Ron Paul to Congress: Stop Worshipping Israel

[MichaelW]

"Peoples' rights being denied to them" is the opposite of "voluntary association". Stop spinning desperately for a minute and try to understand this correctly.

I understand it perfectly well.

You haven't convinced anyone here. I'm just one person at that. Try harder, maybe?

No, I just haven't managed to convince you. Acidhead doesn't count because nothing he has said is even remotely intelligent.

Bring some real evidence, not comments that Dr. Paul made that you only think made him inconsistent.

I did bring evidence. Not my fault you're too stupid to go looking for it.

Providing actual evidence that Ron Paul is consistent on marriage too (what a tangent this is on the topic of Israel worship) is easy to obtain:

Indeed. If only you had the brains to follow simple instructions.

Same Sex Marriage / Civil Rights

Again Ron Paul proclaims to be a Christian so I have to assume that he is against same sex marriage, but he does not vote this way.

Ron Paul voted NO on Constitutional Amendments banning same-sex marriage twice. In 2004 he voted against HJ RES 106, which “Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.” In 2006 he once again voted NO on HJ RES 88 which stated the exact same.

http://thesteadycons...-voting-record/

You obviously don't get it. He is against the federal government's involvement in marriage and says that it is up to the individual states to decide, specifically so that they would have the power to decide what the definition of marriage was themselves. Basically, he votes so he can prevent the federal government from granting equal marriage rights to same sex couples because he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, despite openly stating otherwise.

He's probably the most principled statesman we've ever had in our federal government, certainly in my lifetime.

He would be. Because you're lifetime only goes back to the days of George Bush Jr.

The fact that he even has an opinion, or a system of personal beliefs and values, doesn't mean that he in any case voted against his own principle because of it. That's what "The Republicans" do; not Ron Paul.

And as I pointed out above, it's not exactly that clear cut. He looks principled but he only does so because he knows that the majority of the states in the US are like him: Christian and backward.

[Yamato]

Christian maybe, but backward? Only compared to the politicians he serves with.

What's so amazingly consistent about Ron Paul is, he's Christian but he still votes against the supposedly Christian view on marriage. You made a mistake changing the subject to marriage on this thread and now you've learned that Ron Paul actually is consistent on marriage too. So unless you have something else to talk about, I hope you've learned that Ron Paul is incredibly consistent

You obviously don't get it. He is against the federal government's involvement in marriage and says that it is up to the individual states to decide

I never denied that so that's no reason to say I don't get it. Practically EVERYTHING should be up to the individual states to decide. That's why they're called States. You don't understand the depths of Ron Paul's consistency do you?

The authority of the federal government is enumerated in the US Constitution. Once we acknowledge that, we can understand Ron Paul's consistency.

[Yamato]

Acidhead doesn't count because nothing he has said is even remotely intelligent.

Not my fault you're too stupid...

If only you had the brains to follow simple instructions.

Reading the Terms of Service on this website I see that it is our obligation to be polite to other posters at all times. I'd like to keep my thread clean, please.

I see the multitudes of personal attacks in your replies as an act of desperation from losing a point. Every time you get personal with anyone, that's likely how the community is going to see it. I know "you don't care", so it begs the question, why are you here? Why don't you find something you care about and spend some time doing that? Why don't you find a group of people to interact with where you can be friendly with them, and discuss the issues at the same time? Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

[+and-then]

Reading the Terms of Service on this website I see that it is our obligation to be polite to other posters at all times. I'd like to keep my thread clean, please.

I see the multitudes of personal attacks in your replies as an act of desperation from losing a point. Every time you get personal with anyone, that's likely how the community is going to see it. I know "you don't care", so it begs the question, why are you here? Why don't you find something you care about and spend some time doing that? Why don't you find a group of people to interact with where you can be friendly with them, and discuss the issues at the same time? Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Without commenting on either POV I'd like to inject here that I really, REALLY like this M.E. forum and where the personal attacks are concerned there are only 2 types of members - those who have been disciplined and those who WILL be in future. I have been notorious for squabbling here and have...er... been shown the error of my ways. I hope everyone will take a chill from that behavior so that we ALL can continue to enjoy this opportunity. And we might all be reminded that there is no rule that says a Middle East Forum must exist here. It can go away if it becomes too great a headache. So - happy faces all -and if you gotta vent then maybe a PM would be in order or not......

[ExpandMyMind]

Without commenting on either POV I'd like to inject here that I really, REALLY like this M.E. forum and where the personal attacks are concerned there are only 2 types of members - those who have been disciplined and those who WILL be in future.

This made me laugh. Quite a few have had some holidays

[MichaelW]

You don't understand the depths of Ron Paul's consistency do you?

What is consistent about saying one supports one thing and then one supporting the opposite?

The authority of the federal government is enumerated in the US Constitution. Once we acknowledge that, we can understand Ron Paul's consistency.

Or complete lack of it. But whatever. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

[MichaelW]

Reading the Terms of Service on this website I see that it is our obligation to be polite to other posters at all times.

And you're the one lecturing me? Have we not forgotten our history Yam?

I'd like to keep my thread clean, please.

Bit late now, don't ya think?

I see the multitudes of personal attacks in your replies as an act of desperation from losing a point.

I'm just as vitriolic when I'm right as I am when I'm wrong. That's consistency right there.

Every time you get personal with anyone, that's likely how the community is going to see it.

Can I just say that no one here is actually

I know "you don't care", so it begs the question, why are you here?

I think you've (once again) misinterpreted what I have posted. When I mean I don't care, I mean I don't care what you think with stuff like "don't be mean, wah wah wah".

I'm here to do what everyone else is doing. Discuss things. And no amount of whining and faux psyhcological stunts ain't gonna make me move.

Why don't you find something you care about and spend some time doing that?

What do you think I'm doing on this forum, Yam? That's probably the wrong question to ask you.

Why don't you find a group of people to interact with where you can be friendly with them, and discuss the issues at the same time?

I am. I'm just selective of whom I am nice to, based on how much of an idiot those people are.

[Yamato]

What is consistent about saying one supports one thing and then one supporting the opposite?

That's already been explained to you multiple times. You're not going to understand. Just drop it.

[MichaelW]

That's already been explained to you multiple times. You're not going to understand. Just drop it.

Oh I get it. You know it isn't consistent but because I dared to question your precious Ron Paul, we have to get all defensive and claim he's the second coming of Jesus.

Quit the crap Yam. Everyone with half a brain knows he can't put two and two together. You never had a good defence and this just proves it.

[Yamato]

Oh I get it. You know it isn't consistent but because I dared to question your precious Ron Paul, we have to get all defensive and claim he's the second coming of Jesus.

Quit the crap Yam. Everyone with half a brain knows he can't put two and two together. You never had a good defence and this just proves it.

Well if you can't name the US bureaucrat more consistent than Ron Paul and defend that assertion, that speaks for itself.

Use of the word "everyone" makes your statement untrue. Ron Paul is popular on this website if you haven't noticed. Americans can't vote for him because they'd rather vote for the guy who promises them everything, candy men like Obama and Romney, instead of the guy who promises them nothing but Constitutionality.

When you read the US Constitution and understand what the highest US law is, you'll then be able to understand how Ron Paul is consistent.

[MichaelW]

Ron Paul is popular on this website if you haven't noticed.

Support for Hamas and belief in the Illuminati are also popular on this forum. Doesn't make it representative of people anywhere.

Americans can't vote for him because they'd rather vote for the guy who promises them everything, candy men like Obama and Romney, instead of the guy who promises them nothing but Constitutionality.

Because the average American, like most other people in a democratic state, vote for the politician who can give them the best deal. You're an exception to the rule.

When you read the US Constitution and understand what the highest US law is, you'll then be able to understand how Ron Paul is consistent.

And when you realise that supporting one thing and supporting something completely different is contradictory, we're on the same page.

[Yamato]

Support for Hamas and belief in the Illuminati are also popular on this forum. Doesn't make it representative of people anywhere.

Because the average American, like most other people in a democratic state, vote for the politician who can give them the best deal. You're an exception to the rule.

And when you realise that supporting one thing and supporting something completely different is contradictory, we're on the same page.

So Obama gave people the best deal. LOL Don't talk to me about US politics because you don't know what you're talking about.

Ron Paul didn't support one thing and then the other. His support on the issue of marriage was consistent, he supported the same thing when the votes came due. Stop lying. You can't convince anyone when you're corrected above yet you're too willfully blind to read and acknowledge the correction.

