• 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!

Did you watch Ron Paul's Farewell Address or Obama's Conference?

Did you watch Ron Paul's Farewell Address or Obama's Conference?


  • Total voters
    41
You will always hear haters say that Ron Paul never got any significant legislation passed. He was "Dr No". I think if you look at where our country is, the path it is going down, and the predictions that some strategists make about our fiscal future, that is one of his greatest accomplishments. To get anything passed in our Congress during his tenure required corruption, massive pork, and a handout to the other politicians to make it happen. In addition, and this is what I loved the most about the guy, he NEVER endorsed Romney. NEVER. Every idiot that was on that primary stage endorsed Romney. He didn't. I hope his son carries on his legacy (though he did endorse Romney).
 
Which is problematic because it gets rid of national standards for education. You'll have the south teaching creationism, you'll have the liberal states teaching "feel-good" nonsense, any kid transferring from one state to another is going to walk into an entirely different educational system and high school diplomas won't mean a thing because there won't be a single standard required to receive one. No thanks.
Strawman. Gun laws and right to carry have been state issues for years and many of them agree to recongnize each other's permits. While gun laws are much more simple to agree upon, it isn't impossible as you would have us believe. In addition, home school accreditation firms set standards that many state education systems agree upon all the time. For instance, we checked into homeschooling my son. If we would have chosen to do so, we had picked out a home school program that would have been recognized in North Carolina as well as by DOD schools upon our return to a military base. This is a non-issue that can be solved by the private sector and states.
Beliefs inherently inform our actions. When one has faulty beliefs, even if they are not actively trying to apply them, they will impact one's decisions. Ron Paul, because of his religious beliefs, is openly against gay marriage, contraception, abortion, separation of church and state, etc. I can point out all of these in speeches he's given if you'd like.
Yes, beliefs inherently inform our actions. Your beliefs are faulty IMO so therefore I wouldn't vote for you. Just as you see Paul's beliefs as faulty so you wouldn't vote for him. Your beliefs informed your actions when choosing who to vote for. So, don't vote for a Christian if you don't like the beliefs and get over it.
On to Ron Paul, let's see these speeches. On gay marriage, he is personally against it but wouldn't dictate that other's can't practice it. He also believes the federal gov't shouldn't be involved in it which would eliminate things like DOMA, marriage certificates, etc. Abortion, he has repeatedly told the story of when he personally witnessed a partial birth abortion and it changed his viewpoint on it. Nothing religious about that. If his religious views have added to that, then so be it. But the intial reason was the aforementioned one. Seperation of church and state. Not in the constitution. However, he believes local gov't should be able to dictate whether prayer occurs in school, students are taught about God, etc. Nothing wrong with that IMO. If you do away with the Dept of Education, then you can pick a secular school for your kid to attend that doesn't pray or teach anything about God. See how that works?
 
Which is problematic because it gets rid of national standards for education.

Actually, its mostly the states who handle the education standards.

You'll have the south teaching creationism,

Some already do.

you'll have the liberal states teaching "feel-good" nonsense,

Some already do.


any kid transferring from one state to another is going to walk into an entirely different educational system and high school diplomas won't mean a thing because there won't be a single standard required to receive one. No thanks.

I think you are grossly exaggerating here.


Beliefs inherently inform our actions. When one has faulty beliefs, even if they are not actively trying to apply them, they will impact one's decisions.

So only atheists should be allowed into office. Gotcha.

"Faulty beliefs" is completely subjective in a religious and ideologically diverse nation.

Ron Paul, because of his religious beliefs, is openly against gay marriage,

Ron Paul on gay marriage: 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.[139] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[140] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[141][142] 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."

contraception,

Paul does not believe in government handing out "free" contraceptions. That is not a religious stance, its a political ideology stance. He believes in allowing the citizens to be able use and purchase contraceptives whenever they wish.

abortion,

He is pro-life as are nearly all Republicans, religious or not. But he does not believe the federal government should have a say in the issue. Its a states rights issue. Once again, political ideology, not religion.


separation of church and state, etc.

What does that mean exactly? Because it means something different for a lot of people. While Paul says he rejects the notion of "separation of church and state" he believes in "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". So for example, if a group of students at a public school wished to pray before class they should be free to do so. But no student(s) should be forced to do so.


