Lowest Price Ever! Up to 50% Off See Deals
Sponsored by
Forum Thread

Ron Paul retires :sad: and a farewell speech to Americans in proper Ron Paul style

AngryPirate 4,922 2,166 November 15, 2012 at 01:48 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/201...de=1759907

We would be hard pressed to find another person in politics that actually has the agenda of the people above their own personal gain. One that asked people to think and use their brains rather than to just to accept the word of any government official as the gospel. He will be missed by many.

184 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2004
L11: Monkey's Apprentice
17,437 Posts
2,814 Reputation
#31
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
Most of them--everything from going to a non-fiat currency system, cutting the shit out of government, protectionist foreign policy, getting rid of the fed, elimination of Dept. of Ed., etc., etc. He is a social Darwinist of the highest order. He's a libertarian who is anti-choice and anti-gay.
Being against late term abortions is not anti-choice. And while he may be personally anti-gay, do you have any proof that he has acted that way politically?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote :
Reading comprehension isn't just for school children!
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,776 Posts
21 Reputation
#32
Quote from brbubba View Post :
Being against late term abortions is not anti-choice. And while he may be personally anti-gay, do you have any proof that he has acted that way politically?
I would say he held his composure pretty well in Bruno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOEJGKusJb8
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.

Xuéxi zhōngwén
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2007
Get over it
4,922 Posts
2,166 Reputation
Original Poster
#33
Quote from yourlefthand View Post :
I distrust both parties enough that I tend to vote for a split in power. I figure if they're arguing it probably gives them less opportunity to mess things up.
Man...it's sad that this is what many American's have come to terms with as an acceptable form of government. And I agree, but I didn't vote, nor will I anytime soon until after there has been a complete regime change.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Nearly every problem and atrocity in the world boils down to someone's pursuit of imaginary things (religion, borders, money). Do away with these and humanity might have a chance.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2004
L11: Monkey's Apprentice
17,437 Posts
2,814 Reputation
#34
Quote from Xygonn View Post :
I would say he held his composure pretty well in Bruno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOEJGKusJb8
Yeah that was awkward as hell.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,776 Posts
21 Reputation
#35
Quote from AngryPirate View Post :
Man...it's sad that this is what many American's have come to terms with as an acceptable form of government. And I agree, but I didn't vote, nor will I anytime soon until after there has been a complete regime change.
You have to vote for that change. If all the non voters voted for third parties, they would get nearly as many votes as the two major parties.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#36
Quote from brbubba View Post :
Being against late term abortions is not anti-choice. And while he may be personally anti-gay, do you have any proof that he has acted that way politically?
He wants to leave it to the states in both circumstances--which means, there will be states in this country that will ban abortion and continue to discriminate against gay people. While it may jive in some respects with libertarian views in the federal government, it allows states to practice the invasive actions/discrimination that libertarians are against.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#37
Quote from Xygonn View Post :
You have to vote for that change. If all the non voters voted for third parties, they would get nearly as many votes as the two major parties.
And if pigs would fly, i could go skeet shooting for bacon.