AGAIN, if Ron Paul isn't consistent, what US bureaucrat is? Based on your desperate smear job of Ron Paul above, that shouldn't be difficult to answer. So get your facts together, do your homework, get your voting records out on a head-to-head comparison, and deal already. If you can't even name one person, if you're going to ignore over this question you're more wrong than I said you are.

[Saru]

I'm just as vitriolic when I'm right as I am when I'm wrong. That's consistency right there.

There really is no advantage to being deliberately vitriolic - being civil and respectful towards others can work wonders.

It would certainly help to cut down on the amount of personal attacks and arguments we see here.

[MichaelW]

So Obama gave people the best deal. LOL Don't talk to me about US politics because you don't know what you're talking about.

Fine. But don't talk to me about politics that aren't anything to do with the US. Because you've consistently shown you haven't got the faintest clue.

His support on the issue of marriage was consistent, he supported the same thing when the votes came due.

No it wasn't. He said he supported the voluntary association of people and said they can call it whatever they wished and then said marriage is between a man and a woman.

That is not a lie. Stop trying to shut down the argument because you refuse to believe that your second Jesus can't make his mind up.

AGAIN, if Ron Paul isn't consistent, what US bureaucrat is?

Dare I say it, Mitt Romney? Someone who doesn't support gay marriage or the rights for gay couples to get married and votes for legislation that supports his beliefs?

Based on your desperate smear job of Ron Paul above, that shouldn't be difficult to answer.

It wasn't.

If you can't even name one person, if you're going to ignore over this question you're more wrong than I said you are.

And as I always say: just because you think I'm wrong doesn't make it so.

[Yamato]

Ron Paul is consistent on marriage and his voting record proves it. You can claim otherwise and soil me in the process but that doesn't change the facts. When deciding on the consistency of any bureaucrat, look at the voting record.

Let the record show you think Mitt Romney is more consistent than Ron Paul. Of all the possible name drops that were possible to make when naming a consistent candidate....Mitt Romney!!! Nothing more needs to be said about your ideas on what "consistency" means.

[MichaelW]

Ron Paul is consistent on marriage and his voting record proves it.

He's consistent about his distaste for the federal government, not about whether or not he supports gay marriage.

You can claim otherwise and soil me in the process but that doesn't change the facts.

You're perfectly capable of soiling yourself. You don't need my help.

When deciding on the consistency of any bureaucrat, look at the voting record.

That's your criteria, not mine.

Nothing more needs to be said about your ideas on what "consistency" means.

Consistency means practicing what you preach. Does Ron Paul do that? No. He can't make his mind up and therefore he isn't consistent.

[acidhead]

Dare I say it, Mitt Romney? Someone who doesn't support gay marriage or the rights for gay couples to get married and votes for legislation that supports his beliefs?

the flip-flopping master

[Yamato]

He's consistent about his distaste for the federal government, not about whether or not he supports gay marriage.

You're perfectly capable of soiling yourself. You don't need my help.

That's your criteria, not mine.

Consistency means practicing what you preach. Does Ron Paul do that? No. He can't make his mind up and therefore he isn't consistent.

Ron Paul practices what he preaches. You just don't understand what he preaches and you typically blame others for that lack of understanding. It's quite the pattern actually.

[MichaelW]

Ron Paul practices what he preaches.

So if Ron Paul says he supports gay marriage, why does he then say marriage is between a man and a woman? A question that as of yet, has not received an answer.

You just don't understand what he preaches and you typically blame others for that lack of understanding.

I understand he hates the federal government. That's not an excuse though to say you support one thing and then support the opposite.

It's quite the pattern actually.

The pattern of me winning and you loosing is becoming more recurrent. Mainly because you haven't the faintest clue what's happening outside the basement you live in.

[acidhead]

That pattern is going to get you banned from this forum.

[Yamato]

I'm unaware of losing anything. What Ron Paul said in the video posted for discussion above hasn't been challenged yet. Because his views represent my views, I feel like I'm standing on solid ground here.

As for people wasting their time getting personal with me, I know who I am, so if people think they've "won" something by talking about me, they just need self-assurance and somehow find it by insulting strangers on the internet. I only wish that good discussions weren't allowed to be derailed by the usual suspects. That encourages their behavior, and we wind up with more of it. It also punishes innocent people by muting their voices in what would have otherwise been excellent points they could have made.

Back to the digression that won't go away: If Ron Paul had voted two different ways about marriage, he would be inconsistent on marriage. I've listened to everything I could find on the internet about what Ron Paul has said about marriage, and his voting record confers with what he's said. Marriage is a religious ceremony voluntarily made between people who love each other by taking vows in front of family and friends and God. It became a matter for the government to get involved by requiring state license agreements due to health concerns that no longer exist due to medical technology being so far beyond what it was in the 18th and 19th century. There's rock solid consistency from Ron Paul on marriage too. This trollic change of subject here has made the aggregate discussion have as much to do about gay marriage as it does Israel, unfortunately.

If I want to marry a man, the federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Thank you, Ron Paul. The weak-kneed democrats and republicans you serve with who try to hedge and compromise with this "civil union" nonsense makes you look prescient and wise as usual.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Yamato

[Saru]

Enough with the personal attacks please

The discussion can be had without resorting to derogatory personal remarks about the person you are debating with.

[MichaelW]

That pattern is going to get you banned from this forum.

I'm still here.

[MichaelW]

I'm unaware of losing anything.

*snip*

What Ron Paul said in the video posted for discussion above hasn't been challenged yet.

Neither has my video. You know, the one where he says he supports the rights of voluntary association and people can call it whatever they wanted to?

Because his views represent my views, I feel like I'm standing on solid ground here.

So you believe that not forming an opinion on an issue and sticking with it but saying one thing and then saying something that is the complete opposite is good? That explains a lot then.

As for people wasting their time getting personal with me, I know who I am, so if people think they've "won" something by talking about me, they just need self-assurance and somehow find it by insulting strangers on the internet.

*snip*

I only wish that good discussions weren't allowed to be derailed by the usual suspects. That encourages their behavior, and we wind up with more of it. It also punishes innocent people by muting their voices in what would have otherwise been excellent points they could have made.

*snip* What Ron Paul thinks about Israel matters little in the global scheme of things. What you're doing is what you are, quite baselessly, accusing me of doing. Wasting space.

If Ron Paul had voted two different ways about marriage, he would be inconsistent on marriage.

*snip*

Marriage is a religious ceremony voluntarily made between people who love each other by taking vows in front of family and friends and God.

Maybe in your world. People can be married and have it recognised as marriage without the need for God.

The weak-kneed democrats and republicans you serve with who try to hedge and compromise with this "civil union" nonsense makes you look prescient and wise as usual.

And the idea that the states will make the best choice is obvious that you care little about others beyond your immediate surroundings nor recognise their lacks of rights. As usual. You've denied the Palestinians in Lebanon this and now gay couples in the US. Have some empathy for once.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Saru
Removed personal insults/flaming

[Yamato]

People can get married and have it defined and recognized by whoever they want; that's the point! It should be a free, voluntary decision made by the individual or a loving couple, not by their government. According to Ron Paul, it's not government to decide who marriage doesn't apply to.

Relying on government to make our personal decisions for us with force is where our rights get infringed.

Government can't bestow rights on us. That's the fundamental misunderstanding people have about government and Ron Paul's philosophy. Governments only infringe on rights that we already have.

Palestinian rights are being violated on the most basic human level. Palestinians don't need a perpetual and indefinite hand to mouth existence. Cheerleading more welfare across their controlled borders is the last thing they need to raise children to be productive members of society and not mentally ill future terrorists. Taking a side of state-sponsored handouts and trade fixing and closed borders propping up a foreign oppressive regime to punish a domestic population of people is tyrannical and definitively opposed to liberty and rights. Palestinians need self determination and the liberty to live free.

I have never entertained the idea that here in America we treat different groups of people differently because of their characteristics, or something in history that happened to one group and not another. Whenever we engage in favoritism of one group over another, the other group is treated unfairly. Israel is a prime example of this.

Governments don't have rights and they can't give what they don't have. The Israeli government, the US, the UK, the UN or the NWO can't give Palestinians their rights. Palestinians have those rights already. Israel just needs to take their boot off Palestine's throat and let it live free.

Governments have powers enumerated to them by a constraining document called the US Constitution in my country. That's the rule of law and that's how one group of people aren't treated differently than another group. We're all born equal, we don't get our marriage rights because we're straight. We get our rights as individuals regardless of our characteristics or what group we identify with. All individuals across the world deserve every right that I enjoy as an American at a minimum; that position only becomes controversial when I include groups that aren't politically popular in certain venues, like Palestinians.