your own personal freedom even at the remotest risk. Afterall, you aren't female so why do you care? You care only about YOU.

Thus you and I are 100% opposite. I care more about my daughter and her mother's safety than my own. I guess each man has his own priorities and your's is singularly yourself.

The male domination attitude of Ron Paul - and so many of his supporters who are overwhelming male - is another reason the vast majority of even Republican women truly dislike and even fear him. He is a male loose cannon on the deck in relation to women, particularly since he now believes fundamentalist Bible interpretations coopt the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

At least you acknowledge your vote is singularly for your own interests at any price to anyone and everyone else. Spoken like a true Paulite.
Click to expand...

Your daughter's and your mother's safety will be far more at risk if the government is allowed to use the military to detain them indefinitely for spurious reasons than if they were not allowed to have an abortion.

Also, I'm pro-choice, so way to make an indictment on my personality and entire political worldview based over a single issue of a single Presidential candidate.

Start championing candidates who are pro-choice and will protect the civil rights and liberties of American citizens and I'll endorse someone them instead.
 
AdamT said:
So ... Paul would eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing? How does he intend to fund the government?
Click to expand...
Slave labor, what else would a rightwinger do, right? :lol:
 
Adam T said:
So ... Paul would eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing? How does he intend to fund the government?
Click to expand...

Let me answer that with another question. How did we fund the government before the income tax was established? Look at that and you'll find your answer. But I can't think of a better way to stimulate the economy then letting the American people keep more of their hard earned money.
 
The deal about Ron Paul, IMO, is that he simply tells it like it is. I don't like everything he says. But it's very hard to argue. Ron Paul's downfall is that if things went his way, those sucking off the government teat and even government workers to some degree, as well as most of our social services, infra-structure and educational advances, that has set America head and shoulders above the larger portion of the world, are in the direct line of fire. Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He does not sway from the constitution either. He will assure us a strong defense but after that we are on our own. The school yard bullies will take the wheel. That will lose him to many liberal and moderate votes.

Then, it's the trouble he has with the Republican voters. He does not hesitate to tell the rightwing how screwed up their hogwash is and they have a hard time defending it. They too, don't always like what he says and it is just as hard for them to argue too.

Ron's too real. America has a problem with real. Especially, IMO, his party/base.

Ron's screwed.
 
Captain America said:
Ron Paul's downfall is that if things went his way, those sucking off the government teat and even government workers to some degree, as well as most of our social services, infra-structure and educational advances, that has set America head and shoulders above the larger portion of the world, are in the direct line of fire.
Click to expand...

Actually, in a weird twist of fate, Ron Paul recieves more donations from government workers then any other candidate. That's a bit like chickens donating to Kernel Sanders!
 
Wow... that's simply amazing

If Ron Paul does get the nod, which I highly doubt, I would not hesitate to put a Ron Paul for Prez 2012 bumper sticker on my car.

But, that being said, I think he is the only GOP candidate up on that stage worth voting for. I wouldn't argue too much over a Paul/Huntsman ticket.

But screw it. I'm going ice fishing. Obama is gonna get 4 more years no matter what I do. The GOP is just too off the hook and I don't think enough time will lapse before the next elections for the people to forget that.
 
Captain America said:
The deal about Ron Paul, IMO, is that he simply tells it like it is. I don't like everything he says. But it's very hard to argue. Ron Paul's downfall is that if things went his way, those sucking off the government teat and even government workers to some degree, as well as most of our social services, infra-structure and educational advances, that has set America head and shoulders above the larger portion of the world, are in the direct line of fire. Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He does not sway from the constitution either. He will assure us a strong defense but after that we are on our own. The school yard bullies will take the wheel. That will lose him to many liberal and moderate votes.

Then, it's the trouble he has with the Republican voters. He does not hesitate to tell the rightwing how screwed up their hogwash is and they have a hard time defending it. They too, don't always like what he says and it is just as hard for them to argue too.

Ron's too real. America has a problem with real. Especially, IMO, his party/base.

Ron's screwed.
Click to expand...

By his own declared interpretations, Ron Paul has trashed the Constitution declaring his Christian beliefs and/or personal morality required him to do so. Ron Paul shifted from being a strict constitutionalist to a strict evangelical increasingly over the last few years.
 
The Prophet said:
Let me answer that with another question. How did we fund the government before the income tax was established? Look at that and you'll find your answer. But I can't think of a better way to stimulate the economy then letting the American people keep more of their hard earned money.
Click to expand...

