Ron Paul on gay men

  • colboy

    Posts: 41

    Jan 09, 2012 2:44 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 2:58 AM GMT
    Paul has generally disavowed knowing about anything in his newsletters that turned out to be controversial, even if he had subsequently spoken the same as what was in the newsletters. The thing that is surprising to me is some who relate to his domestic policy will completely ignore other aspects of him, such as his views and international policy. Curious how people put blinders on.

    As far as the other message about Obama, even though you would like to keep the thread fairly narrowly focused, that is not the general practice here. Specifically, if a point is made by one side, it is customary that the other side will make a contrasting point. Sometimes the contrast is useful for the discussion, other times, it is an intentional deflection.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 6:48 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said


    Amazing how much further Dick Cheney went when asked the same question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 12:48 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidPaul has generally disavowed knowing about anything in his newsletters that turned out to be controversial, even if he had subsequently spoken the same as what was in the newsletters. The thing that is surprising to me is some who relate to his domestic policy will completely ignore other aspects of him, such as his views and international policy. Curious how people put blinders on.

    As far as the other message about Obama, even though you would like to keep the thread fairly narrowly focused, that is not the general practice here. Specifically, if a point is made by one side, it is customary that the other side will make a contrasting point. Sometimes the contrast is useful for the discussion, other times, it is an intentional deflection.
    You cannot fool me. NONE of these clowns the GOP has put in the ring are worth the air they breath.. NOT ONE OF THEM.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 2:53 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness saidPaul has generally disavowed knowing about anything in his newsletters that turned out to be controversial, even if he had subsequently spoken the same as what was in the newsletters. The thing that is surprising to me is some who relate to his domestic policy will completely ignore other aspects of him, such as his views and international policy. Curious how people put blinders on.

    As far as the other message about Obama, even though you would like to keep the thread fairly narrowly focused, that is not the general practice here. Specifically, if a point is made by one side, it is customary that the other side will make a contrasting point. Sometimes the contrast is useful for the discussion, other times, it is an intentional deflection.
    You cannot fool me. NONE of these clowns the GOP has put in the ring are worth the air they breath.. NOT ONE OF THEM.icon_wink.gif


    Huntsman is still in the contest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:08 PM GMT
    Huntsman is even more of a long shot for the nomination than Ron Paul.

    AND, for the OP:

    Ron Paul is the only leading tier GOP candidate who has NOT signed the NOM "defend marriage pledge" which has a number of nasty anti-gay promises that the signatories (including eventual GOP selectee Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry).

    Ron Paul is really the only sane and trustworthy candidate in the GOP field.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:17 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidHuntsman is even more of a long shot for the nomination than Ron Paul.

    AND, for the OP:

    Ron Paul is the only leading tier GOP candidate who has NOT signed the NOM "defend marriage pledge" which has a number of nasty anti-gay promises that the signatories (including eventual GOP selectee Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry).

    Ron Paul is really the only sane and trustworthy candidate in the GOP field.


    Ron Paul is easily the biggest nut who has been a major candidate in either party in my lifetime. Even Dennis Kuchinich wasn't as nuts. OK, maybe Ralph Nader.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidRon Paul is really the only sane and trustworthy candidate in the GOP field.


    Paul is a little too cute. He feigns moral courage, but in reality he has never, ever taken a politically risky stand.

    All those votes against bloated budgets? He knows his "no" vote doesn't matter... It's pro forma. Which is why he loads up those bills with pork for his district then votes against them.

    As long as he keeps the gluttons in his home district well-fed on other people's money, he can say whatever 'revolutionary' or 'courageous' or 'batshit' thing he wants. There's no consequences.

    There's no virtue in taking stands that aren't actually dangerous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    Reckon I'll agree to disagree on this one, heheh.

    But between reducing our spending and government size, and rolling back our empire to something a little more sustainable - I'm all for that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:33 PM GMT
    And in any case, the powers that be in the GOP establishment have all but selected Mitt Romney. The primaries and caucuses will be a sideshow that has been well planned from the beginning to select Romney against the will of the common voter.

    I'm convinced that the USA is irretrievably doomed to fail at this point - the inmates have been running the assylum for quite some time now, and show very little signs of slowing the crazy train down, much less stopping and rolling back to more sensible and liberty guided policy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:42 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidReckon I'll agree to disagree on this one, heheh.

    But between reducing our spending and government size, and rolling back our empire to something a little more sustainable - I'm all for that.


    That's not the big issue for me. I should correct myself by saying that it is a big issue, but not why I disagree with him so much. It’s the foreign policy stands of his that I have such a problem with. I'm clearly a NEO CON or as RLD likes to say in almost every post: a GOD DAMN FAR RIGHT FUNDI TALIBAN ISRAEL something 41 of 54 NEO CON. I think I'm forgetting part of it

    But yes, it’s one person, one vote, Acorn excepted, but you're certainly free to support whomever you want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 4:19 PM GMT
    I'm a bit partial toward Israel, if only due to certain things written in a certain old book that is largely ignored. Perhaps it is a bit superstition on my part - but that old book promises God's protective hand over Israel and the Jewish people.

