Fuck Ron Paul

[Solumina]

I don't remember his first run, too young for that, but he got 8% or 9% of the popular vote in his second run. He was kind of hard to take seriously, acted like a kid trying to get his parents to listen to him but as far as 3rd party candidates go he actually did well and brought up some interesting points in debates but didn't really influence the positions of the other candidates.

As for his followers they weren't nearly as aggressive as Ron Paul supporters and seemed to be better able to articulate exactly why they supported him, although their reasoning wasn't always totally sound.

I know all of that is pretty general, I was pretty young at the time but I guess my political involvement started early.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

Or the Libertarians and survival nuts will be invoking his name the same way modern Republicans invoke Reagan like he's the second coming.

When I was younger and not too keen on American politics, the way everyone kept talking about Reagan and particularly when he died I figured he must have been ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS EVER. I was actually pretty shocked to learn what a dickbag he was.

[BourbonBoy]

Hah! I almost forgot about Ross Perot. Yeah, he never did anything except help put Clinton in office and keep him there (his general election points cost both Bush Sr. and Senator Dole their elections, at least according to the Republicans) except when you check the electoral college points, he didn't receive any. As a strange side note, former governor Jesse Ventura was a member of Perot's party when he was elected, so that shows how crazy they were willing to go for candidates.

Here's how he added up in '92 and '96

1992 election: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/n....php?year=1992

1996 election: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/n....php?year=1996

But I really hope Ron Paul ends up like Perot, a mere footnote as a wacky candidate but to hear some of the loons that root for him I'm not so sure. Only time will tell.

[BourbonBoy]

It's more a matter of public relations with him. I read a biography on Reagan, titled "Tear Down This Myth" and in it there are so many ways that the right has distorted the history of his presidency, much to the dismay of his former staff members. There's a laundry list of his fuck ups that are still being felt to this day and ever since he left office every right winger has tried to invoke him.

[Class-Punk]

Originally Posted by Alan

Fuck him forever.

Sounds like he's saying this from the point of view of a Libertarian wet dream, America was a wet dream, currently so is the end of Mexico's drug war and gridlock in American congress. I'm fine with fantasies, and bored of reality.

[Grausamkeit]

Originally Posted by MissCheyenne

The words 'I'm not racist but....' make my blood boil.

I didn't notice until recently how racist some of my family is. I speak a little Spanish with some of my co-workers and customers. If I say something in Spanish in front of my family I get "You're not Mexican, why are you speaking 'their' language?" It really pisses me off that some people can see a language or a whole collective of people as 'dirty' and 'lazy' when they are honest and hard workers. Especially when my Mexican co-workers work a lot harder than the people that are insulting them. About half of my co-workers have 2 jobs, some have 3. Some of my family members won't even get off their asses to find a job!

Must be nice to be privileged enough to sponge cigarettes and gas money off of your family and still be able to look down your nose at people.

I have to agree with Sternny: Ron who? Anyone who supports him has got to be one crazy ass, blind motherfucker!

[Jonathan]

He's kind of like Jesus. I don't personally care about him one way or another, but his followers are fucking obnoxious.

[Class-Punk]

I don't really see Ron Paul forcing his pro-life stance on people since this would be a federal action and I think he has more allegiance to states making their own decisions on the issue. Though it wouldn't be perfect, it could work like civil unions; in that hopefully most women who needed to could get out of the pro-life states.

I personally lean towards pro-choice, small businesses, I want foreign policy to be foreign aid, the rich to be taxed and the homeless to be visible, and drugs and prostitution legalized and regulated (you cannot stop these industries with handcuffs); Ron Paul is still the most likely candidate for me to see most of these things happen.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Class-Punk

I don't really see Ron Paul forcing his pro-life stance on people since this would be a federal action and I think he has more allegiance to states making their own decisions on the issue. Though it wouldn't be perfect, it could work like civil unions; in that hopefully most women who needed to could get out of the pro-life states.

Fuck you. Not every woman or girl can get out of a state. And Ron Paul may say that, but he's introduced legislation on the FEDERAL level to ban abortion and has supported every FEDERAL anti-abortion measure. He hates women, there's no getting around it. And its not just women, he would want to repeal the motherfucking CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, unless your solution is just for every POC to get out of the most racist states.

I personally lean towards pro-choice, small businesses, I want foreign policy to be foreign aid, the rich to be taxed and the homeless to be visible, and drugs and prostitution legalized and regulated (you cannot stop these industries with handcuffs); Ron Paul is still the most likely candidate for me to see most of these things happen.

But women will die in pro-life states and its their own fault for not moving, PoC would be legally discriminated against, segregation can be reimposed, and hey while we're at it lets allow states to castrate gay men and throw lesbians in insane asylums again. As long as pot is legal!

[BourbonBoy]

Originally Posted by Class-Punk

I don't really see Ron Paul forcing his pro-life stance on people since this would be a federal action and I think he has more allegiance to states making their own decisions on the issue. Though it wouldn't be perfect, it could work like civil unions; in that hopefully most women who needed to could get out of the pro-life states.

I personally lean towards pro-choice, small businesses, I want foreign policy to be foreign aid, the rich to be taxed and the homeless to be visible, and drugs and prostitution legalized and regulated (you cannot stop these industries with handcuffs); Ron Paul is still the most likely candidate for me to see most of these things happen.

Did you check out the link I posted on the first page? Here's something that goes a little more in depth regarding his stance on abortion:

http://www.goddiscussion.com/87963/r...op-candidates/

In his own words: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/RonPaul.pdf

The fact that he would sign a pledge like that is frightening and has attempted to amend it: "I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal."-Ron Paul, Dec. 19, 2011.

He doesn't just want to limit federal government, he wants to rewind the clock to 1776 when only white land owning males could vote, sewage could be mixed with drinking water, food no longer inspected for contamination, African Americans are 3/5s a person, American Indians aren't citizens and that it's now legal to own slaves again. Yeah, sounds like a valid presidential candidate.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

Fuck you. Not every woman or girl can get out of a state. And Ron Paul may say that, but he's introduced legislation on the FEDERAL level to ban abortion and has supported every FEDERAL anti-abortion measure. He hates women, there's no getting around it. And its not just women, he would want to repeal the motherfucking CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, unless your solution is just for every POC to get out of the most racist states.

Moving out of a state aint no kind of option at all anyway. Fuck ALL of that point. Having to move from your home because of who you are is NOT a solution in the least bit.

But women will die in pro-life states and its their own fault for not moving, PoC would be legally discriminated against, segregation can be reimposed, and hey while we're at it lets allow states to castrate gay men and throw lesbians in insane asylums again. As long as pot is legal!

Man; so I got this letter in the mail today showing a map of the states that endorse gay rights and those that have actual state constitutional amendments barring gays from having equal rights. And I shit you not, it's divided between the north and south basically. Pennsylvania is being a scumbag northern state, but it basically stops right there. It's fucking weird as shit.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Man; so I got this letter in the mail today showing a map of the states that endorse gay rights and those that have actual state constitutional amendments barring gays from having equal rights. And I shit you not, it's divided between the north and south basically. Pennsylvania is being a scumbag northern state, but it basically stops right there. It's fucking weird as shit.

Exactly what rights are you talking about here? Marriage/civil unions? Or something else?

Maryland is a southern state and while it does not currently offer same-sex marriage licenses, it does have limited same-sex partner benefits and is the only state in the country that actually recognizes same-sex unions/marriages from other states.

Most states - to include most states in the south - allow transgendered people to modify their birth certificates post-op - even kentucky and Alabama, of all places - therefore indirectly allowing transgendered couples to marry legally. There are literally only a couple of them that don't, like 2 or 3.

Many states also allow single lgbt people to adopt,including those states in the south. *Some of those states also allow for a partner to apply for co-adoption without regard to gender.

And all hospitals in the country have to honor medical directives - i forget the actual name of the document at the moment - basically a legal document that names a particular individual as the one responsible for making decisions in case of medical emergency, similar to a power of attorney, but for medical purposes.

And anyone can be named as beneficiary on a life insurance policy, in any state. There are also other procedures that can be followed which allow property rights to go to same sex couples equally, that states can't touch.

It's not the same as marriage or civil unions yet, and there are more steps involved, but it is not the end-all be-all even when these states make constitutional amendments, as so many have, and many more are poised to do.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Exactly what rights are you talking about here? Marriage/civil unions? Or something else?

Maryland is a southern state and while it does not currently offer same-sex marriage licenses, it does have limited same-sex partner benefits and is the only state in the country that actually recognizes same-sex unions/marriages from other states.

Most states - to include most states in the south - allow transgendered people to modify their birth certificates post-op - even kentucky and Alabama, of all places - therefore indirectly allowing transgendered couples to marry legally. There are literally only a couple of them that don't, like 2 or 3.

Many states also allow single lgbt people to adopt,including those states in the south. *Some of those states also allow for a partner to apply for co-adoption without regard to gender.

And all hospitals in the country have to honor medical directives - i forget the actual name of the document at the moment - basically a legal document that names a particular individual as the one responsible for making decisions in case of medical emergency, similar to a power of attorney, but for medical purposes.

And anyone can be named as beneficiary on a life insurance policy, in any state. There are also other procedures that can be followed which allow property rights to go to same sex couples equally, that states can't touch.

It's not the same as marriage or civil unions yet, and there are more steps involved, but it is not the end-all be-all even when these states make constitutional amendments, as so many have, and many more are poised to do.

He said equal rights, not partial rights.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Versus

He said equal rights, not partial rights.

In that regard then, no state in the country currently has equal rights.

[Class-Punk]

Originally Posted by Saya

Fuck you. Not every woman or girl can get out of a state. And Ron Paul may say that, but he's introduced legislation on the FEDERAL level to ban abortion and has supported every FEDERAL anti-abortion measure. He hates women, there's no getting around it. And its not just women, he would want to repeal the motherfucking CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, unless your solution is just for every POC to get out of the most racist states.



But women will die in pro-life states and its their own fault for not moving, PoC would be legally discriminated against, segregation can be reimposed, and hey while we're at it lets allow states to castrate gay men and throw lesbians in insane asylums again. As long as pot is legal!

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

Did you check out the link I posted on the first page? Here's something that goes a little more in depth regarding his stance on abortion:

http://www.goddiscussion.com/87963/r...op-candidates/

In his own words: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/RonPaul.pdf

The fact that he would sign a pledge like that is frightening and has attempted to amend it: "I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal."-Ron Paul, Dec. 19, 2011.

He doesn't just want to limit federal government, he wants to rewind the clock to 1776 when only white land owning males could vote, sewage could be mixed with drinking water, food no longer inspected for contamination, African Americans are 3/5s a person, American Indians aren't citizens and that it's now legal to own slaves again. Yeah, sounds like a valid presidential candidate.

Then it simply sounds like a gamble on whether he would be Libertarian or a Fundamentalist Christian, as opposed to Obama and Romney (though I don't at all think of Obama as a villain) who are more of the same decade. I don't see any other candidate with enough publicity since when money only goes in so many directions the same goes for votes.

Legalizing pot in America alone would be a huge blow to the Mexican drug market. Legalization, regulatory fining, and treatment would go a much longer way than force. The worse Mexico gets the more it will bleed over into the United States. And though its not an argument I necessarily like making, I think more lives are going to be lost from the drug market as a whole than abortion, and more violently.

To each their own.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

In that regard then, no state in the country currently has equal rights.

He said states with constitutional amendments to equal rights.

Holy shit.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Class-Punk

Then it simply sounds like a gamble on whether he would be Libertarian or a Fundamentalist Christian, as opposed to Obama and Romney (though I don't at all think of Obama as a villain) who are more of the same decade. I don't see any other candidate with enough publicity since when money only goes in so many directions the same goes for votes.

Legalizing pot in America alone would be a huge blow to the Mexican drug market. Legalization, regulatory fining, and treatment would go a much longer way than force. The worse Mexico gets the more it will bleed over into the United States. And though its not an argument I necessarily like making, I think more lives are going to be lost from the drug market as a whole than abortion, and more violently.

To each their own.

Also, GJTYBYHFHJNFDN6TBYVFG UYBIGMNSAE ERTY

[BourbonBoy]

I agree about the legalization of marijuana, however it's going to take patience because, lets be honest: government is the biggest bureaucracy in existence and it's crippled. However, just because some old man says he doesn't care if you smoke out or not doesn't mean you should automatically vote for a guy, especially after he's admitted he's for limiting the rights of your fellow citizens, and it's not just limited to abortion.

Looking at history sooner or later marijuana's going to be legalized, as to what extent we won't find out until after it's been clarified. We can't forget it took about fifteen years before alcohol was legal to be able to purchase and brew again after the Volstead Act was passed. Numerous individual states have already legalized the use of marijuana and polls have repeatedly shown people have had enough of the "drug war." It's just going to take patience and being a constant pain in the ass of our reps in DC for the change to occur.

Versus, what did you try to post? All I'm getting is a broken link.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Versus

He said states with constitutional amendments to equal rights.

Holy shit.

That is too general of a statement, which is why I asked if he's referring to marriage equality or another related issue.

No state in the country has an out and out constitutional ban on all gay rights, as Ashley's post suggests. The only constitutional amendments that exist are in regards to marriage/civil unions, and I'm sure you realize there are many, many more issues of equal rights involved for the lgbt community beyond marriage equality.

Some states that have made constitutional amendments banning marriage, have passed other legislation protecting lgbt people from discrimination in schools, workplaces and/or hate crimes. It varies from state to state and across political party lines and north/south bs.

Massachusetts, for example - the first state to legalize gay marriage - has yet to pass any legislation protecting lgbt people from discrimination or hate crimes based on gender identity.

While the reverse is true in Alabama - pretty sure it's AL - where a constitutional amendment has banned lgbt marriage/unions, but they do in fact protect against discrimination and hate crimes based on both gender identity and sexual orientation.

None of the states that have legalized gay marriage or civil unions recognize it from other states. Only MD, which does not issue it themselves, recognize it from other states.

So to imply that it's only southern states holding up the god hates fags signs, as Ashley's post suggests - if it's to be interpreted as you imply - is rather misleading and uninformed. I know it's easy to pick on the south for being so backwards, but there are areas that are more lgbt friendly than you might want to admit, and laws that back it up.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

I agree about the legalization of marijuana, however it's going to take patience because, lets be honest: government is the biggest bureaucracy in existence and it's crippled. However, just because some old man says he doesn't care if you smoke out or not doesn't mean you should automatically vote for a guy, especially after he's admitted he's for limiting the rights of your fellow citizens, and it's not just limited to abortion.

Looking at history sooner or later marijuana's going to be legalized, as to what extent we won't find out until after it's been clarified. We can't forget it took about fifteen years before alcohol was legal to be able to purchase and brew again after the Volstead Act was passed. Numerous individual states have already legalized the use of marijuana and polls have repeatedly shown people have had enough of the "drug war." It's just going to take patience and being a constant pain in the ass of our reps in DC for the change to occur.

I think a lot of what Paul says, at least in regards to issues like abortion, is more an attempt to get more support from the GOP than what he honestly means or believes himself. I may be wrong, but that's how I see it at this point. He knows there isn't enough support for a 3rd party independent, because the media focuses too much on D's or R's, as though that is the only choice. And in turn, the public - for the most part - only focus on Ds or Rs. Even with as much hoopla that Perot generated, he still paled in comparison to his D and R opponents. And he didn't even really need campaign money. That man had more money than god. I remember him promising to not take a single dime in payment as president. Still didn't get him elected.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I think a lot of what Paul says, at least in regards to issues like abortion, is more an attempt to get more support from the GOP than what he honestly means or believes himself.

Funny, I think a lot of what Paul says, at least in regards to issues like legalization, is more an attempt to get more support from the youth than what he honestly means or believes himself.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

I agree about the legalization of marijuana, however it's going to take patience because, lets be honest: government is the biggest bureaucracy in existence and it's crippled. However, just because some old man says he doesn't care if you smoke out or not doesn't mean you should automatically vote for a guy, especially after he's admitted he's for limiting the rights of your fellow citizens, and it's not just limited to abortion.

Looking at history sooner or later marijuana's going to be legalized, as to what extent we won't find out until after it's been clarified. We can't forget it took about fifteen years before alcohol was legal to be able to purchase and brew again after the Volstead Act was passed. Numerous individual states have already legalized the use of marijuana and polls have repeatedly shown people have had enough of the "drug war." It's just going to take patience and being a constant pain in the ass of our reps in DC for the change to occur.

Or revolution. Or really just Cracker von Patriarch to realize its a good idea. But that Cracker von Patriarch Jrs are trying to elect a guy who will send America back to the days before women's rights, civil rights, lgbtq rights, union rights, workers rights, etc is worth it is abysmal.

And for your information, Class Punk, a lot of women die because of unsafe illegal abortions and far more are hospitalized. Jesus, a 13 year old girl recently in PENNSYLVANIA had to be hospitalized after she performed an abortion at home WITH A PENCIL.

I think a lot of what Paul says, at least in regards to issues like abortion, is more an attempt to get more support from the GOP than what he honestly means or believes himself. I may be wrong, but that's how I see it at this point. He knows there isn't enough support for a 3rd party independent, because the media focuses too much on D's or R's, as though that is the only choice. And in turn, the public - for the most part - only focus on Ds or Rs. Even with as much hoopla that Perot generated, he still paled in comparison to his D and R opponents. And he didn't even really need campaign money. That man had more money than god. I remember him promising to not take a single dime in payment as president. Still didn't get him elected.

Ron Paul is on the record as saying that if a rrape is a "honest rrape" (because women usually make it up, rite?) he'd just give a woman an estrogen shot. Which hasn't been used in a million years. He's as out of touch with women's issues as the next Republican.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

Funny, I think a lot of what Paul says, at least in regards to issues like legalization, is more an attempt to get more support from the youth than what he honestly means or believes himself.

If he were running against a republican that might work.

Statistically there are more older people who vote than younger people, and right now our current generation of seniors are baby boomers, who are largely republican.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Only MD, which does not issue it themselves, recognize it from other states.

Correction - as of May 14, 2012, by executive order Rhode Island also recognizes same-sex marriages, if performed out of state, but does not recognize them if performed in-state. They do allow civil unions.

[BourbonBoy]

Originally Posted by Saya

Or revolution. Or really just Cracker von Patriarch to realize its a good idea. But that Cracker von Patriarch Jrs are trying to elect a guy who will send America back to the days before women's rights, civil rights, lgbtq rights, union rights, workers rights, etc is worth it is abysmal.

What's sad is this is what people think this is the answer, rather than take the more patient and tolerant route I mentioned (not only that, but we need some reps in DC to stop worrying about reelection and worry about making important decisions for the country). Believe me, there's more than enough Cracker von Patriarchs in my area to make me want to hurl obscenities and wish I could make them infertile in some fashion so they won't pollute the world whenever I hear their verbal vomit. At the moment 17 states have legalized it for medical purposes with another 6 pending legislation, while another 12 rejected the proposition. While these are temporary setbacks, things are slowly going in the legalized direction.

However, I think there are more pressing concerns at the moment, such as ensuring nut jobs like Ron Paul won't get placed in the most powerful office in the world. It's scary enough to think we have people like him running day to day business in this country as it is (shudders)