Ron Paul and the REVOlution

[Truth-Bringer]

Think of the difference between Ron Paul and Strom Thurmond. Strom attracted racists and bigots because he himself was a racist and a bigot. Ron Paul attracts racists and bigots because even racists and bigots have political opinions. Ron Paul's social views seem classically liberal - "what you do and who you are is your own business and quite frankly the government and I don't care." What were Strom's social views? "Let's bring back segregation! Let's filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1967!" When Strom ran for President his platform was based far more on his proposals for legislating social inequality than on anything that had to do with size of government, which is what Paul's campaign is based on.

And vyo476 seals the debate... Thanks. You may be a collectivist vyo, but at least you have common sense and are honest - unlike Coyote. And I can respect that.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Think of the difference between Ron Paul and Strom Thurmond. Strom attracted racists and bigots because he himself was a racist and a bigot. Ron Paul attracts racists and bigots because even racists and bigots have political opinions. Ron Paul's social views seem classically liberal - "what you do and who you are is your own business and quite frankly the government and I don't care." What were Strom's social views? "Let's bring back segregation! Let's filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1967!" When Strom ran for President his platform was based far more on his proposals for legislating social inequality than on anything that had to do with size of government, which is what Paul's campaign is based on.

To be honest, I'm not a big civil rights history buff but I don't think they're was any Civil Rights Act of 1967. You're probably thinking of the 1964 one.

 

[Irishone21]

Finally we got a role model, and the game tries to oust him. We can let this happen... This is not a game anymore.

 

[Irishone21]

u guys would probably give up the internet if you were me... they trying to make me give up... america is a crazy place in dire need of a reawkening, and not a mock-conspiracy theory blinding, but an actualy reawakening, plus a merging and a bridging.

 

[vyo476]

To be honest, I'm not a big civil rights history buff but I don't think they're was any Civil Rights Act of 1967. You're probably thinking of the 1964 one.

Actually, it was 1957. I must have hit the wrong key. It was the longest filibuster by a single person in the Senate's history - 24 hours and 18 minutes. I remember reading somewhere that he actually spent the entire day before in a sauna to dehydrate himself so that he wouldn't have to urinate during the filibuster.

 

[vyo476]

And vyo476 seals the debate... Thanks. You may be a collectivist vyo, but at least you have common sense and are honest - unlike Coyote. And I can respect that.

I think that's one of the more interesting compliments I've ever recieved. Thanks.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Actually, it was 1957. I must have hit the wrong key. It was the longest filibuster by a single person in the Senate's history - 24 hours and 18 minutes. I remember reading somewhere that he actually spent the entire day before in a sauna to dehydrate himself so that he wouldn't have to urinate during the filibuster.

Like I said, I'm not Civil Rights historian but 1967 just didn't look right. That kind of reminds of the old Mike Gravel videos during the Vietnam War.

 

[Gulden]

I may vote for him

 

[heyjude]

I have one major disagreement with Paul. He is in favor of getting the government out of everyone's lives except pregnant womens. While he has said that he is opposed to an amendment to the Constitution, he will do everything he can, including introduce laws, to make abortion illegal. I will not vote for any man who refuses to support a woman's fundamental right to control her body and her own life.

 

[vyo476]

That kind of reminds of the old Mike Gravel videos during the Vietnam War.

Recently I noticed a ton of Mike Gravel signs going up around southern New Hampshire. I noted with some satisfaction that they're bigger than all the Mitt Romney signs (no - I know that doesn't mean anything - I'm just petty sometimes).

 

[Coyote]

I have one major disagreement with Paul. He is in favor of getting the government out of everyone's lives except pregnant womens. While he has said that he is opposed to an amendment to the Constitution, he will do everything he can, including introduce laws, to make abortion illegal. I will not vote for any man who refuses to support a woman's fundamental right to control her body and her own life.

He also supports the government (via Congress) defining marriage as only heterosexual doesn't he? Didn't he sponsor the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313? Sounds to me like he only wants to limit government in certain areas but not in others.

 

[vyo476]

He also supports the government (via Congress) defining marriage as only heterosexual doesn't he? Didn't he sponsor the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313? Sounds to me like he only wants to limit government in certain areas but not in others.

Actually, the bills he supported were to keep the federal government from defining (or redefining) marriage - he wanted the matter left to the states. He didn't support legislation that was meant to define marriage as heterosexual-only.

I don't necessarily agree with him on this, but your comment about his conflicting desires to limit government in some areas isn't fair.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, the bills he supported were to keep the federal government from defining (or redefining) marriage - he wanted the matter left to the states. He didn't support legislation that was meant to define marriage as heterosexual-only.

I don't necessarily agree with him on this, but your comment about his conflicting desires to limit government in some areas isn't fair.

You're right - I was reading his positions on issues rather than his actual voting record, which is more interesting: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

 

[vyo476]

You're right - I was reading his positions on issues rather than his actual voting record, which is more interesting: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

You'll notice on that list that he voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Resolution, which would have defined marriage across the whole US as being between a man and a woman (or at least as not being between members of the same gender).

He's hardly a crusader for homosexual rights but he's not a homophobe, either.

 

[Coyote]

You'll notice on that list that he voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Resolution, which would have defined marriage across the whole US as being between a man and a woman (or at least as not being between members of the same gender).

He's hardly a crusader for homosexual rights but he's not a homophobe, either.

Yes, he has an interesting voting record.

I actually agree with some of his stances - but they are outweighed by others, such as environment.