    "Blessed are they who bless you, and cursed are they which curse you".

    I believe that a very big reason the USA hasnt collapsed under its own mismanaged weight is because of our unwavering support of Israel since its re-establishment in 1948.

    Our recent administration has taken large steps toward ending that support,and in some arenas actively opposing Israel and supporting her (and ultimately security threats toward the US in the longer run) enemies.

    Perhaps it is just my superstitious clinging to some book written by the hands of various sheep herders, farmers, and the occasional king or two, but it seems that one thing is true.

    Support Israel to your blessing, and oppose her at your own risk.

    We have only to look at the decline of the UK and the general squalor and oppression of the Middle East, many of which are trading tin pot dictators who were somewhat secular in outlook for Islamist regimes in the practice of "democracy".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 4:32 PM GMT
    That aside, I think we would be a lot better off if we completely cut ourselves off from the Middle East and let that area deconstruct itself.

    We are a focus for them; we were far better of playing the powers off against each other to keep them weakened (Iran/Iraq war for example).

    Harnessing the largely intractable tribalism of these "nations" against each other works to our advantage, and prevented the rise of a new Caliphate.

    I would have no issues whatsoever with AIPAC and its allies supporting Israeli interests privately (as opposed to working thru the US government) and letting the US government otherwise disentangle itself from costly wars of empire.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 4:37 PM GMT



    Ugh. Nasty nasty nasty. It amazes me this kind of stuff is permitted at all.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/huntsman-outraged-ad-targeting-adopted-daughters-002947841.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 5:16 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidThat aside, I think we would be a lot better off if we completely cut ourselves off from the Middle East and let that area deconstruct itself.

    We are a focus for them; we were far better of playing the powers off against each other to keep them weakened (Iran/Iraq war for example).

    Harnessing the largely intractable tribalism of these "nations" against each other works to our advantage, and prevented the rise of a new Caliphate.

    I would have no issues whatsoever with AIPAC and its allies supporting Israeli interests privately (as opposed to working thru the US government) and letting the US government otherwise disentangle itself from costly wars of empire.


    "I think we would be a lot better off if we completely cut ourselves off from the Middle East and let that area deconstruct itself. "

    Once Iran has the bomb, that's going to real difficult.

    But yeah, I'm a big supporter of Keystone and to get going on it asap. It will then be more difficult for a ME theocracy to hold us hostage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 5:18 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    Ugh. Nasty nasty nasty. It amazes me this kind of stuff is permitted at all.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/huntsman-outraged-ad-targeting-adopted-daughters-002947841.html


    I really hate to see this happening to Huntsman as he is one very decent human being.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 5:33 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Once Iran has the bomb, that's going to real difficult.

    But yeah, I'm a big supporter of Keystone and to get going on it asap. It will then be more difficult for a ME theocracy to hold us hostage.


    I think it will be a while longer before the Iranians have a delivery system that can hit the CONUS (until then a more likely avenue of attack would be a submarine or false-flag merchant vessel carrying a suicide nuke into NY harbour).

    Or dirty bombs.

    The trick here would be to make it clear (to Iran, and thru diplomatic channels to Russia and China) that any attack on US soil involving fissile or more generally NBC(R) weapons would guarantee a devastating nuclear response, or hypersonic kinetic impact device (40-ton tungsten rods de-orbited on top of key hardened targets) when that technology comes online.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 5:40 PM GMT
    1. Prove he wrote this
    2. I couldn't care less what his personal view of gay people are. I'd rather have someone say they hate me and give me equal rights than someone say they love me and deny me equal rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 9:46 PM GMT
    Lulz, I love the Ron Paul defenders. Guess he didn't know jack shit about that twitter account in his name either? Ron Paul is responsible because he was in charge, he KNEW what was going on, and let it happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 10:10 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    freedomisntfree said
    Once Iran has the bomb, that's going to real difficult.

    But yeah, I'm a big supporter of Keystone and to get going on it asap. It will then be more difficult for a ME theocracy to hold us hostage.


    I think it will be a while longer before the Iranians have a delivery system that can hit the CONUS (until then a more likely avenue of attack would be a submarine or false-flag merchant vessel carrying a suicide nuke into NY harbour).

    Or dirty bombs.

    The trick here would be to make it clear (to Iran, and thru diplomatic channels to Russia and China) that any attack on US soil involving fissile or more generally NBC(R) weapons would guarantee a devastating nuclear response, or hypersonic kinetic impact device (40-ton tungsten rods de-orbited on top of key hardened targets) when that technology comes online.