You make one very huge assumption--that non-voters are libertarian. That just isn't the case. Not even close.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2004
L11: Monkey's Apprentice
17,437 Posts
2,814 Reputation
#38
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
He wants to leave it to the states in both circumstances--which means, there will be states in this country that will ban abortion and continue to discriminate against gay people. While it may jive in some respects with libertarian views in the federal government, it allows states to practice the invasive actions/discrimination that libertarians are against.
So you basically are admitting that you are entirely full of it and that Ron Paul doesn't hold any of the positions that you asserted earlier.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#39
Quote from brbubba View Post :
So you basically are admitting that you are entirely full of it and that Ron Paul doesn't hold any of the positions that you asserted earlier.
What are you talking about? Personally, he is against abortion rights and gay rights. Politically, he is for leaving both of those issues to the states which results in inevitable discrimination. Now, if those states didn't try to outlaw abortion or gay marriage/etc., then i would have no issue with his positions. But the fact remains, if we implemented his ideas, laws will be enacted exactly opposite of what i want to happen.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2007
Get over it
4,922 Posts
2,166 Reputation
Original Poster
#40
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
What are you talking about? Personally, he is against abortion rights and gay rights. Politically, he is for leaving both of those issues to the states which results in inevitable discrimination. Now, if those states didn't try to outlaw abortion or gay marriage/etc., then i would have no issue with his positions. But the fact remains, if we implemented his ideas, laws will be enacted exactly opposite of what i want to happen.
So what you're saying is that he doesn't allow his personal views to supersede the rights and liberties of the people by allowing the states to make their own decisions? To be clear, I don't have any problems with gay rights or abortion. However, obviously a lot of people still do, otherwise the topic wouldn't even be up for debate. Some places adapt faster than others, and some may choose not to adapt at all. Thus, by the very meaning of the definition, democracy, it is left to what the majority of the people in that state wish to adopt as their policy. That's not to say it can't be brought up each election and re-voted, but you're either for a true democracy in which the people decide, or your not.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2011
L6: Expert
1,782 Posts
14 Reputation
#41
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
What are you talking about? Personally, he is against abortion rights and gay rights. Politically, he is for leaving both of those issues to the states which results in inevitable discrimination. Now, if those states didn't try to outlaw abortion or gay marriage/etc., then i would have no issue with his positions. But the fact remains, if we implemented his ideas, laws will be enacted exactly opposite of what i want to happen.
well considering these are state issues and not Federal.....
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2004
L11: Monkey's Apprentice
17,437 Posts
2,814 Reputation
#42
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
What are you talking about? Personally, he is against abortion rights and gay rights. Politically, he is for leaving both of those issues to the states which results in inevitable discrimination. Now, if those states didn't try to outlaw abortion or gay marriage/etc., then i would have no issue with his positions. But the fact remains, if we implemented his ideas, laws will be enacted exactly opposite of what i want to happen.
If the states were to enact that, which you haven't demonstrated yet, Paul would not be directly responsible for pushing these policies.

Second, unless you have some other source Paul is not against abortion rights and gay rights. Being against late term abortion is not being against abortion rights as I mentioned before but you ignored.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#43
Quote from AngryPirate View Post :
So what you're saying is that he doesn't allow his personal views to supersede the rights and liberties of the people by allowing the states to make their own decisions?
No, he just allows states rather than the federal government discriminate in a way taht supports his personal views. Different paths to the same result.

Quote :
To be clear, I don't have any problems with gay rights or abortion. However, obviously a lot of people still do, otherwise the topic wouldn't even be up for debate. Some places adapt faster than others, and some may choose not to adapt at all. Thus, by the very meaning of the definition, democracy, it is left to what the majority of the people in that state wish to adopt as their policy. That's not to say it can't be brought up each election and re-voted, but you're either for a true democracy in which the people decide, or your not.
I don't think States should be allowed to legislate this type of discrimination--just like i don't believe States should be able to discriminate against religions nor prohibit the purchase of all guns, etc.

And we don't live in a true democracy.

Quote from Sokiru View Post :
well considering these are state issues and not Federal.....
I disagree.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by politicaljunkie November 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#44
Quote from brbubba View Post :
If the states were to enact that, which you haven't demonstrated yet, Paul would not be directly responsible for pushing these policies.
I wasn't asked to demonstrate that. But since you asked, here is what i found in a few seconds:

http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2011/louisiana/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07....html?_r=0
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/s.../id/401570 (ban at 20 weeks)

And then there are the "personhood amendments" that would have the same effect--(six+ states)

And this is WITH Roe being good law. Imagine how this would expand if it were overruled and the issue was sent to the states.

Quote :
Second, unless you have some other source Paul is not against abortion rights and gay rights. Being against late term abortion is not being against abortion rights as I mentioned before but you ignored.
RP said this: http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42424/

Quote :
The protection of life in most cases today, even in spite of our big problems, most acts of violence are still taken care of by the federal courts, and I don't want to distinguish the killing of a fetus one minute before birth from the killing of a fetus one minute after birth, because if we don't invite the federal government in when the teenager kills her baby as soon as the baby is born, they are arrested and they are charged for the crime by the state, and I think that's the way the abortion issue should be handled.
I don't care what his personal positions on those issues. I care about the effect of his political positions. And the effect of his political positions is discrimination and undue restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2007
Get over it
4,922 Posts
2,166 Reputation
Original Poster
#45
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
No, he just allows states rather than the federal government discriminate in a way taht supports his personal views. Different paths to the same result.
That's completely silly. If we had a truly democratic process (without the deception, withholding votes, lying about votes, etc.) and the people of each state were allowed to decide what they wanted, it would still be Ron Paul's fault??? It seems to me like unless everyone shares your viewpoint, you consider it discrimination. That's actually facism...not democracy.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 3 of 13
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2017. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard