SWEET! $13 EXTRA A MONTH!

[dbackjon]

I don't have the clips, but I do remember Dr. Paul getting boo'd for his Iraq War comments.

As far as the loaded questions - who do you think supplied them? The media or the RNC?

[Appaholic]

I don't have the clips, but I do remember Dr. Paul getting boo'd for his Iraq War comments.

As far as the loaded questions - who do you think supplied them? The media or the RNC?

The media being spoon fed from the RNC....much like their Iraq "pre-war investigations".....

[bobbythekidd]

Why? Ron Paul is against Gay Adoption and Gay Marriage. He is against Gays in the military. He thinks that sodomy should be illegal.

Ron Paul offers NOTHING for freedom and equality in this country. His policies, if adopted, would set civil rights back, especially in many backwards areas of the country.

Jon is posting libelous claims about Ron Paul. The information above is not true and Jon should retract his lies.

[dbackjon]

Why? Ron Paul is against Gay Adoption and Gay Marriage. He is against Gays in the military. He thinks that sodomy should be illegal.

Ron Paul offers NOTHING for freedom and equality in this country. His policies, if adopted, would set civil rights back, especially in many backwards areas of the country.

Jon is posting libelous claims about Ron Paul. The information above is not true and Jon should retract his lies.

Ron Paul, while personally may not be against the above items, has repeatedly voted against them.

He voted for DOMA, against Gay Adoptions, and does not support gays in the military.

His vision of allowing each state to have different civil rights is what led to the Civil War. It is a failed Ideology.

[bobbythekidd]

Jon is posting libelous claims about Ron Paul. The information above is not true and Jon should retract his lies.

Ron Paul, while personally may not be against the above items, has repeatedly voted against them.

He voted for DOMA, against Gay Adoptions, and does not support gays in the military.

His vision of allowing each state to have different civil rights is what led to the Civil War. It is a failed Ideology.

You rock Jon.

[dbackjon]

Ron Paul, while personally may not be against the above items, has repeatedly voted against them.

He voted for DOMA, against Gay Adoptions, and does not support gays in the military.

His vision of allowing each state to have different civil rights is what led to the Civil War. It is a failed Ideology.

You rock Jon.

As do you.

[ASUMountaineer]

Jon is posting libelous claims about Ron Paul. The information above is not true and Jon should retract his lies.

Ron Paul, while personally may not be against the above items, has repeatedly voted against them.

He voted for DOMA, against Gay Adoptions, and does not support gays in the military.

His vision of allowing each state to have different civil rights is what led to the Civil War. It is a failed Ideology.

Here are some of his stances from the On the Issues website.

# Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
# Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

He stated the Civil Rights Act was not really about civil rights. It's not a matter of whether you think the states can or cannot handle civil rights, it's about the law. You need to support banning the Constitution if you're so hell bent on getting rid of states' rights.

You really seem to be a one issue voter, but it's your boys Clinton and Obama who are also against gay marriage and Clinton signed DADT. So, sounds like your big government brethren (like George W. Bush) are against gay "equality." See, Dr. Paul wants personal freedom for everyone. The only questionable position on that would be abortion. You are so concerned with one issue that you're willing to give away all freedom for one part of "equality." That's really near sided. You still can't admit that less government intervention would give you your "equality."

[dbackjon]

I am FAR from a one-issue voter.

Yes, he did vote against constitutional amendments, but voted for DOMA. He wants to leave civil rights issues to bodies (states) that have time and time again shown that they are incapable of treating all Americans equally.

That is a cop out of the first order.

Less governmental intervention WOULD NOT give me equality. How is that so hard to comprehend?

[ASUMountaineer]

I am FAR from a one-issue voter.

Yes, he did vote against constitutional amendments, but voted for DOMA. He wants to leave civil rights issues to bodies (states) that have time and time again shown that they are incapable of treating all Americans equally.

That is a cop out of the first order.

Less governmental intervention WOULD NOT give me equality. How is that so hard to comprehend?

and more and more government intervention hasn't given you equality either has it? So, what do you suggest? More and more government...good choice. SMH.

So the eff what if he voted for DOMA (how many of your precious Dems voted for it too), that just prevents state's from having to recognize something they don't want to (see the 10th Amendment, I guess you don't like that one, so fcuk it). Your boy Clinton tried to shut gays up by saying you can't speak about being gay in the military. Don't hear you ripping him, only praise...of course, that is the double standard norm of a partisan.

