Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa

[Canna Sylvan]

Can you say flip flop?

"I promise to veto the NDAA," tell me again who's the flip flop?

 

[fenderburn84]

I don't in any way support Obama, I was just pointing out another flip flop that everybody says doesn't happen with RP. Well apperantly he is just the same old same old.

 

[deprave]

Ron Paul has never "Flip Flopped"(except on the death penalty, infact he stopped supporting the death penalty specifically because blacks are treated unfairly) ...he never said he didn't support ending segregation or Jim crow laws....NEVER....Propaganda and Yellow Journalism Bullshit puts those thoughts in peoples heads...Read the speech yourself and then get back with us..

 

[deprave]

Clip from Final Ron Paul Rally Before IOWA - Rand and Ron both give a speach before a large crowd in IOWA

[video=youtube;l1HkImIxwwM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l1HkImIxwwM#![/video]

 

[NoDrama]

Really? That's your defense, he said and votes on something and then HE changes his opinion and its everybody else who is eating the bs off a spoon, really?

he didn't vote on anything. You obviously do not have the facts and therefore can be safely assumed as being uneducated on the matter. He didn't flip flop either, his stance is exactly the same throughtout the last 30 years. He NEVER ONCE said he was FOR Jim crow laws, there is no flip flop. The flip flop is one created by the media, which you have fallen victim to.

 

[Carne Seca]

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."


You must be wearing hip waders because the bullshit is getting deep.

 

[UncleBuck]

When a person owns something. They control it. As in I own my body, you own yours. When a person owns property, they own it, not you, not I. I believe I am being consistent in advocating that the person that owns something has the right to set the rules governing how or whether they will allow others to participate in it. I don't believe you or I, or a group of people can or should force another to relinquish control over their body or their property.

My body is my ultimate property, my house, my business is no less MY property. I and I alone should decide what will go into my body or what will go on at MY house. Vice versa with your body or your property. The fact that you and I may choose to serve other races and other genders does not give us the right to MAKE another person use THEIR property how we would want them to. While I admire your tenacity I believe your disconnect comes when you fail to recognize the difference between a valid property right and the actual INITIATION of aggression. My failing to provide you service is not the same as me initiating aggression. It could be considered a neutral action. Your asking somebody (government) to make me perform certain acts or be set upon IS initiating aggression though.


deal with it.

you are only trying to confuse the issue with al your aggression bullshit nonsense talk.

the core issue is not aggression, it is liberty, freedom and harm.

in this country, we have the freedom and liberty (theoretically) to do as we please unless it harms others.

segregation and denial of service caused harm to others.

this is not some left field theory, this is proven history.

again, your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

case closed.

 

[NoDrama]

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."


You must be wearing hip waders because the bullshit is getting deep.

Did you just try to turn non support for something else entirely as an official vote against the Civil Rights Act? A symbolic vote means it was symbolic, not actual.
Do I have to put you on the list of people I consider "Dumb as shit"?

 

[NoDrama]

in this country, we have the freedom and liberty (theoretically) to do as we please unless it harms others.

No you don't! You have any idea how many laws there are against doing things which have no effect on others whatsoever?

When you smoke a bowl how many people get hurt?
When you go 8 MPH over the speed limit how many people get hurt?
When you have a few beers but drive anyway and get to your destination with nothing out of the ordinary happening who got hurt?
When you fail to register your bicycle who gets hurt?
When you drive without a drivers license who gets hurt?
Fail to stop at a stop sign on a deserted gravel road in the middle of the countryside at 4 am on a Sunday morning, who gets hurt?

I could probably go on for years trying to list all the laws that are made restricting your freedom to do what you want as long as no one else gets hurt.


You have the freedom to do as you please as long as you don't get caught is the reality of it.

 

[Carne Seca]

Did you just try to turn non support for something else entirely as an official vote against the Civil Rights Act? A symbolic vote means it was symbolic, not actual.
Do I have to put you on the list of people I consider "Dumb as shit"?

It's a list of one and you're the only one on it.

 

[UncleBuck]

No you don't! You have any idea how many laws there are against doing things which have no effect on others whatsoever?

When you smoke a bowl how many people get hurt?
When you go 8 MPH over the speed limit how many people get hurt?
When you have a few beers but drive anyway and get to your destination with nothing out of the ordinary happening who got hurt?
When you fail to register your bicycle who gets hurt?
When you drive without a drivers license who gets hurt?
Fail to stop at a stop sign on a deserted gravel road in the middle of the countryside at 4 am on a Sunday morning, who gets hurt?

I could probably go on for years trying to list all the laws that are made restricting your freedom to do what you want as long as no one else gets hurt.


You have the freedom to do as you please as long as you don't get caught is the reality of it.

i said 'theoretically'.

besides, some of those examples, like driving drunk, do cause harm to others. just because you can sometimes drive drunk and not hurt someone does not mitigate the danger of doing so.

 

[NoDrama]

i said 'theoretically'.

besides, some of those examples, like driving drunk, do cause harm to others. just because you can sometimes drive drunk and not hurt someone does not mitigate the danger of doing so.

Theoretically? Your theory is wrong. That was all that I was pointing out, I wasn't trying to make the point that drunks drive well.

 

[UncleBuck]

Theoretically? Your theory is wrong. That was all that I was pointing out, I wasn't trying to make the point that drunks drive well.

so you disagree with the premise that IN THEORY, we should be pretty much free to do what we please as long as we don't harm others?

that is the theory i posited.

 

[NoDrama]

so you disagree with the premise that IN THEORY, we should be pretty much free to do what we please as long as we don't harm others?

that is the theory i posited.

So its ok to harm others property? How about denying other people their rights? Your theory is ok with that just as long as no one gets hurt right?

FWIW your premise was not HOW it SHOULD be, but you actually posited that you COULD do anything you wanted as long as no one got hurt, but we all know that isn't true at all.

 

[budlover13]

Theoretically? Your theory is wrong. That was all that I was pointing out, I wasn't trying to make the point that drunks drive well.

EVERY drunk driver thinks they were driving well