Main Stream media pulling out all stops to make sure Ron Paul Doesn't win
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
just like if you find a racist democrat, he isn't really a democrat. ditto republicans, ditto every other party and non-party.
now, since no party has any racists, and no one who is not part of a party is racist, no racists exist!
hey buddy, looks like we just solved the racism problem by iteratively applying your logic.
let's give ourselves a prize and have a beer in celebration. or a bowl. or both. your call.
deprave
New Member
A pillar of libertarian philosophy is that everyone is equal on the highest level. If you don't believe in liberty philosophy your not a Libertarian. Conservatives and Liberals do not believe in true equality in comparison to Libertarians and Anarchist, atleast not even on the same level, not even the same ballpark.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i can make the first part of liberal bold, but that does not make it any more true. this is just a fantasy of yours.
you say ron paul is a libertarian, but hr 7955, a bill authored by ron paul which states that homosexuality is "not an acceptable lifestyle", definitely designates a group and shuns the individualistic philosophy which you claim he espouses.
why else would he single out a group if he only sees individuals?
oops, i guess that means that by your definition, ron paul is not a libertarian. he is a fake.
or, as i call him, "pseudo-libertarian".
deprave
New Member
That bill was from 1979 when people were scared of gay people, before you know.... science. It was not a proposal for a law against our liberties but against Federal Government Involvement...Why are you so anxious for the Federal Government to build places promoting gay lifestyles? seriously? If I was a gay I wouldn't want those to exist...It also banned the federal government funding heterosexual lifestyle promoting places which I am also totally against federal funding for heterosexual venues 100%i can make the first part of liberal bold, but that does not make it any more true. this is just a fantasy of yours.
you say ron paul is a libertarian, but hr 7955, a bill authored by ron paul which states that homosexuality is "not an acceptable lifestyle", definitely designates a group and shuns the individualistic philosophy which you claim he espouses.
why else would he single out a group if he only sees individuals?
oops, i guess that means that by your definition, ron paul is not a libertarian. he is a fake.
or, as i call him, "pseudo-libertarian".
Again more Sensationalism, Grand Standing, Conspiracy theories, We have been through this stuff before, I am not going to put much effort into entertain you on this again..You know your full of crap...I swear you copy and paste from the same "Guide To smearing Ron Paul" as Dukeanthony...goldmining lmao..You guys must have that guide hotkeyed or something...
It is fairly well documented why Ron Paul votes the way he votes and I suggest you look that up yourself because I am really sick of explaining it, there is a good explanation for everything so why don't you Google it; and while you are at it Google libertarians, Google libertarians vs anarchist, and Google liberty. You will find Ron Paul has never voted against YOUR liberties EVER.
deprave
New Member
You know who the real pseudo libertarians are? Those are the republicans you despise so much..The ones who dictate what we can smoke..If YOU really don't like Republican's then you should be for Ron Paul over the other republican candidates..Libertarians and Progressives are the ones that can work together with Social Liberties and Fiscal Sanity we can unite. As a liberal you have nothing better to do but vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, he is better then the other republican douches, they don't want him.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
hr 7955 was from 1982 as i recall. you are correct that it did not really deprive anyone of essential liberties, but i would say it was discriminatory.
i have not looked at the bill for a while, but i seem to recall that it prohibited federal funding to any entity that accepted the idea that 'homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle'. it made no such mention for heterosexuality.
LOL!
too easy.
i am not someone who is running around anxiously, urging the government to build "gays 'r us" stores. i am simply pointing out that ron paul singled out a group in hr 7955, so he does not purely see everyone as individuals, he sees people in groups as well.
if i were a unicorn, i would shit skittles into fluffy clouds for fun.
no it does not. i will look up the bill and post it, as i am confident that hr 7955 does not prohibit federal funding to institutions which propose that heterosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. it only denies funding to any that propose that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
who made ron paul be the grand arbiter of what is an acceptable lifestyle? not me, certainly. he thinks that the state government should have more control over my wife's reproductive health than my wife should. that is barely a libertarian philosophy.
read it and weep!
HR 7955 said:
for your edification, this "copy and paste" comes from the very bill that ron paul sponsored and exactly fucking ZERO people co-sponsored. this was back before, you know.... "science".
this is definitive proof that ron paul's newsletter excuse is bullshit. he says he does not see people in groups, only as individuals. this bill of his proves exactly otherwise.
keep in mind that i DO see people in groups SOMETIMES and as individuals other times, which makes sense. to claim that you only ever see people as individuals is not only a crock of shit, but BAD philosophy.
and a bad excuse, for a bad handling, to some bad racist writings, that his bad campaign aides helped him to (mis)handle.
ron paul is so unelectable, it hurts.
but not really
deprave
New Member
Dude I have read it before and so have you, Don't act like this is somehow news, we have actually discussed this before. Several times lol...You have forgetten our entire disucssion it seems.hr 7955 was from 1982 as i recall. you are correct that it did not really deprive anyone of essential liberties, but i would say it was discriminatory.
i have not looked at the bill for a while, but i seem to recall that it prohibited federal funding to any entity that accepted the idea that 'homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle'. it made no such mention for heterosexuality.
LOL!
too easy.
i am not someone who is running around anxiously, urging the government to build "gays 'r us" stores. i am simply pointing out that ron paul singled out a group in hr 7955, so he does not purely see everyone as individuals, he sees people in groups as well.
if i were a unicorn, i would shit skittles into fluffy clouds for fun.
no it does not. i will look up the bill and post it, as i am confident that hr 7955 does not prohibit federal funding to institutions which propose that heterosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. it only denies funding to any that propose that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
who made ron paul be the grand arbiter of what is an acceptable lifestyle? not me, certainly. he thinks that the state government should have more control over my wife's reproductive health than my wife should. that is barely a libertarian philosophy.
read it and weep!
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&
for your edification, this "copy and paste" comes from the very bill that ron paul sponsored and exactly fucking ZERO people co-sponsored. this was back before, you know.... "science".
this is definitive proof that ron paul's newsletter excuse is bullshit. he says he does not see people in groups, only as individuals. this bill of his proves exactly otherwise.
keep in mind that i DO see people in groups SOMETIMES and as individuals other times, which makes sense. to claim that you only ever see people as individuals is not only a crock of shit, but BAD philosophy.
and a bad excuse, for a bad handling, to some bad racist writings, that his bad campaign aides helped him to (mis)handle.
ron paul is so unelectable, it hurts.
but not really
On your first point, The Bill was WRITTEN in 1979. The reason the bill is not sponsored by others is because it is to make a point, he wrote this when he first became a congressman and a rookie to politics. Perhaps he was trying to get Republicans to sign onto it or something I don't know.
"no it does not. i will look up the bill and post it, as i am confident that hr 7955 does not prohibit federal funding to institutions which propose that heterosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. it only denies funding to any that propose that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."
Yes it does, planned parenthood would be something that promotes heterosexuality and so is marriage, this bill gets rid of federal involvement in a wide array of things, that is the whole point.
"who made ron paul be the grand arbiter of what is an acceptable lifestyle? not me, certainly. he thinks that the state government should have more control over my wife's reproductive health than my wife should. that is barely a libertarian philosophy."
He never has made himself "grand arbiter of what is acceptable lifestyle" either, The bill does nothing to prevent you from starting a gay bar or doing anything gay.Ron Paul also is not a normal "pro-lifer" he supports morning after pill and abortion in cases of the womans health, Also he doesn't support ammending the constitution over abortion. It can be libertarian actually because your supporting Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happyness - each one proceeding the other, this is Naturual Law philosophy and its actually traditionally liberal, liberalism being the root of libertarianism.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the "republicans" i despise are social conservatives. rick santorum, for example. those are the type that like to tell us "what we can smoke". even moderate republicans will move towards a more tolerant position on that issue. i mean, the polls just reached 50% in favor of legalization not too long ago. it will take time.
but i do not base my vote on that simply because i am a "young voter". if the primaries reach even reach oregon (they won't), i can not vote in them as a registered independent. nor can my wife, who is a registered democrat.
if i could cast a vote, it would not be for romney. he is the only one who stands a chance against obama. if newt were somehow semi viable, i would go for him next, as he would lose to obama in a heart beat. next, perry. easy loser. then bachmann, easy loser, good entertainment. then santorum. then ron paul, because his worshipers are so [expletive deleted].
i may cast a vote for gary johnson in protest of obama for not being liberal-enough. my state will be an easy obama victory so a gary johnson vote could help symbolically.
deprave
New Member
See its like you nitpick things really you haven't thought them through, like maybe your pulling from some kind of guide as I suggested, or maybe its exemplified in how you can't finish reading a post before you get angry and reply because you don't like the way something was worded.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
I would vote for Gary Johnson in a heartbeat. Best Governor we ever had.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ron paul sees people in groups, would you not agree?
would you not agree that designating homosexuality as 'not an acceptable lifestyle' designates all people who call themselves homosexual as being "unacceptable" in some way or the other?
click on that link. does ron paul ever single out heterosexuality as an unacceptable lifestyle?
ron paul is a collectivist. he sees people in groups.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what a resounding rebuttal in the face of such overwhelming facts.
ron paul is a collectivist. he sees people in groups. empirical evidence proves this beyond any doubt.
he is lying when he says he does not see people in groups.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Shows how much you know. He is isn't proponent of Ayn Rand AND he isn't a racist.
deprave
New Member
Nope, I don't agree that anything from 1979 is even relevant, especially something thats against government and not actual people. You are being way over dramatic.
ron paul sees people in groups, would you not agree?
would you not agree that designating homosexuality as 'not an acceptable lifestyle' designates all people who call themselves homosexual as being "unacceptable" in some way or the other?
click on that link. does ron paul ever single out heterosexuality as an unacceptable lifestyle?
ron paul is a collectivist. he sees people in groups.
deprave
New Member
So is Ron Paul, Shows how much you know...
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Oh great response. Right up there with, "Oh yeah!"