I haven't seen you discuss any issues about Ron Paul except gay marriage (or disguised as civil rights), so until you do, you come across as a one issue voter. Remember, it was the federal government that allowed slavery as well. The federal government has proven time and time again it is incapable of treating Americans equally. It's also your all mighty government that currently prevents you from getting married to the man you want to. It's not people who want more freedom, it's people who want a powerful government--HOW IS THAT so hard to comprehend?

That is a cop out of the first order. We can do this all day, but for you to be against personal freedom, except in certain situations, is a ridiculous way to reach for "equality."

If you joined the libertarian cause, instead of wishing for a nanny state, you could help push a movement where EVERYONE would have "equality." Guess you're not interested in that, as long as you get what you want. If you want the government out of your bedroom, you'll first have to get government out of your life. Until that happens, you will always be searching for your "equality." It's so blatantly obvious that it's the government keeping you from marrying it's not even funny.

[dbackjon]

There are other issues, but that one obviously is near and dear.

I criticize Dems plenty on civil rights. One difference is that while I know that many dems are not for me, most are NOT against me, and some are for equality.

Again, most all, if not all, civil rights advancements came at the federal level. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

States never had the right to treat citizens with inequality. The constitution is very clear on that, and the 10th amendment has nothing to do with that.

[ASUMountaineer]

There are other issues, but that one obviously is near and dear.

I criticize Dems plenty on civil rights. One difference is that while I know that many dems are not for me, most are NOT against me, and some are for equality.

Again, most all, if not all, civil rights advancements came at the federal level. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

States never had the right to treat citizens with inequality. The constitution is very clear on that, and the 10th amendment has nothing to do with that.

I never once said that the "civil rights" advancements didn't come from the federal level. I did say that the federal government has been just as bad at treating people equally than the states--why is that so hard for you to admit? The federal government has usually been an enabler.

I get it, you're basically for a complete federal system, the state's should not have any power, they should more or less be branches of the federal government. I simply disagree with you, and one day the federal government may give you your "equality." But, they will take it away from others--because they can. You want to make the government more and more powerful...how can you not see the danger in that? Why are you so against increasing personal freedom (except in certain cases where it's about you)? That is what I struggle to understand.

North Carolina not recognizing a law or a marriage from another state is not discrimination. You have 49 other states in which to live. In addition, what if Wyoming started allowing first cousins to marry, do you believe that Arizona should have to recognize that marriage? What if Utah decided to allow two women and one man to be married, should Arizona be forced to recognize that marriage? These could be real possibilities, and to force them to do that is unconstitutional.

As to "not all Dems are against you." Most libertarians and true conservatives aren't either. But, we're not going to sacrifice equality for one group if it means giving up even more personal freedom in the process--that is not the answer. Both can be accomplished, all you have to do is work for a lack government intervention in people's personal lives. However, it seems as if you can't do that.

I didn't really intend for this to become a personal pissing match between the two of us--we hijacked Mark's thread. You're still cool with me, my bad if I came across as a candy ass, fcuker, and what not.

I have a tendency to let me passion for less government intervention take over--much like when discussing Georgia Southern, Davidson College, and Duke. I just really think government intervention causes more problems than it helps. I really feel that increasing personal freedom is the way to go. Getting government out of all marriage would you give you your desired equality...I truly believe that. I want equality for everyone, I could care less who you spend your life with, none of my business, but the government thinks it is its business, and I have a problem with that.

[bobbythekidd]

States never had the right to treat citizens with inequality. The constitution is very clear on that, and the 10th amendment has nothing to do with that.

The ninth amendment saw to that, but we did it for most of our history, and it continues today. The Constitution has been trampled on to the point that this nation does not even recognize itself in the mirror anymore.

Like I said, it is time for the revolution with Ron Paul at the wheel.

[dbackjon]

So you disagree with the 1954 Supreme Court ruling saying that states could not ban inter-racial marriage?

You want to discard the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution?

I am not for a full federal system - there are many areas that should be under state control. Education is one. But civil rights is not. Yes, I do trust the Federal Government more for civil rights protection that I do the local level. And you know what, 220 years under our Constitution has proven me correct on this issue.

One big problem I have with the libertarian way of thinking is that you say "Don't want to make gay marriage a federal issue, it should be a local issue", which may be good in theory, but ignores reality. You want me to achieve equality by waiting for the rest of the nation to come to your way of thinking, and then start eliminating the 1,000+ federal rights and priveledges married couples get. And that will NEVER happen.

As an American, why should I not have equality? Why not take the opposite track - give me equality, then start chipping away?

[bobbythekidd]

I want equality for everyone, I could care less who you spend your life with, none of my business, but the government thinks it is its business, and I have a problem with that.

Ron Paul? Is that you?

See Jon, were not all bad fcukers.