Governments change and the needs of a population change as well. The government of decades ago would not and could not meet the needs of the populace without an income tax.
 
samsmart said:
Your daughter's and your mother's safety will be far more at risk if the government is allowed to use the military to detain them indefinitely for spurious reasons than if they were not allowed to have an abortion.

Also, I'm pro-choice, so way to make an indictment on my personality and entire political worldview based over a single issue of a single Presidential candidate.

Start championing candidates who are pro-choice and will protect the civil rights and liberties of American citizens and I'll endorse someone them instead.
Click to expand...

Obviously you're not pro-choice in any meaningful way. Making abortion the criminal offense of capital murder - as Ron Paul's statements and even agenda does - isn't a lesser risk than the risk of a woman being innocently detained as a terrorist by the military.

Ron Paul supporters tend to follow him regardless of diametric flip flops and even his shifting from wanting a 18th century strict constitutional libertarian government to the opposite of his now wanting a 17th century theocratic authoritarian government.
 
The Prophet said:
Actually, in a weird twist of fate, Ron Paul recieves more donations from government workers then any other candidate. That's a bit like chickens donating to Kernel Sanders!
Click to expand...

... or middle class Americans donating to Republicans.
 
The good old pre-income tax days Ron Paul wants are from when much of the nation's goods were produced by slave labor, the average white American was impoverished, the response to unionization was to send in the military and gun them down, anyone could dump any poisons into the environment at will, women couldn't vote or own property, and any illness except for the wealthy or poverty resulted in death for which the poor and elderly were literally left to starve or freeze to death.

That is the America Ron Paul want to return to. Everyone for him/herself, power is a measure of wealth and might-makes-right.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Governments change and the needs of a population change as well. The government of decades ago would not and could not meet the needs of the populace without an income tax.
Click to expand...

When you examine our history, we did spectacularly before the income tax was instated.with a huge welfare/entitlementy state, and us nation building everywhere, you cannot abolish the income tax. You must change your domestic/foreign policies first. The real question you should be asking yourself is "What do I think the role of government should be?" If we lived within our means, and did away with welfare/entitlements, and simply followed the Constitution, there would be no need for an income tax.

So, you're right, with our current model of a bloated government, there would be no possible way to cut out the income tax. That's why we need to seriously look at what our government takes on.
 
joko104 said:
Obviously you're not pro-choice in any meaningful way. Making abortion the criminal offense of capital murder - as Ron Paul's statements and even agenda does - isn't a lesser risk than the risk of a woman being innocently detained as a terrorist by the military.

Ron Paul supporters tend to follow him regardless of diametric flip flops and even his shifting from wanting a 18th century strict constitutional libertarian government to the opposite of his now wanting a 17th century theocratic authoritarian government.
Click to expand...

Tell me of one other presidential candidate who would be willing to strike down NDAA 2012, SOPA, the PATRIOT Act, and the FISA courts.
 
Tell me another candidate other than Ron Paul that declares that as a matter of federal law 47% of American women should be declared murderers and that millions of women per year should be either imprisoned for life without parole or executed.
 
Redress said:
I'm sorry, I am shutting up now. You know me, if some one says they want me to shut up, I shut right up. Just that second. I don't keep talking and going on, no sir, I close my mouth right then and there and don't utter another peep. I will not bother you again, and I am shutting up just this instant. Not in a few minutes, but right now. I would never go on and on and on and on and on and on and on....

:2razz:
Click to expand...
you know nothing about shut up i was shut up in a cave for 3 days and had to eat bat wings I KNOW SHUT UP!
 
Ron Paul for president if you want to see the world collapse in 2012
 
 
joko104 said:
Tell me another candidate other than Ron Paul that declares that as a matter of federal law 47% of American women should be declared murderers and that millions of women per year should be either imprisoned for life without parole or executed.
Click to expand...

So he has an opinion on abortion that even as President he couldn't do much about because the SCOTUS already ruled on it and he disagrees with that ruling and states as much (perchance not quite to the level you want to claim); but that ultimately he can't do anything about. And on that basis we should dismiss him even though the things he could change are good things to change and that overall he would bring benefit and honor back to the Presidency.

Your irrational hatred and incoherent arguments haven't made much of an impression. You just hate him and attack and rarely (if ever, I for sure have yet to see it myself) back up what you say. Political hacks got to hack.
 
joko104 said:
Tell me another candidate other than Ron Paul that declares that as a matter of federal law 47% of American women should be declared murderers and that millions of women per year should be either imprisoned for life without parole or executed.
Click to expand...

He does not espouse the idea that abortion is murder....his votes suggest that he believes that abortion laws should be left up to states, in order to prevent a violation of the 1st amendment, since it is, and has been, largely, a religious issue.


Got anything else, boy wonder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom