Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Survey: Ron Paul even with Obama in hypothetical 2012 race

It's a Rassmussen poll, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. For the past couple of years, their polls have shown a 5-6 point republican bias compared to the other pollsters. Besides, "Ron Paul" might as well be "generic Republican" to the average person, so it pretty much doesn't mean anything.
Archibald Nixon said:
What's his kid like? Randall Paul --the one running in Virginia.
Click to expand...

Exactly as insane as his father, and it's Kentucky.
 
I think Ron Paul has the right idea on a lot of things. Of course I don't agree with him 100%, but who do you agree with 100%?
 
Oh, I agree with him on some issues too, but on the issues I disagree with, he's usually some kind of insane evil supervillain.
Paul was the only "no" vote on H.Res. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (passed House 418-1-13, awaiting action in the Senate), which would "require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan [and] prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies."
Click to expand...
 
Sausy's right. If the people getting polled knew that Paul doesn't hate the gays and the browns, they wouldn't be in favour of him.
 
Dual said:
Sausy's right. If the people getting polled knew that Paul doesn't hate the gays and the browns, they wouldn't be in favour of him.
Click to expand...

I have, of course, set Dual straight in chat. Ron Paul does in fact hate the gays and the browns, so I guess you can go right on supporting him, Dirk.
 
I'm glad you asked.
I mean, you could have just looked up "Ron Paul" on wikipedia, but I don't mind doing the leg work for you.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's bad enough, but THEN!
He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Click to expand...
Shitting on gays and the Constitution, in one bold move. Good job, Ron Paul!
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "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."
Click to expand...
Equal protection, if you're not gay.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Swell!
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:
"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 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."
Click to expand...

Illegal immigrants: the 14th amendment should be repealed especially for them. (We've moved on to brown people, by the way)
Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship. He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship."
Click to expand...

And he just straight up hates black males.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Click to expand...
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Click to expand...
 
I knew about the first part, and of course I disagree with him on those things. I do not oppose gay marriage or gays in the military. Chiefly because I feel the government has no business in marriage to begin with. It should be a civil contract between the involved individuals, and leave the definition of marriage up to their respective faiths. (if any) As for gays in the military, I don't see the point of barring gays from serving. Until someone can give me a good reason why allowing them in would be damaging to military readiness, I can't support the ban. I also think that fucking with the 14th amendment is a terrible idea. Removing automatic citizenship would create a rat's nest of problems which would be something to behold.

Now the quotes at the bottom. I haven't heard those. Are you sure those are real? If they are, they're a bit disturbing.
 
Yes, they're real. They're from a newsletter he put out in 1992. He claimed, 9 years later, that they were ghostwritten and disavowed their contents, but come on now - that kind of material doesn't accidentally go out under your name.
There are more quotes from those newsletters here, and it says here that Paul's initial response to the quotes, in 1996, was that they were out of context.
 
Rand Paul is running for senate in Kentucky. He's doing pretty well, but the Republican establishment is attempting to use the tea party express, which they control, to do him in, just like they've done to outsider candidates in Nevada.
 
Rand Paul is running for Bunning's seat, which will open. If he wins it, even he will be less crazy than his predecessor.
 
SAUSAGEMAN said:
I'm glad you asked.
I mean, you could have just looked up "Ron Paul" on wikipedia, but I don't mind doing the leg work for you.
Click to expand...

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states.
Click to expand...
Prohibit states from being compelled to recognize.


Okay, that's bad enough, but THEN!
Click to expand...
OH, IT'S HORRIBLE!

He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.



All you show is that the only thing gays care about when it comes to US legislation is whether or not it helps gays. How can you condemn a person who has been denounced by his own party for being a peacenik and a defeatist Libertarian and being deaf to the needs of the Christian right, as being anti-gay? One who's been painted as a fiscal conservative as opposed to a social conservative? Bucko, you aren't going to find any anti-gay statements from him other than your own sensitive interpretation of his voting record. Any SANE gay man would be jumping for joy at the prospect of Ron Paul being elevated to a higher standing. But no - gays, like all American minorities, just want to rob the nation of what it's worth as fast as they can, while they can. You certainly reinforce this stereotype.


"Ron Paul, would you support a super special tolerant amendment to the Constitution recognizing the contribution of our super SUPER special homosexuals and their ultra cool heritage?"

"No."

^He totally admits it!!!!!!! He is just like Hitler.




It's not enough he has supported gays in the military by saying _all_ disruptive sexual behavior should be punished, or that marriage and relationships are not up to the federal government to define. Freedom of association and freedom of contract? Negative - we gays want hard core, steel-girder legislation. He should go the extra mile, to make homosexuals feel better and vote for him. In fact, any laws which do not explicitly support homosexuals, Ron Paul should be forced to justify. Yet he doesn't. What an awkward statesman he is.

It is people like you who make conservatives put up these barricades against gays, as being yet another irrational minority just wanting more free shit. Conservatives aren't very understanding in the first place, but if you can't even recognize one who wants to, above all else, level the playing field, what possible view do you expect the right wing to have of you?

All you do is drive home the argument that gays are only looking out for gays. No, it's not enough we have special protection and hate crime laws, we need Special Fucking Protection! Well excuse us ultra-radical Paulites for not bending over backward for you. We don't have the same need to root anti-gays out and check their Tolerance Credentials twice, unlike your type which seems to have major issues with Paul. Our boogeymen are more credible than those you sanctimoniously unleash in 'defense' of your 'kind.' Ironically, the list includes folks like you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top