[ASUMountaineer]

So you disagree with the 1954 Supreme Court ruling saying that states could not ban inter-racial marriage?

You want to discard the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution?

I am not for a full federal system - there are many areas that should be under state control. Education is one. But civil rights is not. Yes, I do trust the Federal Government more for civil rights protection that I do the local level. And you know what, 220 years under our Constitution has proven me correct on this issue.

One big problem I have with the libertarian way of thinking is that you say "Don't want to make gay marriage a federal issue, it should be a local issue", which may be good in theory, but ignores reality. You want me to achieve equality by waiting for the rest of the nation to come to your way of thinking, and then start eliminating the 1,000+ federal rights and priveledges married couples get. And that will NEVER happen.

As an American, why should I not have equality? Why not take the opposite track - give me equality, then start chipping away?

No, that's the Republican way of thinking. The Libertarian way of thinking is that NO government should be involved in marriage. I want you to achieve equality by EVERYONE achieving equality. That is what I want.

Once again, you're distorting my words to help your argument. I disagree with the 1954 Supreme Court decision keeping marriage in the hands of the government. I really don't see where, in everything I have typed for years, that I support the government handling marriage. In fact, I've been very vocal against government sanctioned marriage--which would eliminate DOMA. Think about it.

I want to give you equality, but we want to achieve it differently. Clearly the government can't be trusted--look at Fannie and Freddie, but you'll trust them with your equality. Again, I think about Gerald Ford, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." That's what I think about every time a politician talks about increasing the scope of government. The true oppressor since the BEGINNING OF TIME has been governments.

Anyways, I'm going to get some shut eye. Good debate.

[dbackjon]

So you don't think the full faith and credit clause applies to marriage?

[Col Hogan]

So you don't think the full faith and credit clause applies to marriage?

Do you think the 10th Amendment applies?

I think you don't...so my question is, why can you pick a portion of the Constitution that you want enforced...only to reject another part you don't want...

And before you ask, all I want is consistant enforcement of the Constitution...

[Appaholic]

No, that's the Republican way of thinking. The Libertarian way of thinking is that NO government should be involved in marriage. I want you to achieve equality by EVERYONE achieving equality. That is what I want

That's the crux of the argument IMO. We have become so conditioned to think that one party in charge will "let" you have these freedoms and the other party will "let" you have those freedoms. In fact, the Constitution spells out what freedoms we, the people, will allow the government to govern, not the other way around....but that caveat was given up without even a whimper by our ancestors and subsequent generations do not have the cajones to take back.....

[dbackjon]

So you don't think the full faith and credit clause applies to marriage?

Do you think the 10th Amendment applies?

I think you don't...so my question is, why can you pick a portion of the Constitution that you want enforced...only to reject another part you don't want...

And before you ask, all I want is consistant enforcement of the Constitution...

My feeling is that the Full Faith anc Credit clause/Article 6 (?) spells this out. These are powers enumerated to the Federal Government, so the 10th Amendment does not apply to this. The writers of the Constitution CLEARLY were not intending to have citizens of each state treated differently.

[Col Hogan]

Do you think the 10th Amendment applies?

I think you don't...so my question is, why can you pick a portion of the Constitution that you want enforced...only to reject another part you don't want...

And before you ask, all I want is consistant enforcement of the Constitution...

My feeling is that the Full Faith anc Credit clause/Article 6 (?) spells this out. These are powers enumerated to the Federal Government, so the 10th Amendment does not apply to this. The writers of the Constitution CLEARLY were not intending to have citizens of each state treated differently.

Sorry, my question was not clear...

In other arguements I've bemoaned the fact that the 10th Amendment is ignored...and your answer was basically, "Oh well, it's been ignored..."

So, I say about Article IV, section 1 "Oh well, it's been ignored..."

Get my point? If we allow one section of the Constitution to be ignored with a shrug, we have to accept any section to be ignored...

So, Are you with me that the Consttution of the United States should be followed to the letter???

[ASUMountaineer]

No, that's the Republican way of thinking. The Libertarian way of thinking is that NO government should be involved in marriage. I want you to achieve equality by EVERYONE achieving equality. That is what I want

That's the crux of the argument IMO. We have become so conditioned to think that one party in charge will "let" you have these freedoms and the other party will "let" you have those freedoms. In fact, the Constitution spells out what freedoms we, the people, will allow the government to govern, not the other way around....but that caveat was given up without even a whimper by our ancestors and subsequent generations do not have the cajones to take back.....

Exactly, my point precisely. Government sanctioned marriage should not exist. And, dback, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I do not believe it applies, because I think it's unconstitutional for government to be regulating marriage.