Ron Paul ........ all talk?

[Avorysuds]

Paul might have not supported the SC on this but he also did not support the law to "outlaw homosexuals" you lying fool.

Ron Paul wants to invalidate the SC ruling. He proposed legislation that would do so. Ron Paul may not personally support sodomy laws but he's more than willing to support a state's right to enact sodomy laws. What happens at the end of the day is one's actions and legislation proposed, not words.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that it's okay that Ron Paul wanted to uphold sodomy laws because he doesn't personally support them?

HOW you dumb fuck, HOW does the We the Peoples Act stop the SC from dealing with a constitutional issue? HOW?

States are not allowed to trample on our constitutional rights, regardless if Paul is President or if the We the Peoples act were passed.

Paul is allowed to be wrong, you do fucking understand this yes? He is not a perfect human being. It's possible Paul is not wrong, just I and you don't agree with him. In the end Paul does not support outlawing homosexuality so it is not as if there is some sinister plot to pass the We the Peoples act to help Texas outlaw Gays. Take off your tin foil hat you loon.

Paul is the most Pro Gay President there could possibly be on the Democrat or Republican side because he does not want Government involved in it at all… Meaning you can’t have a blanket outlawing of Gays… Just as if the SC were to find homosexuality illegal on a federal level… That is Paul’s concern, that the SC tramples people’s rights, you just happen to agree with this ruling but one day they might pass something you don’t like and then what will you do?

 

[Avorysuds]

No, it would be RP's opinion that the SC has no power on this issue. The outlawing of homosexuality is unconstitutinal and it does not matter it Paul agrees or not. In the end Paul is against outlawing homosexuality.

What? How did you imagine that aerobatic feat?

How can you say in one sentence that RP's opinion that the SC has no power on the issue (and also wants to make a law that would make their opinion invalid) and in the next say the outlawing of homosexuality is unconstitutional?

If it was up to Ron Paul, the SC ruling would be invalid! Therefore, states could make homosexuality once again against the law and criminalize it.

What don't you get about that?

You're way to lost for me man. You wana hate to hate.

 

[Avorysuds]

He skipped the vote on allowing what HE calls "The Military Industrial Complex" to proceed.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

He can be found under: "Not Voting."



The courage of one's convictions --> skipping the Vote that seems the Route of your entire Rhetorical Existence. Whoopz.

he also claims to be against earmarks, but never met an earmark he didn't like...

he also claims to be for term limits, but has made a career out of his congressional seat and then sent the baby randian into the family business...

It's been a long while since you said anything intelligent. Ron Paul plays by the rules of the job he was hired to do...

 

[Modbert]

HOW you dumb fuck, HOW does the We the Peoples Act stop the SC from dealing with a constitutional issue? HOW?

States are not allowed to trample on our constitutional rights, regardless if Paul is President or if the We the Peoples act were passed.

Paul is allowed to be wrong, you do fucking understand this yes? He is not a perfect human being. It's possible Paul is not wrong, just I and you don't agree with him. In the end Paul does not support outlawing homosexuality so it is not as if there is some sinister plot to pass the We the Peoples act to help Texas outlaw Gays. Take off your tin foil hat you loon.

Paul is the most Pro Gay President there could possibly be on the Democrat or Republican side because he does not want Government involved in it at all… Meaning you can’t have a blanket outlawing of Gays… Just as if the SC were to find homosexuality illegal on a federal level… That is Paul’s concern, that the SC tramples people’s rights, you just happen to agree with this ruling but one day they might pass something you don’t like and then what will you do?

You really don't get it, do you?

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We the People Act. H.R. 539, 2009-01-14, originally H.R. 3893, 2004-03-04. 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.

States were able to have homosexuality illegal through Sodomy laws until Lawrence v. Texas. Lawrence v. Texas which Ron Paul disagrees with stopped states from being able to essentially outlaw homosexuality.

You argue that it's okay because Ron Paul is allowed to be wrong as if that justifies his position and your backflips to defend him. There's nothing tin foil about what I'm saying.

You know what is tin foil though? Ron Paul in a John Birch Society video arguing about how the UN is going to try and take away our guns and property.

Paul would be the most Gay President ever? Really? The guy who once upon a time voted for DOMA and thought DADT was a "decent policy" would be a strong advocate for equal rights for gays in office? Allow me to say I can't see it.