I can point out all of these in speeches he's given if you'd like.

Please do!
 
I watched both. I watched Obama's conference live then i watched Ron Paul's farewell address on YouTube.
And this is what i have to say to ol Ron: Congressman Ron Paul, although i did not agree with pretty much all of your economic policies, however i did agree with your anti interventionist, anti imperialist foreign policy, and your pro civil liberties social policy, you were a great Congressman and was not afraid to speak your mind. You will be missed Congressman Paul.

I share your sentiment on not always agreeing with him, but recognizing his value to our political system. I think his presence has generated much-needed discussion and debate, especially on foreign policy and civil liberties.
 
Actually, its mostly the states who handle the education standards.

Which I entirely disagree with.

Some already do.

Which I entirely disagree with.

Some already do.

Which I entirely disagree with.

I think you are grossly exaggerating here.

I don't think so. When you have high schools graduating students who cannot read, a diploma isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. That's why they came up with "no child left behind", which is equally a failure because, instead of teaching subjects, teachers just teach the test and nothing beyond it. You used to be able to get a good job straight out of high school. That's largely gone now.

So only atheists should be allowed into office. Gotcha.

No, only people who understand the separation of church and state and leave their religious views at the door.

"Faulty beliefs" is completely subjective in a religious and ideologically diverse nation.

No, a belief is either factually true or factually false. I don't care how much you believe in unicorns, how emphatically you demand they are real, how much faith you have, there's no reason to think unicorns exist. The same is true of gods.

Ron Paul on gay marriage: 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.[139] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[140] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[141][142] 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."

Paul just wants to throw the question from the federal government to the states but it really cannot work that way. The Constitution already provides equal protection under the law (which gays are certainly not currently entitled to) and guarantees that contracts in one state (which marriage is) must be respected in all states. Letting states pick and choose is blatantly unconstitutional.

Paul does not believe in government handing out "free" contraceptions. That is not a religious stance, its a political ideology stance. He believes in allowing the citizens to be able use and purchase contraceptives whenever they wish.

I didn't say anything about free contraceptives, I said that he personally opposes contraceptives.

He is pro-life as are nearly all Republicans, religious or not. But he does not believe the federal government should have a say in the issue. Its a states rights issue. Once again, political ideology, not religion.

Once again, it doesn't work as a state's rights issue. See above.

What does that mean exactly? Because it means something different for a lot of people. While Paul says he rejects the notion of "separation of church and state" he believes in "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". So for example, if a group of students at a public school wished to pray before class they should be free to do so. But no student(s) should be forced to do so.

And that's entirely fine if a group of students, not being led by anyone in an official state-sponsored capacity, want to get together and pray. I have no problem with that. However, when an employee of the state, acting in their capacity as a representative of the state, wants to take part in such activities and particularly lead such activities, that's where I have a problem. The place for religion is in the church and in the home, not in the schools or in the legislature.

Please do!

You already agreed to everything he said!
 
Which I entirely disagree with.

You can entirely disagree if you want but IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RON PAUL'S RELIGION

I don't think so. When you have high schools graduating students who cannot read, a diploma isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. That's why they came up with "no child left behind", which is equally a failure because, instead of teaching subjects, teachers just teach the test and nothing beyond it. You used to be able to get a good job straight out of high school. That's largely gone now.

It is largely gone because almost everyone goes to college now. A college diploma is just a really expensive high school diploma.

No, only people who understand the separation of church and state and leave their religious views at the door.

Which Ron Paul does.

No, a belief is either factually true or factually false. I don't care how much you believe in unicorns, how emphatically you demand they are real, how much faith you have, there's no reason to think unicorns exist. The same is true of gods.

And once again, Ron Paul does not force anyone to follow his religious beliefs.

Paul just wants to throw the question from the federal government to the states but it really cannot work that way. The Constitution already provides equal protection under the law (which gays are certainly not currently entitled to) and guarantees that contracts in one state (which marriage is) must be respected in all states. Letting states pick and choose is blatantly unconstitutional.

You clearly did not even read his quote because he says he doesn't see it as a state function but as a religious function. He argues for government being out of the marriage issue entirely except to oversee divorce proceedings and enforce such contracts (just like with any other private contract). And I happen to agree with that sentiment.

I didn't say anything about free contraceptives, I said that he personally opposes contraceptives.