    "until then a more likely avenue of attack would be a submarine or false-flag merchant vessel carrying a suicide nuke into NY harbour). "

    Israel of course or up the Potomac, NYC or even port of Long Beach / LA. There is no M.A.D. deterrent that would stop them. They celebrate death more than we do life. I have little doubt that if they had the bomb that they wouldn't hesitate to do something like this

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:28 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    AlphaTrigger said
    freedomisntfree said
    Once Iran has the bomb, that's going to real difficult.

    But yeah, I'm a big supporter of Keystone and to get going on it asap. It will then be more difficult for a ME theocracy to hold us hostage.


    I think it will be a while longer before the Iranians have a delivery system that can hit the CONUS (until then a more likely avenue of attack would be a submarine or false-flag merchant vessel carrying a suicide nuke into NY harbour).

    Or dirty bombs.

    The trick here would be to make it clear (to Iran, and thru diplomatic channels to Russia and China) that any attack on US soil involving fissile or more generally NBC(R) weapons would guarantee a devastating nuclear response, or hypersonic kinetic impact device (40-ton tungsten rods de-orbited on top of key hardened targets) when that technology comes online.


    "until then a more likely avenue of attack would be a submarine or false-flag merchant vessel carrying a suicide nuke into NY harbour). "

    Israel of course or up the Potomac, NYC or even port of Long Beach / LA. There is no M,A,D, deterrent that would stop them. They celebrate death more than we do life. I have little doubt that if they had the bomb that they wouldn't hesitate to do something like this





    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your fear of IRAN appears quite strongly to be based on media hipe and misleading propaganda, were you aware as has been pointed out that Amajinadad (sp?) never made the statement that threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" as the Media and the Pro Neo Con Repub candidates keep repeating. The Neo Cons and the Israeli Lobby AIPAC are busy again druming up reasons for war with Iran just as they did with Iraq, and if you've done any reading at all, you should know by now how false their reasoning was for going to war with them. I'm with Alphatrigger, if AIPAC kept to matters of Jewish Israeli issures rather than so desperately involving with influencing our government I'd have no problem with them at all. Do some Google searches on the Neo Con/Iraeli Lobby AIPAC and unless your blind you will be alarmed at their involvement in these wars.

    There's a lot of flaws in your boogyman fear about Islam, for interest sake compare statements in the Christian Bible, they are just as alarming if similarly taken out of context. The Koran refers to the Bible and Jesus by the way in favorable ways. Tens of thousands of Jews live peacefully in Iran and when offered 'cash' to relocate to Israel by far most refused.


    As for Ron Paul and his views of Gay men, I could care less what he said back in 1994, He hasn't signed one of those current anti Gay/defence of marriage pledges and his current stand is what I am concerned about. As for his voting history, he show's every sign of keeping his 'hands off' gay civil issues and that is good enough for me. Far better he disagree with our lifestyle but believe in letting us live and let live and putting that together with all the positives from him primarily fiscally and Foreign policy wise, He is what our country needs far more so than these Neo Con, Corp and lobby lap dogs who talk up war as off the cuff and with as much bravado as if they'e talking about some boxing match.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 12:56 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    Ugh. Nasty nasty nasty. It amazes me this kind of stuff is permitted at all.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/huntsman-outraged-ad-targeting-adopted-daughters-002947841.html
    You can thank the GOP for making PACs people and a protected class!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 11:25 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    meninlove said


    Ugh. Nasty nasty nasty. It amazes me this kind of stuff is permitted at all.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/huntsman-outraged-ad-targeting-adopted-daughters-002947841.html
    You can thank the GOP for making PACs people and a protected class!





    This is only going to get worse until the American Public wakes up and demands an end to the relationship between Politicians funders and their legislative agenda's.

    We should be demanding in no uncertain terms an end to the lobbyist open access to our halls of congress while we the public have very little representation.

    The voters should demand an end to direct funding from PAC's, corps, Lobby's or anyone else to individual politicians who then are tied to the donors wishes. Our Politicians should be limited to public funding, by developing a fund where private individuals and corps are still given a tax deduction for their gift to that public election fund, that would be divided equally and anonimously among the appropriate candidates during any election cycle. This way no connection would be able to be made between money given and the politicians positions on the issues. he would then have no strings attached to anyone when voting, freeing him up to vote his conscience rather than for his funders.
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jan 11, 2012 2:59 AM GMT
    Ron Paul New Hampshire Flyer

    "In this flyer being distributed in New Hampshire, Ron Paul brags that he introduced a bill that would bar the federal courts from considering DOMA cases. Which is rather remarkable, as DOMA is a federal law."

    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/01/ron-paul-new-hampshire-flyer.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 3:22 AM GMT
    Ewww! The title is kind of creepy. I can't get the image out of my brain of Ron Paul ON gay men.