Defender of the Constitution, could win it all!

[mccumcumber]

Hmm... interesting point. However, I saw it as him playing the system, even though he didn't agree with it. I don't really have much against someone playing the system, unless you speak out against it. Then it raises some questions, such as: "Well, are there any other inconsistencies with your platform." Apparently he doesn't like homosexuals, and he is racist. Neither of which are very libertarian, but I haven't really delved too much into Ron Paul's personal life so I'm not going to say with confidence that he's a bigot. Although lots of people seem to believe he is.

His own defense is kind of weak as well. Saying that it's like a Social Security check. Though he doesn't believe in those systems, and speaks out against them, he still cashes the money. I guess I'm trying to say it's a wimpy approach. I think it would be much stronger, on his part, to give money that he doesn't believe in getting back to the government to help out their debt, or something to that matter.

 

[UncleBuck]

Do you not know what an earmark is?

Also do you not know what a bill "summary" is?


Now back to the video, please name one relevant point...No one has yet to produce one..

do you edit the holy living fuck out of everything you say? jesus fucking christ.

ronald the porkulus king loves him some earmarks, he snags as many as he can. but he votes against them so he can try to deceive people into thinking he doesn't like them, just like a good lying career politician does.

"carol, i pooped in the microwave but it's ok because i put the microwave in the stove"

 

[deprave]

Hmm... interesting point. However, I saw it as him playing the system, even though he didn't agree with it. I don't really have much against someone playing the system, unless you speak out against it. Then it raises some questions, such as: "Well, are there any other inconsistencies with your platform." Apparently he doesn't like homosexuals, and he is racist. Neither of which are very libertarian, but I haven't really delved too much into Ron Paul's personal life so I'm not going to say with confidence that he's a bigot. Although lots of people seem to believe he is.

His own defense is kind of weak as well. Saying that it's like a Social Security check. Though he doesn't believe in those systems, and speaks out against them, he still cashes the money. I guess I'm trying to say it's a wimpy approach. I think it would be much stronger, on his part, to give money that he doesn't believe in getting back to the government to help out their debt, or something to that matter.

Well I have to ask you to look into why they say hes a racist or whatever because this is dirty poltics and not true. In fact Ron Paul is one of the few that brings racist issues to light such as the drug war. Also to add that Ron Paul has homosexuals on his staff and is friends and works with homsexuals such as Barney Frank on the issue of legalizing Marijuana, most importantly he believes that every individual should be treated as individuals and not groups like black or white or homosexual, he believe that this is none of the governments businesss and that they should stay out of our personal lives and that is how he votes. Ron Paul constantly speaks out against blacks getting unfair treatment in the justice system. I could go on and on but I hope that gets the point across..

 

[deprave]

do you edit the holy living fuck out of everything you say? jesus fucking christ.

ronald the porkulus king loves him some earmarks, he snags as many as he can. but he votes against them so he can try to deceive people into thinking he doesn't like them, just like a good lying career politician does.

"carol, i pooped in the microwave but it's ok because i put the microwave in the stove"

Are you just going to keep acting like a child and calling names or are you going to name one relevant point from the video? Have you given up?

 

[mccumcumber]

Well I have to ask you to look into why they say hes a racist or whatever because this is dirty poltics and not true. In fact Ron Paul is one of the few that brings racist issues to light such as the drug war. Also to add that Ron Paul has homosexuals on his staff and is friends and works with homsexuals such as Barney Frank, most importantly he believes that every individual should be treated as individuals and not groups like black or white or homosexual, he believe that this is none of the governments businesss and that they should stay out of our personal lives and that is how he votes. Ron Paul constantly speaks out against blacks getting unfair treatment in the justice system. I could go on and on but I hope that gets the point across..

Glad I said without confidence. I'm not trying to tarnish Paul or anything, but I just think he could really play this earmark thing a lot better. Disappointed is a better word.

 

[NoDrama]

he votes against them

Like you said.