I disagree with several SC rulings, however that doesn't make Ron Paul's stance any less wrong. Though maybe next you can tell me how the Supreme Court is "tramping people's rights" when they stop sodomy laws. That would be a hoot to see.

 

[Modbert]

You're way to lost for me man. You wana hate to hate.

I don't hate Ron Paul.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here are the facts: The Supreme Court has ruled on these issues, the We The People Act has never even been voted on let alone passed either chamber of Congress, and the President cannot overrule the Supreme Court. This is how our system exists right now. Does that mean that Ron Paul agrees with the system as it exists? No. I was merely commenting on the system as it exists right now with the sentence you took issue with. You then completely ignored any explanation of Ron Paul's position of how it should be.

Here are the facts: Ron Paul wants to invalidate the Supreme Court rulings on these issues. If elected President, Ron Paul would sign into law a bill that would invalidate these rulings. Just because he failed doesn't mean he didn't try.

I find it very amusing that you're trying to defend Paul on this through the argument that it never passed. If President Obama while in Congress proposed a law to outlaw all guns but it failed then I can't imagine you would be so easy on him.

I'm not trying to defend him on the argument that it didn't pass. That was simply stating a fact. The rationale and defense for his position came after, which you dismiss.

 

[Avorysuds]

You're way to lost for me man. You wana hate to hate.

I don't hate Ron Paul.

And I don't have blinders on...

 

[Modbert]

And I don't have blinders on...

You never did respond to my previous post before the one you're responding to. I don't think you have a grasp on what exactly the We the People Act is or what it would do.

 

[WatertheTree]

And you're an authority on libertarianism now? Ron Paul, as a libertarian, would certainly have a problem with oppressive state governments, just as I'm sure he has a problem with oppressive foreign governments. He realizes, however, that as an elected official of the U.S. federal government that he doesn't have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the states anymore than he would a foreign country. His goal is to do what he can within the federal government. It's other people's responsibility to do what they can with their state governments. He can't do it all.

Ron Paul may have a problem with oppressive state governments but he wouldn't do anything about it. If Texas wanted, they could reenact sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuality. If Alabama wanted, they could put into place a law that would outlaw Atheists from running for public office. The list goes on.

Ron Paul can talk about liberty and freedom all he likes, but at the end of the day it's actions that matter.

If government would mold to Ron Paul then the federal government would have only two purposes. The first is the defense of the nation, and the second is to protect the populations liberties from the states.

Only an ignoramus would somehow turn that into what you allege.

 

[Modbert]

If government would mold to Ron Paul then the federal government would have only two purposes. The first is the defense of the nation, and the second is to protect the populations liberties from the states.

Only an ignoramus would somehow turn that into what you allege.

Go read We the People Act and then come back to tell me that Ron Paul has plans to protect the populations liberties from the states.

 

[jillian]

/eyeroll

Do correct me where I'm wrong. Or does your blind worship of Ron Paul not allow you to form coherent arguments anymore?

none of the paulians have the ability to assess their hero rationally...

 

[WatertheTree]

If government would mold to Ron Paul then the federal government would have only two purposes. The first is the defense of the nation, and the second is to protect the populations liberties from the states.

Only an ignoramus would somehow turn that into what you allege.

Go read We the People Act and then come back to tell me that Ron Paul has plans to protect the populations liberties from the states.

I did dumbass. Just cause you asked me to.

(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.

Maybe you should go read it.
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I expect to see you supporting Ron Paul from now on Libbo.

 

[Modbert]

I expect to see you supporting Ron Paul from now on Libbo.

We the People Act would allow states to once again outlaw and criminalize homosexuality. Also ban Atheists from running for public office. And outlaw Abortion.

Though clearly you wish to cherrypick what you like to believe.

Though while you're trying to defend Ron Paul for We the People Act, perhaps you can also tell me why Mr. States Rights voted for DOMA.

 

[Modbert]

none of the paulians have the ability to assess their hero rationally...

A number of them should join the circus with their amazing aerobatics in trying to say Paul is for Liberty while defending his views of allowing states to run rampant on people's liberties.

 

[WatertheTree]

I expect to see you supporting Ron Paul from now on Libbo.

We the People Act would allow states to once again outlaw and criminalize homosexuality. Also ban Atheists from running for public office. And outlaw Abortion.

Though clearly you wish to cherrypick what you like to believe.

Though while you're trying to defend Ron Paul for We the People Act, perhaps you can also tell me why Mr. States Rights voted for DOMA.