Prove it.

Once again, it doesn't work as a state's rights issue. See above.

And once again, you may disagree with it being a state's rights issue but it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with political ideology.




You already agreed to everything he said!

I don't agree with everything he says. While I agree with him on reducing/eliminating taxes on things like income, sales, and capital, I disagree with him on land taxes (I believe they should be raised). I also don't completely agree with him on immigration and his overemphasis on the gold standard.

But please provide those quotes.
 
You can entirely disagree if you want but IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RON PAUL'S RELIGION

So? I didn't say I only disagreed with him on religion, did I?

It is largely gone because almost everyone goes to college now. A college diploma is just a really expensive high school diploma.

Which is one reason colleges are overloaded. Most people don't need to go to college, community colleges have become a place for people to learn the things they should have learned in high school. Most blue-collar workers ought to get out of high school and be able to earn a living. There's no point in college for them. Things have only gotten to this point because high school educations have become such a joke.

Which Ron Paul does.

Certainly he does not and hold the views he does.

And once again, Ron Paul does not force anyone to follow his religious beliefs.

But he certainly legislates with his religious beliefs in mind.

You clearly did not even read his quote because he says he doesn't see it as a state function but as a religious function. He argues for government being out of the marriage issue entirely except to oversee divorce proceedings and enforce such contracts (just like with any other private contract). And I happen to agree with that sentiment.

Marriage has been a civil function for a long, long, long time, in fact, religion co-opted marriage from secular society. In the United States, it's been decades upon decades since it had any meaningful religious significance. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want to, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.

Prove it.

See his "We the People Act".

And once again, you may disagree with it being a state's rights issue but it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with political ideology.

And once again, you assume that I only disagree with his religious stance. I disagree with a lot of things he says.

I don't agree with everything he says. While I agree with him on reducing/eliminating taxes on things like income, sales, and capital, I disagree with him on land taxes (I believe they should be raised). I also don't completely agree with him on immigration and his overemphasis on the gold standard.

No, I didn't mean that. I said you agree that he said everything I stated he said, thus I didn't have to produce quotes to demonstrate he actually holds those positions. Quotes are only necessary if you think he doesn't really hold those positions.
 
So? I didn't say I only disagreed with him on religion, did I?

No, but my issue is not with your position on education but that you said his religious views directly affect his views on education.

Cephus: It [Paul's religious views] certainly affects how he sees education, church-state separation, etc. How can you not see that?
Which is one reason colleges are overloaded. Most people don't need to go to college, community colleges have become a place for people to learn the things they should have learned in high school. Most blue-collar workers ought to get out of high school and be able to earn a living. There's no point in college for them. Things have only gotten to this point because high school educations have become such a joke.

Well for once we agree.

Certainly he does not and hold the views he does.

But he certainly legislates with his religious beliefs in mind.

More baseless claims.



Marriage has been a civil function for a long, long, long time, in fact, religion co-opted marriage from secular society. In the United States, it's been decades upon decades since it had any meaningful religious significance. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want to, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.

Which shouldn't be the case. Did you know before the Reconstruction there was no marriage licensing in the US? It only came about with the South to keep whites and blacks from marrying each other. It was unnecessary then and it is unnecessary now.

See his "We the People Act".

I am aware of it. Point to me where he wants to ban contraceptives.

And once again, you assume that I only disagree with his religious stance. I disagree with a lot of things he says.


No, I didn't mean that. I said you agree that he said everything I stated he said, thus I didn't have to produce quotes to demonstrate he actually holds those positions. Quotes are only necessary if you think he doesn't really hold those positions.

And once again, the issue I've taken up with you is your claim that his religion affects his political actions.

Now, provide me some quotes, please.
 
I watched Ron Paul's farewell speech and it was very well delivered. He is one of the last true statesman in Congress, but has paved a way to a Liberty movement in this country. He has brought the ideas of fiscal responsibility, small government, and civil liberties to the people and it has been well received. Dr. Paul could not be bought. He did not support any special interest group, and was true to his principles for his entire stay in Congress.

People call him crazy, but when one actually looks into what he is saying...they find out that it makes a hell of a lot more sense then a lot of the BS going on now.

The fact that he's a racist loon who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and thinks the wrong side won the american civil war is just a minor annoyance.
 
Back
Top Bottom