 

[Smirgen]

Oh noees , Ron Paul gets money for his state and constituates which is why they elected him and Baby Bucky is all out of preperation H .

Oh noes

With all the butt hurt in this thread You would think he assasinated an uncharged /Untried American Citizen or something.

 

[deprave]

Glad I said without confidence. I'm not trying to tarnish Paul or anything, but I just think he could really play this earmark thing a lot better. Disappointed is a better word.

Well he explained it a lot better many times over, in this interview was this first time this was brought up as an "attack" and then John Mccain started using it lol...I think he was caught off guard by something so silly really...like I said he did a poor job defending himself in this video.

 

[UncleBuck]

...he believes that every individual should be treated as individuals and not groups like...homosexua

lol, you lose.

in ronald the bigot's own words....

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

 

[deprave]

lol, you lose.

in ronald the bigot's own words....

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

LOL You lose because you quote a summary of a bill from 1979 that wasn't recorded, not his words.

 

[UncleBuck]

Are you just going to keep acting like a child and calling names or are you going to name one relevant point from the video? Have you given up?

"moar eermarkz pls or i poop on teh cat nekst"

 

[UncleBuck]

LOL You lose because you quote a summary of a bill from 1979 that wasn't recorded, not his words.

ronald the bigot wrote the thing. no one else even co-sponsored it.

so much for ronald the bigot not seeing people in groups and then singling out groups which he designates as "unacceptable"

• Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.​

  
  
  ​

 

[deprave]

so I guees you will keep throwing a fit like a child and not bring up an relevant points? lmao

 

[UncleBuck]

so I guees you will keep throwing a fit like a child and not bring up an relevant points? lmao

"moar eermarkz or i mayk raysist noowzleters"

 

[UncleBuck]

H.R.7955
Latest Title: Family Protection Act
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-22] (introduced 8/19/1980) Cosponsors (None)

SUMMARY AS OF:
8/19/1980--Introduced.Family Protection Act - States as the purpose of this Act the abolition of Federal governmental policies which interfere with the freedom of the American family.

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

ronald the bigot wrote the thing. no one else even co-sponsored it.

so much for ronald the bigot not seeing people in groups and then singling out groups which he designates as "unacceptable"

• Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.​

  
  
  ​

Looks like you have moved on to this argument again. If only Ron Paul could go back to 1980 and also abolish Federal spending for heterosexual promoters in his bill that never passed then he would make a good President.

Dig deeper.

 

[UncleBuck]

Looks like you have moved on to this argument again. If only Ron Paul could go back to 1980 and also abolish Federal spending for heterosexual promoters in his bill that never passed then he would make a good President.

Dig deeper.

"moar eermorks plz or i keek teh gayz doun"

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

lulz. At least you are funny.

 

[deprave]

First off its a summary, second off Dr Paul doesn't believe in federal funding of practicly anything and in that bill it bans federal funding from many things including heterosexual insitutions...Ron Paul is the only pro-gay marriage and pro-gay rights candidate that exists besides Obama, however he doesn't think the government should be involved in our personal lives like Obama.

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)


Q: On gay marriage. You've been quoted as saying, "Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society." And you've expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
A: If you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn't be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this.

Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?
A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality, it's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem


That bill was written by Ron in the 1970s. This was before the research that was being done and released in the 80s/early 90s that indicated possible biological links to homosexuality. It is entirely conceivable that Ron's attitude toward homosexuality was changed by the findings of these studies; he is, after all, a doctor by trade and would understand the science/biology behind it. And he does cite in that interview I posted in my previous response to this his "medical background" for not being judgemental about homosexuality.

 

[UncleBuck]

First off its a summary, second off Dr Paul doesn't believe in federal funding of practicly anything and in that bill it bans federal funding from many things including heterosexual insitutions...Ron Paul is the only pro-gay marriage and pro-gay rights candidate that exists besides Obama.

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.​