So you say, I just read the bill and that shit is not in it. Just because it may enable this legislation to take place doesnt mean it is the fault.

THIS LEGISLATION ONLY EMPOWERS THE STATES WITH THE POWER TO REJECT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES. WHICH IN A FREE COUNTRY IS A GOOD THING.

 

[Modbert]

So you say, I just read the bill and that shit is not in it. Just because it may enable this legislation to take place doesnt mean it is the fault.

THIS LEGISLATION ONLY EMPOWERS THE STATES WITH THE POWER TO REJECT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES. WHICH IN A FREE COUNTRY IS A GOOD THING.

Are you kidding me?

Just because the legislation does all these things doesn't mean it's the legislation's fault? Yes it is! Libertarians are suppose to be all about taking responsibility, and yet you want to take none here.

You seem to believe that empowering the states so they can reject the federal government is always a good thing. History has shown for you to be completely wrong. You may want 50 different fiefdoms, but I don't.

 

[WatertheTree]

So you say, I just read the bill and that shit is not in it. Just because it may enable this legislation to take place doesnt mean it is the fault.

THIS LEGISLATION ONLY EMPOWERS THE STATES WITH THE POWER TO REJECT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES. WHICH IN A FREE COUNTRY IS A GOOD THING.

Are you kidding me?

Just because the legislation does all these things doesn't mean it's the legislation's fault! Yes it is! Libertarians are suppose to be all about taking responsibility, and yet you want to take none here.

You seem to believe that empowering the states so they can reject the federal government is always a good thing. History has shown for you to be completely wrong. You may want 50 different fiefdoms, but I don't.

Alright DUMBSHIT FUCKING STUPID MORON DO NOTHING EVERYONE PROVIDE FOR ME FAGGOT SHIT PACKING LIBERAL show me where that bill says a GOD DAMNED THING ABOUT STOPPING YOUR FREEDOM TO PLAY BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN WITH YOUR OTHER DEGENERATE LIBERAL FAGGOT FRIENDS.

 

[Modbert]

Alright DUMBSHIT FUCKING STUPID MORON DO NOTHING EVERYONE PROVIDE FOR ME FAGGOT SHIT PACKING LIBERAL show me where that bill says a GOD DAMNED THING ABOUT STOPPING YOUR FREEDOM TO PLAY BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN WITH YOUR OTHER DEGENERATE LIBERAL FAGGOT FRIENDS.

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We the People Act. H.R. 539, 2009-01-14, originally H.R. 3893, 2004-03-04. 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.

Bill Text - 109th Congress (2005-2006) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Sec 2 Findings:

(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Also:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

Way to show your tolerant of others though!

 

[WatertheTree]

Alright DUMBSHIT FUCKING STUPID MORON DO NOTHING EVERYONE PROVIDE FOR ME FAGGOT SHIT PACKING LIBERAL show me where that bill says a GOD DAMNED THING ABOUT STOPPING YOUR FREEDOM TO PLAY BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN WITH YOUR OTHER DEGENERATE LIBERAL FAGGOT FRIENDS.

View attachment 16875

View attachment 16876

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We the People Act. H.R. 539, 2009-01-14, originally H.R. 3893, 2004-03-04. 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.

Bill Text - 109th Congress (2005-2006) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Sec 2 Findings:

(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Also:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

Way to show your tolerant of others though!

Exactly you DUMB SHIT. It simply gives power back to the states! ONLY A DUMBFUCK LIKE YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT AN ATTACK ON YOUR FREEDOMS.

And tolerance is NOT acceptance or approval.

I think you need to man up and look to your local government instead of looking for the federal government to provide for you.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Speaking to the group Family Leader in Pella, Paul said of DOMA, “I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize [same-sex marriage] and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever,” The Des Moines Registerreports. DOMA, which President Obama and the Justice Department said they will no longer defend in court, allows states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, and also prevents federal recognition of such unions.

Paul, a 75-year-old libertarian-leaning Republican, was asked if he agreed with the 2009 Iowa supreme court ruling for marriage equality, then responded that he hadn’t read that “report” but supported each state’s right to legislate on marriage. An aide intervened, and Paul said marriage is “a personal, spiritual matter,” that people shouldn’t need a license to get married, and that it becomes a state concern only when one state tries to impose its views on another.

Despite his confusion about the ruling, Paul said he supported Iowa voters’ right to recall state supreme court justices.



Ron Paul Supports DOMA | News | The Advocate