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

[Modbert]

I don't deny that Ron Paul attempted to get the Supreme Court back to focusing only on federal issues and not state issues, as the Constitution stipulates, but that bill didn't pass so the Supreme Court's rulings are still in effect.

So it doesn't matter simply because the bill doesn't pass? If SOPA doesn't pass, does that mean you're not going to hold it against those who supported it?

President Ron Paul would support and sign a bill if elected that enacts what is written in We The People Act. So yes, it definitely matters.

 

[Avorysuds]

And here we go… If Ron Paul has even the smallest flaw it voids him out… Yet these same people that try so hard to discredit Paul will support candidates that fail *most* of the time… Look a Bush, look at Obama…
I mean I have seen a Democrat attack Paul for not leaving his campaign for President to fly to DC to vote no on a bill that expands the patriot act while Obama voted for the Patriot act and said he will vote yes on this bill… That person (greenbread) will still vote Obama. Paul voted against the patriot act twice… Yet Paul is the bad guy. And "you people" want to be taken seriously?

 

[Mad Scientist]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oppressive local government!

You don't believe a state government can be oppressive?

Of course they can, but State and local govt's that get out of control are easier to get back into control by the people. Example: Name a STATE that's conducting Drone attacks against foreign countries.

We are the United STATES of America NOT the United Federal Government of America. Remember that.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Personally I don't care what gay people do in thier homes. If I gave that impression I apologize. My point was that if you don't like State law you can move. People choose their own governments and it's easier to influence on a local level than at a federal level. It's easier to move out of state than it is to move out of the country. I wouldn't choose to live in a state that outlawed gay sex because that type of mentality can be turned on anyone.

Whether it is a lifestyle or a choice or genetic, I don't know and it doesn't really matter to me because it doesn't affect me. I believe that people have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't affect someone else's rights.

 

[Avorysuds]

I don't deny that Ron Paul attempted to get the Supreme Court back to focusing only on federal issues and not state issues, as the Constitution stipulates, but that bill didn't pass so the Supreme Court's rulings are still in effect.

So it doesn't matter simply because the bill doesn't pass? If SOPA doesn't pass, does that mean you're not going to hold it against those who supported it?

President Ron Paul would support and sign a bill if elected that enacts what is written in We The People Act. So yes, it definitely matters.

A state can't outlaw homosexuality... As I said the constitution won't allow it, Paul understand this, you don't... Stop talking shit when you're to stupid to back it up.

The SC could easily stop a state from outlawing homosexuality as they would have to trample federal laws/rights.

You are making an ass of youself. Something tells me you don't have the good sense to stop because you're a blind Paul hater.

 

[Modbert]

No, that's not what he's proposing in the We the People Act. He's proposing that the Supreme Court not get involved in cases they have no constitutional right to get involved in. As I've repeatedly said, his goal is to limit the federal government. This would include the Supreme Court. He wouldn't "allow" them to outlaw homosexuality, anymore than he would "allow" Iran to outlaw homosexuality. It's just that, as President, he would have no authority to do anything about it.

He can phrase the legislation he proposes however he wants, but what matters is what changes due to it. Due to the We the People Act, states could outlaw and criminalize homosexuality. States can also outlaw Atheists from running for public office. Never mind what happens to Abortion for a moment.

Paul's goal is to get rid of the power of the Federal Government from being able to stop states from outlawing homosexuality among other things. So yes, he would allow them to outlaw homosexuality.

 

[Modbert]

A state can't outlaw homosexuality... As I said the constitution won't allow it, Paul understand this, you don't... Stop talking shit when you're to stupid to back it up.

The SC could easily stop a state from outlawing homosexuality as they would have to trample federal laws/rights.

You are making an ass of youself. Something tells me you don't have the good sense to stop because you're a blind Paul hater.

If the constitution wouldn't allow it then why did the Supreme Court have to rule on it with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Y'know, a ruling that Ron Paul disagrees with.

Responding to what you bolded: They did. It's called Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Ron Paul disagrees with that ruling.

And you tell me I'm making an ass of myself.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't deny that Ron Paul attempted to get the Supreme Court back to focusing only on federal issues and not state issues, as the Constitution stipulates, but that bill didn't pass so the Supreme Court's rulings are still in effect.

So it doesn't matter simply because the bill doesn't pass? If SOPA doesn't pass, does that mean you're not going to hold it against those who supported it?

President Ron Paul would support and sign a bill if elected that enacts what is written in We The People Act. So yes, it definitely matters.

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.

 

[jillian]

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...

 

[Dr.Drock]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ron Paul is running as a Republican and has spent his whole time elected to the house as a Republican? Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he has many libertarian values.

