155 replies to this topic

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 08 December 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

"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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

MichaelW, on 08 December 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

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]

Yamato, on 09 December 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

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]

and then, on 09 December 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

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]

Yamato, on 08 December 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

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?  

Quote

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]

Yamato, on 09 December 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

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?

Quote

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

Bit late now, don't ya think?

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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.  

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

MichaelW, on 09 December 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

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]

Yamato, on 09 December 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

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]

MichaelW, on 09 December 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

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]

Yamato, on 09 December 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

MichaelW, on 10 December 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

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]

MichaelW said:

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]

Yamato, on 10 December 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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

It wasn't.

Quote

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.