Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Ron Paul for president
- Thread starter mach1chris
- Start date
Tony4310
Regular Member
Hey eye. What do you propose those of us that support Ron Paul do? Should we simply back the Republican nominee ( whom ever it may be ) and give that person our total support or stand behind what we believe and do the right thing ( for those of us that support Ron Paul ) and stick to our guns ( no pun intended ) and back Ron Paul all the way.
Me personally! I will stand behind Ron Paul regardless who the Republicans nominate. I will NOT back someone I do not like nor support simply because a party picks them. Ron Paul has been the only constant candidate year after year. The people biding for the Repub. nomination are already starting to take pages from Ron Paul and why is that I wonder? Because he is the real deal and says what needs to be said, but like usual, the media ( Fox included ) ignores him because if he got fair coverage. They'd see a shift in support for him. He's a threat to the good ol boy club that would take votes away from the good ol boys and girls.
I'm so glad I moved away from being a repub/conservative to being a Constitutionalist. Even more glad I have my liberal leaning wife becoming a Ron Paul supporter.
Me personally! I will stand behind Ron Paul regardless who the Republicans nominate. I will NOT back someone I do not like nor support simply because a party picks them. Ron Paul has been the only constant candidate year after year. The people biding for the Repub. nomination are already starting to take pages from Ron Paul and why is that I wonder? Because he is the real deal and says what needs to be said, but like usual, the media ( Fox included ) ignores him because if he got fair coverage. They'd see a shift in support for him. He's a threat to the good ol boy club that would take votes away from the good ol boys and girls.
I'm so glad I moved away from being a repub/conservative to being a Constitutionalist. Even more glad I have my liberal leaning wife becoming a Ron Paul supporter.
Last edited:
Gunslinger
Regular Member
You may not have liked McCain as a candidate, but to call a man who suffered as he did and kept his honor as a POW for over six years a "milquetoast" is unmitigated BS. Even Slick Willy said no man, short of dieing for his country, has given more to the US than he. And of course his fellow POWs. Perry is a former Air Force Pilot. What is Paul's military service? He was an Air Force Flight Surgeon. That's fine and honorable service, but doesn't hold a candle to McCain's. I've tried to be even handed with Paul, although clearly I support Perry, but slurring McCain doesn't sit well with me as a Vietnam veteran and fellow Aviator.
Last edited:
Gunslinger
Regular Member
No Constitutionalist would by act of commission or omission support obama. Throwing a vote away on so called principle for Paul is doing exactly that.
eye95
Well-known member
I would propose that you vote for the candidate whose principles come closest to yours among the choices who have a shot at winning.
I expect that, since Paul will not be on the Republican ticket, the paulbots will either stay home or write Paul in. Either way, I expect them to do so petulantly, with exaggerated foot-stamping and hyperbolic insistence that all other candidates are anti-Liberty.
You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. Words lost on paulbots.
georg jetson
Regular Member
There is no such thing as "throwing a vote away". That is a media induced fallacy...
However, those that do not vote their conscience based on their principles are susceptible to being herded by media induced fallacies.
eye95
Well-known member
Those who realize that there is no perfect candidate, and vote for the electable one whose views are closest will cast the most effective vote. Those who stubbornly stick to an unelectable candidate will be just as effective as someone who stays home.
By all means, vote for Paul in the primaries. However, when the general rolls around, and Paul is not there, vote for the most pro-Liberty candidate, or your vote will be ineffective, or worse, effective assistance for the most anti-Liberty candidate.
Reality, folks, regardless of the misconceptions to which any stubbornly stick.
Personally, it is my intention to support Cain in the primaries. He doesn't have much of a chance of winning the nomination. If he is not the candidate, I will support the Republican candidate, assuming it is one of those mentioned to date, over Obama. Continuing to support Cain if he has lost the nomination would be throwing my vote away and aiding Obama in his reelection effort--again, reality.
By all means, vote for Paul in the primaries. However, when the general rolls around, and Paul is not there, vote for the most pro-Liberty candidate, or your vote will be ineffective, or worse, effective assistance for the most anti-Liberty candidate.
Reality, folks, regardless of the misconceptions to which any stubbornly stick.
Personally, it is my intention to support Cain in the primaries. He doesn't have much of a chance of winning the nomination. If he is not the candidate, I will support the Republican candidate, assuming it is one of those mentioned to date, over Obama. Continuing to support Cain if he has lost the nomination would be throwing my vote away and aiding Obama in his reelection effort--again, reality.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Bahahaha...and you call Ron Paul "whack-a-doodle."
http://www.ontheissues.org/herman_cain.htm
That's a good all-American perspective, right there. /sarcasm
Gotta love a politician who takes a firm stand on the issues... /sarcasm
Hmmm...perhaps the nation with the larger population should have the stronger military...just sayin'! As it currently stands, we don't have much to worry about, because despite our national debt, neocon Republicans like Cain have ensured that we spend more on our military than all the other nations of the Earth combined. Besides, when China attempts to dominate another country, they dump money into it (several nations in Africa, for instance). When the United States attempts to dominate a country, we bomb the hell out of it, invade, pay off local thugs to do ruthless things we don't want Americans reading about in the paper, and impose military rule on foreigners who don't want us there (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Colombia, the Philippines, Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.).