Secondly Paul believes in the constitution, unlike yourself. States are allowed to run their state the way they want. In fact can you list to me where Paul "supports" states being "oppressive"?

Spare me the half truths and “I hate Ron Paul” slogan talking points, that’s why I gave you an /eyeroll… I don’t care to debate Paul to people that might say Paul is an isolationist, a racist, hates gays, or wants Iran to get a nuke when they can’t prove any of it.

Believing that states are allowed to run themselves however they want on whatever issue is how we got Jim Crow laws among other things.

Ron Paul is running as a Republican but his base is Libertarian whether you like to admit it or not. The entire time I've been on this board, the only Paul supporters have been Libertarians and not Republicans. Furthermore, Ron Paul once upon a time ran for President on the Libertarian ticket. (See: 1988)

So your argument that Ron Paul is a Republican and his Libertarianism has nothing to do with it is disingenuous at best.

If Ron Paul supports Liberty, why he would he accept and tout the endorsement of someone on his website who supports the death penalty for gays?

We still have Jim Crow Laws, it's the beloved drug war of the status quo reps and dems. That's why so many african americans are in prison, and it won't change anytime soon unless we start electing people who stand for actual real change.

They took it down. What else do you want? A mistake was made and it was fixed.

Don't worry your side will win. The big gov't, big debt, big spending, we have to blow up arab men/women/children or we won't be safe crowd will win. I'm a Paul supporter but i know he has no chance. The RNC and most R voters would rather have Obama in office, at least with him they know muslims will still be having bombs dropped on their heads.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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...

Should we go through Obama's past claims and what he's done in office?

Who do you think will have more instances of being a hypocrite?

 

[Meister]

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.

I'm not a Ron Paul fan at all, but this kinda sounds a lot like Obama's voting record also, doesn't it?

 

[Modbert]

Of course they can, but State and local govt's that get out of control are easier to get back into control by the people. Example: Name a STATE that's conducting Drone attacks against foreign countries.

We are the United STATES of America NOT the United Federal Government of America. Remember that.

Are they really easier to get back into control by the people? Perhaps you can explain to me then laws in Southern states after Reconstruction and why it only took the Federal Gov't to step in to change things. I'll wait.

What Ron Paul and you are advocating for already happened in this country. It was called the Articles of Confederation and it failed. We're the United States, not 50 different little fiefdoms.

 

[Avorysuds]

A state can't outlaw homosexuality... As I said the constitution won't allow it, Paul understand this, you don't... Stop talking shit when you're to stupid to back it up.

The SC could easily stop a state from outlawing homosexuality as they would have to trample federal laws/rights.

You are making an ass of youself. Something tells me you don't have the good sense to stop because you're a blind Paul hater.

If the constitution wouldn't allow it then why did the Supreme Court have to rule on it with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Y'know, a ruling that Ron Paul disagrees with.

Responding to what you bolded: They did. It's called Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Ron Paul disagrees with that ruling.

And you tell me I'm making an ass of myself.

So is homosexuality illegal in Texas? How would Paul even if President and had the “we the peoples” act be able to stop the SC on this?

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[Modbert]

So is homosexuality illegal in Texas? How would Paul even if President and had the “we the peoples” act be able to stop the SC on this?

Do you not understand the issue?

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.

We the People Act would attempt to make the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas nonbinding and therefore sodomy laws would once again exist. Therefore, all those states including Texas that had these laws on their books would have homosexuality outlawed.

If elected, Ron Paul would certainly sign a bill into law if it was put on his desk that supported the ideas he put forth in the We the People Act.

 

[Avorysuds]

A state can't outlaw homosexuality... As I said the constitution won't allow it, Paul understand this, you don't... Stop talking shit when you're to stupid to back it up.

The SC could easily stop a state from outlawing homosexuality as they would have to trample federal laws/rights.

You are making an ass of youself. Something tells me you don't have the good sense to stop because you're a blind Paul hater.

If the constitution wouldn't allow it then why did the Supreme Court have to rule on it with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Y'know, a ruling that Ron Paul disagrees with.

Responding to what you bolded: They did. It's called Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Ron Paul disagrees with that ruling.

And you tell me I'm making an ass of myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul


Ron Paul said:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

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

 

[Avorysuds]

So is homosexuality illegal in Texas? How would Paul even if President and had the “we the peoples” act be able to stop the SC on this?

Do you not understand the issue?

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.

We the People Act would attempt to make the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas nonbinding and therefore sodomy laws would once again exist. Therefore, all those states including Texas that had these laws on their books would have homosexuality outlawed.

If elected, Ron Paul would certainly sign a bill into law if it was put on his desk that supported the ideas he put forth in the We the People Act.

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.

 

[Modbert]

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?

 

[Modbert]

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?