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

The recognition of the validity of other states' institutions is pretty essential to the whole concept of a federation, d00der.

Wouldn't it suck to get turned away at the Jersey border because your state doesn't test you on J-turns?
 
Prohibit states from being compelled to recognize.



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!

Wow, look at all those words!
 
Prohibit states from being compelled to recognize.



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 should post a link to a story where a bunch of gay men beat a straight man to death for simply being straight. Then we can talk about who needs special protection or anti-hate laws...
 
You should post a link to a story where a bunch of gay men beat a straight man to death for simply being straight. Then we can talk about who needs special protection or anti-hate laws...

I believe in equal protection under the law, not special protection. The life of one person shouldn't be codified into law as being more important than another. Having human life on some perverse sliding scale of value. Beating a person to death is already against the law. The motive behind it is irrelevant. Does it matter to the murdered man if he was killed for his money or his sexuality? He's just as dead. Treating the two differently is a particularly offensive affront to the idea of the equal worth of human life. It also defacto criminalizes thought, because the criminal's opinion of the victim's lifestyle suddenly becomes a crime in itself. None of this bothers you?
 
I believe in equal protection under the law, not special protection. The life of one person shouldn't be codified into law as being more important than another. Having human life on some perverse sliding scale of value. Beating a person to death is already against the law. The motive behind it is irrelevant. Does it matter to the murdered man if he was killed for his money or his sexuality? He's just as dead. Treating the two differently is a particularly offensive affront to the idea of the equal worth of human life. It also defacto criminalizes thought, because the criminal's opinion of the victim's lifestyle suddenly becomes a crime in itself. None of this bothers you?

All good points...a few thoughts:

1. Equal worth of human life...holy FUCK I hope you never encounter Kenneth Feinberg.

2. I think it matters to the loved ones of a murder victim wether he/she was killed for their wallet or for their sexuality. This is kind of the whole point. However, you could build an excellent argument that such issues should be relegated to civil courts instead of state ones.

3. However, I don't believe hate crime legislation is a deterrent to these crimes any more than the death penalty is a deterrent to heinous crimes. People who commit these sort of crimes aren't thinking that far in advance --they certainly aren't counting on getting caught, let alone considering the legal penalty.

4. Criminalizing thought? Your slippery slope is showing, Orwell. When the law starts knocking at the door when I say "nigger" or "faggot" out loud, then I'll gladly join the revolution. But it's another thing entirely to be screaming those words while I'm beating the living shit out of someone, and believing that the law doesn't or shouldn't take that into consideration when coming up with a charge, hate crime or no, is naive at best. How many murders out there do you think are ultimately the result of "the criminal's opinion"? A pretty large percentage, I'd bet.
 
Ron paul is a maverick , McCain never was, he kisses the same ass Obama does.

We American people deserve better than all of them dipshits.

I dont want old fucks making laws, they live in the age where a cell phone was on STARTREK, some old bastard who wars born in 1940 does not need to make our laws.


I want pot legal for all, you can buy a bottle of booze and its no big deal, you drive and kill people but cant buy a joint of pot...


Fuck that, adults should be able to smoke pot, its that simple.
 
Mnanannuman ab wyam !! MA knfffnYARRGG!! mamd d WHERE'S MY MUM. DOES NOBODY LOVE ME [/Drunk Messenger]
 
Mnanannuman ab wyam !! MA knfffnYARRGG!! mamd d WHERE'S MY MUM. DOES NOBODY LOVE ME [/Drunk Messenger]

You are an extraordinarily very fucking funny person. I am going to make you so fucking funny, that you will regret ever fucking registering here.

You like having things like "family" and 'offspring' ? We'll see how you like dealing with Sober Messenger.
 
get thiz thread back on track

Texas Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday he will retire from Congress when his term runs out in 2012 and will focus on his campaign for president. The 75-year-old Republican said he has been criticized in the past for running for Congress and the presidency at the same time. For the 2012 presidential race, he said he's received more support than ever before and that he wants to concentrate exclusively on that race.
"I believe I can continue to do what I have been doing outside of Congress," Paul said of his sometimes controversial political efforts. "I was ready for a change."
Paul says he will serve out his term through December 2012.
The former Libertarian has served 12 terms in Congress from Texas Congressional District 14, centered on Lake Jackson.
 
Mnanannuman ab wyam !! MA knfffnYARRGG!! mamd d WHERE'S MY MUM. DOES NOBODY LOVE ME [/Drunk Messenger]
I would never ask my mother for assistance, you stupid fucking grunt noob. mamd d WHERE'S MY MUM. DOES NOBODY LOVE ME - I dare you to repeat that.
 
Anyone who the right wing media is pushing in our face is a corrupt bastard including him. Just like with Ross Perot and the Tea Party he is sucking in the disenfranchised back to voting for the corrupt republican machine.
 
Top