Is it constitutional? No. Don't we already have to pay state health departments? Yes. But who's counting the gubmint dollars, right?
Those are just a few of his neocon gems.
So, eye95, you are willing to support another neocon Republican hack simply because he supports your single-issue, the fair tax? At least our single issue is the Constitution.
Again, turn down the Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh et. al., and maybe, just maybe, you will one day find yourself able to form a logical, independent, principled opinion.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
He jumped ahead of Bachmann. There's also a link to a new Rasmussen poll in the story that doesn't only poll R voters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/24/benzinga1881149.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/24/benzinga1881149.DTL
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
No offense, GS, but nobody was calling his service into question.
Regarding the term milqetoast, I understand MIB to be adjective-fying McCains unwillingness to stand firm on rights, spending, etc.
McCain did his military service, yes. But, he then became a part of the government party, and a politician. If as a politician he stood as firm for freedom as he did against the NVA attempts to break him, we'd all be better for it.
And, lets not forget he was fine with a fed law requiring backround checks for all gunshow gun sales, even private sales by non-FFLs.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
I am stunned by the profound ignorance and unbridled mindlessness of this paragraph. It illustrates how completely absent of thought a person must be to be a rabid foaming at the mouth paulbot, and it is exactly why RP will remain a fringe candidate (with help from the 9/11 truth tin foil hat brigades of course). No one with any self respect would want to be associated with people who think it would be a better world if the chi-coms dominated it. Sure, they dump undervalued currency into 3rd world $#!tholes so they can gut it's resources without regards to the environment, or leave any lasting infrastructure that would help the people. The same China that bullies it's neighbors the same way leftists accuse the US of doing should be the dominating power on earth? The same country that crushes all dissent within it's borders, and regulates the most intimate aspects of the lives of it's people?
Then you smugly rail at Eye for his principles? I expect psudeo-intellectual drivel like this out of leftist bed wetters. Furthermore when I see the word "neo-con" regurgitated in reference to any candidate that isn't Ron Paul I know better than to pay attention to anything else that poster has to say.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
There is a reason that I have him on ignore. Yeah, the ignorance of that paragraph is stark. However, I was amused by the "facts" he used in it and the immature and historically ignorant equation of the size of a nation with what he perceives should be the size of its military.
I really don't care what he says (or most paulbots say). They merely draw rah-rahs from those who already think similarly, but won't sway many who were on the fence but actually put some thought into it.
No matter how many threads they start, how much they post, how hard they work to keep these threads up top, they are still a noisy minority, and I (and, it seems, you) will continue to provide a counterpoint to that noise. Most thinking folks will reject his wack-a-doodle foreign policy ideas.
DrakeZ07
Regular Member
I can't find much on Mr. Paul relating to issues that concern me, specifically military service and LGBT rights. But, anything is better than nothing, if I find out he's neutral or positive to said concerns of mine, I'd be happy to support, and vote for him, in anyway I can. <3 <3
eye95
Well-known member
There is no such a thing as LGBT rights. I suspect Paul would agree with that statement.
There are just rights which, by definition, are precisely the same for all. If a right is based on a group of people sharing a certain attribute or attributes, it is actually a privilege. The danger of privileges is their subjectivity of the whims of legislatures or courts, which makes them useless, essentially anti-rights. If you wish to protect your rights, seek to champion the real rights of others, not some perceived privileges from which only you and select others benefit.
There are just rights which, by definition, are precisely the same for all. If a right is based on a group of people sharing a certain attribute or attributes, it is actually a privilege. The danger of privileges is their subjectivity of the whims of legislatures or courts, which makes them useless, essentially anti-rights. If you wish to protect your rights, seek to champion the real rights of others, not some perceived privileges from which only you and select others benefit.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
You do know that you are one of the most guilty parties in bumping these posts up don't you? As much as you post baseless accusations, more do people feel they need to defend against them.
What specific military issues?
As far as LGBT, he's fine with the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" and would rather have the government out of marriage completely or worst-case, let the states deal with it and not the federal government. He's also received more donations from active duty military personel than all the other Republican candidates combined and more than Obama.
DrakeZ07
Regular Member
I apologize in advance for making it seem like I was/am setting a new debate/path for the thread, I was just curious. I do have a question though, pardon my lack of understanding for your terms, and verbiage, I'm sorta confused by it, but; If, by definition, every human in the US, of legal standing, are equal, and share the same rights. Why is there a absolute need by our elected officials, to give one group of people a privilege, that is not meant to be shared by everyone else? Examples being marriage, and firearms. It seems to me that both can be championed equally, as the former is a case granted to one group of people, but not the other; whereas the latter is, though granted to all, is yet again only allowed to certain people, in certain areas of the USA. Yet another question; I'm sure if I already had "some perceived privileges from which only you and select others benefit", I wouldn't have to question Mr. Paul's stance on it. Living in a state like Kentucky, where my community isn't exactly welcomed, I would enjoy some federal 'protection' or 'rights guarantee'; Before the comment of "just move elsewhere" comes up, I like my firearm rights, as much as LGBT concerns, but my partner once told me "It's best to reside in a place where the government would take general fear of armed protestors; than in a place where the protestors take fear of armed government".
Sorry if I got a bit derailed, that kinda struck a nerve. I apologize if I offended anyone.
I'm sorry for not being clearer in my question/comment. I was mostly wondering of his stance on the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell", and if he'd be among the first to jump on the 'bandwagon' to re-instate it, but your answer solved my concerns; Thank you <3
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Firstly, this is a welcomed change of direction for the thread since it is about Ron Pauls stances on the issues.
I'm not speaking for eye95 but I want to get my .02 in that if he's saying what I think he's saying; I agree. We need to stop defining people by race or class and instead as individuals. When you recognize that every individual has the right to his/her own life, liberty and property it leaves no room for the collectivst ideas of racism or grouping together of people with differences in general. Instead of looking at it from the perspective of LGBT; instead look at it as personal liberty for all. Belief in true individual liberty leaves no room for one to be against what others do as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.
ETA after your edit:
So, it's not that it's a "privilege" and not a right to be gay, it's that saying that the government should have the power to do anyting at all about it, one way or the other. Giving the goernment power over it turns it into a de facto privilege as they shouldn't have a say in the matter.
Does that make sense?
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Privileges make sense. The most notable example is driving on a public byway. It is a privilege licensed to those who have documented knowledge and a demonstrated ability to drive safely among others.
On DADT: Except that that policy was in reply to a complete ban, was therefore put in writing, and was perceived as something of a continued ban, it actually was the most logical and rights-respecting way to handle the predicament created by allowing those attracted to members of the same sex to serve alongside those members of the same sex in situations where such attraction would be problematic to the unique nature of the demands of military service. It rightly ignored any proclivity and focused solely on behavior. As long as the member did not practice homosexual behavior (or indicate that he would by asserting that he was a homosexual), he would be allowed to serve without question.
I have zero problem with a policy that bars the behavior (not the proclivity) and assertions that one is currently a practicing homosexual, thereby indicating an intention to participate in the behavior. I support such a ban, as it would apply to all equally and since the behavior creates problems in situations peculiar to the military, reducing military effectiveness. I support a ban on any behavior that would have such an effect.
On DADT: Except that that policy was in reply to a complete ban, was therefore put in writing, and was perceived as something of a continued ban, it actually was the most logical and rights-respecting way to handle the predicament created by allowing those attracted to members of the same sex to serve alongside those members of the same sex in situations where such attraction would be problematic to the unique nature of the demands of military service. It rightly ignored any proclivity and focused solely on behavior. As long as the member did not practice homosexual behavior (or indicate that he would by asserting that he was a homosexual), he would be allowed to serve without question.
I have zero problem with a policy that bars the behavior (not the proclivity) and assertions that one is currently a practicing homosexual, thereby indicating an intention to participate in the behavior. I support such a ban, as it would apply to all equally and since the behavior creates problems in situations peculiar to the military, reducing military effectiveness. I support a ban on any behavior that would have such an effect.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
OK, nevermind. I guess don't agree with eye95. He wasn't saying what I thought he was.
"Don't ask don't tell" makes no sense when there are already regulations intact that dictate opposite-sex relationships in the armed services. Those same regulations can apply to same-sex relationships without the need for further refinements.
"Don't ask don't tell" makes no sense when there are already regulations intact that dictate opposite-sex relationships in the armed services. Those same regulations can apply to same-sex relationships without the need for further refinements.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
The behaviors are different and have different impacts in the military environment. It is reasonable that the behaviors (not the people) are treated differently. People have rights to be treated equally. Behaviors do not.
This critical distinction is lost on many.
BTW, I think you do agree with what I said about rights v. privileges. You don't agree with what I said in extension to those remarks in particular as they regard DADT. To me, that is not a rights issue, but a policy one. As long as the rules on behavior apply the same to all, it is not a rights issue.
This critical distinction is lost on many.
BTW, I think you do agree with what I said about rights v. privileges. You don't agree with what I said in extension to those remarks in particular as they regard DADT. To me, that is not a rights issue, but a policy one. As long as the rules on behavior apply the same to all, it is not a rights issue.
Last edited: