Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

Ron Paul to Congress: Stop Worshipping Israel

156 posts in this topic

Your opinions invalidate themselves when you get personal with people as you've done on this thread once again.

Righty-o then. I'll remind you of this whenever you post something "personal" about me (although the religiousness of your opinions aren't exactly cryptic Yam).

Put down the immature trollish derailing abuse already.

Immature? I'm surprised you haven't called my response to your posts harassment yet.

You're not making any friends or allies here with that attitude.

I'm not here to make friends, Yam. I'm here to voice my opinions and say what people say is either right or wrong and why it is so. Just because you have "like" buttons on your posts doesn't mean that people actually are people being friendly towards you.

And besides, I doubt your attitude towards other posters is actually very friendly either.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East is based on Israel worship per the video you are supposed to be discussing.

Fine. So I'm assuming Ron Paul is equally supportive of removing all foreign aid to countries in the Middle East then?

Oh, and "queer"? Really? Couldn't think of something less offensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Most people don't really care what the government does unless it is something which is fairly pathetic, such as spanking (a bill passed Parliament outlawing it a few years ago and a government referendum found that the majority of people were against the bill) or something which gives people equality and rights. People were supportive of the legalisation of civil unions in 2007 and generally supportive of the Marriage Equality Bill (which defines civil unions as marriages in the same terms as "normal" marriage and gives gay couples the right to adopt).

What I said was his stance. He said it was up to the states individually to define what marriage is, said that gay people can marry and call it marriage and then said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As I said, doesn't look like something someone who is supposedly consistent in their beliefs would say.

Thing is, judges have to act professionally in spite of their personal beliefs. They can say that they personally oppose or support something but their job dictates that their personal opinion doesn't matter, because of procedure and law. Politicians aren't judges because personal beliefs and motives are what got them into politics in the first place. Most people do things on the "behalf of their electorates", but as I found out yesterday, this isn't the case.

Point is, you can't compare politicians to judges.

I doubt that we'd see two different things based on geographic and minor linguistic differences.

Same in NZ. But politics here are different to that of the US. And most people wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway because he keeps changing his mind.

Our current Prime Minister voted against the Civil Union's bill in 2007 because he thought it was what the electorate wanted. My current MP is voting against the Marriage Equality Bill because he thinks it's what the electorate wants, despite personal beliefs.

Ron Paul appears to not go against what he preaches because he preaches several different things that contradict each other and uses them when the opportunity arises. How is it possible to say gay people can get married and call it marriage and then go onto say that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman?

Never heard of him. He that Mexican born father of Mitt?

You're not making the same comparison as I am. From what I have seen on his positions on gay marriage, he sounds a lot like Romney. As I said, Paul says gay people can get married and call it marriage and he wouldn't have a problem with it, then says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Looks pretty much like he's pandering to the progressives and the conservatives. Same as Romney.

Sure. Not entirely sure on the validity of the sources though.

http://www.christian...ge.html?start=3

Page 3. Has the quote where he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

[media=]

[/media]

It's an hour long, but 12 minutes in, you have the quote "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want" right out of the proverbial horse's mouth.

Yamato has repeatedly said that I am apparently too immature to understand his clearly profound ideas and not intelligent enough to think and reason on the same level as he is. I consider it a perfect example of you reap what you sow. The ball's in his court. He can change the way he treats other posters and I'll do the same.

And you complain that I don't know what the subject is? The topic of this thread is US foreign policy and Israel.

I'm also quite flattered that my behavior controls your behavior but I'm really not interested in leading you around like that.

Please show me where I didn't "treat other posters" to your liking so we can at least know what you're talking about.

Reading your rant about Ron Paul makes you look like you believe one can't have principle and an opinion both. Fortunately, Ron Paul has both about everything he legislates, and remains the most consistent statesman from the United States in our lifetime. You've never been able to understand my consistency correctly regarding US foreign policy and I'm not surprised to see you get Ron Paul so wrong.

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman and supporting all voluntary associations where people can call it whatever they want isn't a "flip flop". Admit that you were wrong about that, and just move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Righty-o then. I'll remind you of this whenever you post something "personal" about me (although the religiousness of your opinions aren't exactly cryptic Yam).

Immature? I'm surprised you haven't called my response to your posts harassment yet.

I'm not here to make friends, Yam. I'm here to voice my opinions and say what people say is either right or wrong and why it is so. Just because you have "like" buttons on your posts doesn't mean that people actually are people being friendly towards you.

And besides, I doubt your attitude towards other posters is actually very friendly either.

Fine. So I'm assuming Ron Paul is equally supportive of removing all foreign aid to countries in the Middle East then?

Oh, and "queer"? Really? Couldn't think of something less offensive?

Ron Paul is supportive of removing all foreign aid to countries period.

Do you share your opinions with other people where you're actually friendly with them? That's what we're asking you to do here. Just try to be friendly with people when you discuss things. and then and I disagree completely about this subject and yet somehow we can remain gentlemanly with one another. If you can't understand the value of doing that, even on an anonymous message board, that's what will bring people to think you're immature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But preacherman76 why does it have to be just himself? No offense but it's his ideas that are (mostly) needed. The movement was strong and one of the best grassroots types since Perot. People are HUNGRY for real change and if RP's movement could keep rolling along, even slowly, and evolve even a little on some of his more drastic stands then it would have a REAL chance as a viable third party. Man, after this next 4 years (if anything is left) people are going to be so sick of politics as usual they are going to be primed to accept anyone not currently in office. Just imagine if those rallies he was famous for started popping up on college campuses in the Spring and Summer in all 50 states. His people could easily accomplish that. They could provide a real time alternative in ideas to the bilge that is seeping from DC every day for the next 2 or 3 years while the same old crowd anoint the next leader. The movement could grow into a monster in that time. The media couldn't ignore them forever - especially when the crowd sizes kept growing.

Well to be honest with you, after the way he was treated in the last primary, even if we found someone else who constitutionalist can get behind, they will lie cheat and steal to make sure they dont lose thier grip on power. I have no faith that America can be saved politicaly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Most people don't really care what the government does unless it is something which is fairly pathetic, such as spanking (a bill passed Parliament outlawing it a few years ago and a government referendum found that the majority of people were against the bill) or something which gives people equality and rights. People were supportive of the legalisation of civil unions in 2007 and generally supportive of the Marriage Equality Bill (which defines civil unions as marriages in the same terms as "normal" marriage and gives gay couples the right to adopt).

Yes, I've already agreed that Paul is an exception among politicians.

What I said was his stance. He said it was *1 up to the states individually to define what marriage is, *2 said that gay people can marry and call it marriage and then said that *3 marriage is between a man and a woman.

As I said, doesn't look like something someone who is supposedly consistent in their beliefs would say.

1 - Which is completely consistent with the stance that every power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belongs to states

2 - Which sounds like his opinion on the legal aspect

3 - Which sounds like his personal moral judgement of the matter

Thing is, judges have to act professionally in spite of their personal beliefs. They can say that they personally oppose or support something but their job dictates that their personal opinion doesn't matter, because of procedure and law. Politicians aren't judges because personal beliefs and motives are what got them into politics in the first place. Most people do things on the "behalf of their electorates", but as I found out yesterday, this isn't the case.

Point is, you can't compare politicians to judges.

Sure you can. Their job is supposed to be to make the best decision for their realm of influence that is supported by law. The fact that most don't actually do that isn't a knock on Paul.

I doubt that we'd see two different things based on geographic and minor linguistic differences.

One would think, but apparantly New Zealanders believe not trying to legislate your personal morals is flipping.

Same in NZ. But politics here are different to that of the US. And most people wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway because he keeps changing his mind.

See...

Our current Prime Minister voted against the Civil Union's bill in 2007 because he thought it was what the electorate wanted. My current MP is voting against the Marriage Equality Bill because he thinks it's what the electorate wants, despite personal beliefs.

Ron Paul appears to not go against what he preaches because he preaches several different things that contradict each other and uses them when the opportunity arises. How is it possible to say gay people can get married and call it marriage and then go onto say that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman?

It's possible to say that the same way it's possible to say, "I belive fast food is ruining the health of this country, but fast food should not be illegal." Again, having a belief in your personal life that you do not wish to impose on everyone else is not flipping.

Never heard of him. He that Mexican born father of Mitt?

Willard Mitt Romney

You're not making the same comparison as I am. From what I have seen on his positions on gay marriage, he sounds a lot like Romney. As I said, Paul says gay people can get married and call it marriage and he wouldn't have a problem with it, then says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Looks pretty much like he's pandering to the progressives and the conservatives. Same as Romney.

Sure. Not entirely sure on the validity of the sources though.

http://www.christian...ge.html?start=3

Page 3. Has the quote where he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

<snip video>

It's an hour long, but 12 minutes in, you have the quote "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want" right out of the proverbial horse's mouth.

Again, it doesn't sound like a flip to me. In your nonvideo link he says, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." This sounds like he's stating his personal moral stance, but I will agree that he's trying to be political about it and skirt the line with his wording.

Yamato has repeatedly said that I am apparently too immature to understand his clearly profound ideas and not intelligent enough to think and reason on the same level as he is. I consider it a perfect example of you reap what you sow. The ball's in his court. He can change the way he treats other posters and I'll do the same.

Well, I'd never called you immature, but you were quick enough to tell me...

A conflict of ideas is consistency now? Christ, no wonder people think of Americans as uneducated if the result of the education system is you and Yamato.

...when I disagreed with your characterization of Paul's lack of desire to legislate his personal lifestyle choices as political inconsistency. It's been my experience that when someone implies that a person with a different opinion is not educated enough to understand the discussion, the insult usually applies, but not to the receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the national debt reaches $20 trillion (and why on earth wouldn't it?) and interest rates return to sensible levels, let's say 7% in the wake of what we just went through, how is the government going to afford to pay $1.4 trillion on nothing but interest on the debt? Who's going to lose their lunch on that? Not the foreigners? Just middle class Americans? How long are foreign economies going to let us borrow and print ourselves further down the road of interest-only loan payments? How did we ever get into the situation we've dug ourselves into? By allowing our Congress to give in to the entitlement class like foreign-welfare lobbyists who are pushing US foreign policy.

Warfare (commercial warfare) can be viewed as just another entitlement these days. It's just another government-funded racket loaded with well-monied and well-lobbied special interests. Warfare is just another welfare. Where did this entitlement generation come from?

The problem with our collective attitude about entitlement and spending is symptomatic in our rhetoric. Contemporary liberal thinking looks at only one individual line item on the total budget at a time and calls it peanuts. For example, how many liberals (o/w known as republicans) have I heard proclaim that "if we reduced the defense budget to zero, we'd still be in a deficit" (so therefore, don't reduce it). One can play that rhetorical game with anything in the budget, and that's exactly what people do. It serves no other purpose than to perpetuate the spending problem and let people pretend the problem isn't their own. Growing the government becomes equated to economic prosperity, and when everything's a peanut nothing gets cut.

But when the bills come due, everyone's going to wake up. It won't just be someone else's son who died in the desert fighting foreigners' battles. We're all going to learn full-out what bankruptcy really is, and I don't mean the kind that we can keep printing our way out of. The young deserve to pay for their own problems, but they don't deserve to pay for ours too. Instead of falling into the generational rant of "those kids these days" I'll blame the parents for allowing their kids to feel as entitled as they do, to take what they have in this world for granted, to see reality through a gadget 3" screen, and in particular, to think that this foreign-entitlement-madness between the US and Israel has a chance of continuing indefinitely like all the rest of the bankruptcy we're amorally delaying away.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm also quite flattered that my behavior controls your behavior but I'm really not interested in leading you around like that.

If it did, I would have stopped responding to your posts a long time ago.

Please show me where I didn't "treat other posters" to your liking so we can at least know what you're talking about.
Reading your rant about Ron Paul makes you look like you believe one can't have principle and an opinion both.

Opinions and principles are both personal beliefs.

You've never been able to understand my consistency correctly regarding US foreign policy and I'm not surprised to see you get Ron Paul so wrong.

I don't care about your consistency regarding foreign policy. It's your consistency surrounding Israeli policy and your opinions of it which are questionable. Such as your ideas about what oppression constitute for example. It's only oppression if it's committed by Israel. Same thing goes for self defence. Only justified if it's done by Palestinians.

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman and supporting all voluntary associations where people can call it whatever they want isn't a "flip flop".

Then what would you call it? Consistency probably. Saying one thing and then saying something else which is the complete opposite is probably normal for you.

Admit that you were wrong about that, and just move on.

But I am not wrong. That's the point. You personally won't see it because you're so infatuated with Paul and his so-called principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 - Which is completely consistent with the stance that every power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belongs to states.

Fine.

2 - Which sounds like his opinion on the legal aspect.

Fine.

3 - Which sounds like his personal moral judgement of the matter.

It does. But you're trying to say that his personal opinions and what he votes for aren't intertwined. So why does he vote for legislation supporting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? If that's his personal view, why does he use it when he is voting in Congress?

Sure you can. Their job is supposed to be to make the best decision for their realm of influence that is supported by law. The fact that most don't actually do that isn't a knock on Paul.

Not in all aspects. A decision based on a personal one for example in a criminal trial would be a complete no-no wouldn't it?

One would think, but apparantly New Zealanders believe not trying to legislate your personal morals is flipping.

Everyone has different morals. What we legislate is about ensuring the rights of others.

It's possible to say that the same way it's possible to say, "I belive fast food is ruining the health of this country, but fast food should not be illegal." Again, having a belief in your personal life that you do not wish to impose on everyone else is not flipping.

Indeed, but what would you call someone who then voted to illegalise fast food? Inconsistent?

Willard Mitt Romney

Ah, the looney tune himself.

Again, it doesn't sound like a flip to me. In your nonvideo link he says, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." This sounds like he's stating his personal moral stance, but I will agree that he's trying to be political about it and skirt the line with his wording.

And that's my point. Once you make a personal belief political that contradicts what you've previously said, and then done actions that support said beliefs, then it makes you contradictory and thus inconsistent.

Even though he supports the rights of states, it was about the definition of marriage and thus preventing states from recognising marriage licences or documents issued in other states, namely same sex marriages. Is that the sort of belief you expect from someone that said people can voluntarily associate themselves with another person and call it marriage?

Well, I'd never called you immature, but you were quick enough to tell me...

And I am sorry for that. Arguments with Yam can get very heated sometimes, especially when he plays the "I'm better than you because God gave me morals and intelligence and you're not religious so you don't have them" card. That and a lot of other deeply annoying traits.

...when I disagreed with your characterization of Paul's lack of desire to legislate his personal lifestyle choices as political inconsistency. It's been my experience that when someone implies that a person with a different opinion is not educated enough to understand the discussion, the insult usually applies, but not to the receiver.

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing sucks more than that moment during a debate when you realize you’re wrong.

What would Jesus do?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing sucks more than that moment during a debate when you realize you’re wrong.

What would Jesus do?

He wouldn't debate. As for myself, I just admit when I think I'm wrong. I've done it several times since I came to UM. It's good for the soul :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing sucks more than that moment during a debate when you realize you’re wrong.

But here's the clincher: I'm not wrong. And I haven't had anyone conclusively prove otherwise. I have you cracking random comments which don't add anything worthy to the discussion at hand and Yam saying I'm wrong "because Jesus dude and you're always wrong because I say so".

Doesn't really look like a convincing argument doesn't it? Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know what one is. Bit beyond your level, isn't it?

What would Jesus do?

I dunno. You tell me. You seem to know him better than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it did, I would have stopped responding to your posts a long time ago.

Opinions and principles are both personal beliefs.

I don't care about your consistency regarding foreign policy. It's your consistency surrounding Israeli policy and your opinions of it which are questionable. Such as your ideas about what oppression constitute for example. It's only oppression if it's committed by Israel. Same thing goes for self defence. Only justified if it's done by Palestinians.

Then what would you call it? Consistency probably. Saying one thing and then saying something else which is the complete opposite is probably normal for you.

But I am not wrong. That's the point. You personally won't see it because you're so infatuated with Paul and his so-called principles.

Ron Paul LEGISLATES consistently and on principle. You're confusing principle with nuance, bitterly not allowing someone to say more than one thing about a subject and then calling it "inconsistent". I call that desperate and unconvincing.

What do you think oppression constitutes? What do you think I think it does? You think that having an opinion that's different than the way one legislates makes one inconsistent? That makes someone even more consistent.

If you're an occupier of someone else's property, you're the bad guy. Whether that's an individual or a state. That is consistency. Your special interest group Israel is no exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul LEGISLATES consistently and on principle.

Really? So being supportive of gay marriage and then voting for legislation that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is consistent according your whatever ****ed up little world you think you inhabit?

No wonder Ron Paul wasn't elected if all he had for supporters was someone who thinks he's the second coming.

I call that desperate and unconvincing.

Funny that. I was just thinking the same about your arguments.

What do you think oppression constitutes?

Denying the basic rights of a population is essentially what it is.

What do you think I think it does?

It's only classified as oppression if you pay for it apparently. You said so yourself.

You think that having an opinion that's different than the way one legislates makes one inconsistent?

Quite. If you say you support something that grants equality to people and then you vote for something that denies said equality, it makes you inconsistent.

That makes someone even more consistent.

Eh? Just what exactly did the American education system teach you?

If you're an occupier of someone else's property, you're the bad guy. Whether that's an individual or a state. That is consistency. Your special interest group Israel is no exception.

When did I say Israel was the exception? I was wondering whether or not you would be supportive of withdrawing allAmerican government funding from the Middle East? Now that you've thrown some criteria in the mix, you've inadvertently made Israel the exception.

Edited by MichaelW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So being supportive of gay marriage and then voting for legislation that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is consistent according your whatever ****ed up little world you think you inhabit?

No wonder Ron Paul wasn't elected if all he had for supporters was someone who thinks he's the second coming.

Funny that. I was just thinking the same about your arguments.

Denying the basic rights of a population is essentially what it is.

It's only classified as oppression if you pay for it apparently. You said so yourself.

Quite. If you say you support something that grants equality to people and then you vote for something that denies said equality, it makes you inconsistent.

Eh? Just what exactly did the American education system teach you?

When did I say Israel was the exception? I was wondering whether or not you would be supportive of withdrawing allAmerican government funding from the Middle East? Now that you've thrown some criteria in the mix, you've inadvertently made Israel the exception.

"You you you you". It's about me in every reply.

Here's the deal. Israel cannot occupy anyone. Nor can anyone else. That's consistency. When Israel gets called out for its crimes of oppression nobody on earth has a right to commit. Israel needs to completely abandon the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and let the two pieces that remain form a sovereign nation per the agreements it signed.

Israel denies the rights of the populations of Palestinians. Hello?

My arguments haven't even been touched by anything you've said. If you want to make anyone believe Ron Paul is inconsistent, you have to prove your case. So far, all you have is some rhetoric about marriage which demonstrated no inconsistency whatsoever. Ron Paul is solid on marriage like he's the most solid politician in voting record you will ever find (or else find someone else you think is even more consistent than Ron Paul; good luck). There isn't a "flip flop" in sight regarding Ron Paul on marriage and there never was. You should concede you were wrong about that, and move on to something you have a chance of being right about.

Provide some evidence already. Asking Ron Paul questions and getting personal opinions doesn't make him inconsistent. If you're going to even try to make it believable that he's "inconsistent" by listening to something he says, why don't you listen to why he votes the way he does? He wants the federal government out of our marriage. PERIOD. That stance is bulletproof, consistent, principled and absolute. Keep flailing; what else can I expect?

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You you you you". It's about me in every reply.

Well, you are the person replying to me after all.

Here's the deal. Israel cannot occupy anyone. Nor can anyone else. That's consistency. When Israel gets called out for its crimes of oppression nobody on earth has a right to commit. Israel needs to completely abandon the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and let the two pieces that remain form a sovereign nation per the agreements it signed.

Fine. You're consistent. Your man-love-affair isn't. But entertain me. Would you apply the same consistency to other occupying countries such as Turkey or Morocco?

Israel denies the rights of the populations of Palestinians. Hello?

So does Lebanon. But is that considered oppression? Or is Israel the only country whose actions are classified as oppression.

My arguments haven't even been touched by anything you've said.

Interesting you mention that, because your responses of "you're wrong because I say so" haven't really touched mine.

If you want to make anyone believe Ron Paul is inconsistent, you have to prove your case.

I have. Repeatedly. You just haven't bothered reading it (surprise surprise).

So far, all you have is some rhetoric about marriage which demonstrated no inconsistency whatsoever.

Rhetoric? So me pointing out and quoting what the man said, including a video that shows him actually saying what he actually said, is "rhetoric"? Sorry, Yam, but I don't let my fanboy attitude to Ron Paul cloud any sort of judgement.

There isn't a "flip flop" in sight regarding Ron Paul on marriage and there never was.

So openly stating that he'd support gay marriage and then voting for legislation that is against gay marriage isn't a flip-flop and consistent?

You should concede you were wrong about that, and move on to something you have a chance of being right about.

You should try actually debating and trying to prove me wrong instead of shutting down the discussion. Come on Yam. This is an open invitation to prove me wrong.

Provide some evidence already.

I have. Go back and have a look for yourself.

That stance is bulletproof, consistent, principled and absolute. Keep flailing; what else can I expect?

Depends on whether or not he said he'd support gay marriage in the first place. Which he did.

I provided a Youtube video where he states that he supports any voluntary association of people and they can call it whatever they wanted to. I then provided an article where he says marriage is between a man and a woman and has voted for legislation which would define marriage as that.

For once, Yam, stop holding the collective intelligence of the human race back, look back and what I've posted (not just in reply to you but others) and actually come back with a response that resembles an argument and not some rant of a political fanboy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here's the clincher: I'm not wrong. And I haven't had anyone conclusively prove otherwise. I have you cracking random comments which don't add anything worthy to the discussion at hand and Yam saying I'm wrong "because Jesus dude and you're always wrong because I say so".

Doesn't really look like a convincing argument doesn't it? Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know what one is. Bit beyond your level, isn't it?

I dunno. You tell me. You seem to know him better than I do.

You haven't clinched anything but your pud, bud. Have you noticed that nobody supports your argument. You're all alone on this one. You look like a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't clinched anything but your pud, bud. Have you noticed that nobody supports your argument. You're all alone on this one. You look like a fool.

No one's proven me wrong yet. And if I look like a fool, I can't imagine what you idiots look like. The fanboy and the man who lacks the intellectual capacity to form a reason argument. Darwin would be so proud of you two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are the person replying to me after all.

Fine. You're consistent. Your man-love-affair isn't. But entertain me. Would you apply the same consistency to other occupying countries such as Turkey or Morocco?

So does Lebanon. But is that considered oppression? Or is Israel the only country whose actions are classified as oppression.

Interesting you mention that, because your responses of "you're wrong because I say so" haven't really touched mine.

I have. Repeatedly. You just haven't bothered reading it (surprise surprise).

Rhetoric? So me pointing out and quoting what the man said, including a video that shows him actually saying what he actually said, is "rhetoric"? Sorry, Yam, but I don't let my fanboy attitude to Ron Paul cloud any sort of judgement.

So openly stating that he'd support gay marriage and then voting for legislation that is against gay marriage isn't a flip-flop and consistent?

You should try actually debating and trying to prove me wrong instead of shutting down the discussion. Come on Yam. This is an open invitation to prove me wrong.

I have. Go back and have a look for yourself.

Depends on whether or not he said he'd support gay marriage in the first place. Which he did.

I provided a Youtube video where he states that he supports any voluntary association of people and they can call it whatever they wanted to. I then provided an article where he says marriage is between a man and a woman and has voted for legislation which would define marriage as that.

For once, Yam, stop holding the collective intelligence of the human race back, look back and what I've posted (not just in reply to you but others) and actually come back with a response that resembles an argument and not some rant of a political fanboy.

He supports keeping the government out of marriage. He will not support any further federal treatment of marriage. Nothing he said changes that fact.

You don't have an argument. You have no evidence for your mistakes. You have baseless opinions masquerading as an "argument", and nasty ones at that.

Actually, everyone has proven you wrong. If you make an erroneous claim and then want to jam it down our throats, the onus is on you to prove what you said is right. And you have failed to do that. Repeating yourself isn't going to help. Neither is getting nastier and nastier which is your useless M.O.

Again, learn how to be friendly to people and they might listen to you. Keep acting like this, and you will lose the respect of everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He supports keeping the government out of marriage. He will not support any further federal treatment of marriage. Nothing he said changes that fact.

He also said, quite openly, that he also supports any voluntary association of people.

You don't have an argument.

Shutting down the discussion doesn't help your case at all. It makes you look desperate.

You have no evidence for your mistakes.

I said you should go through the thread again and look at what I have posted. Not my fault simple instructions flummox your teeny tiny brain.

You have baseless opinions masquerading as an "argument", and nasty ones at that.

LOL. Yamato, the man who thinks atheists and Jews are evil, thinks my opinions of his beloved Ron Paul are "nasty"? Hilarious.

Actually, everyone has proven you wrong.

Have they? Point out where.

If you make an erroneous claim and then want to jam it down our throats, the onus is on you to prove what you said is right.

By "us" you mean you? And how am I jamming something down your throat? I'm merely exercising my rights that you Americans need a piece of paper to justify.

And you have failed to do that.

Really now? I'm still here, unconviced. I asked for an argument Yam, not an attempted shutdown.

Repeating yourself isn't going to help.

It's the only way I can get my point across to you Yam. Repetition. They say seven times and people memorize it.

Neither is getting nastier and nastier which is your useless M.O.

My M.O has actually succeeded in the past. So far, you haven't been able to conclusively produce any form of argument than can come anywhere near what I have put forward and you've constantly skipped over questions which I put to you because your "standards" only apply to Israel and not anyone else.

Not my fault I can pick away and what you put without difficulty. Produce something watertight.

Again, learn how to be friendly to people and they might listen to you. Keep acting like this, and you will lose the respect of everyone.

Right back at you, Yammy. I do learn from the best at how to be "nasty" to people.

And you still haven't answered my questions about other countries. Is this another one of Yamato's "skirt the hard questions"? You'd make a good politician Yam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one's proven me wrong yet. And if I look like a fool, I can't imagine what you idiots look like. The fanboy and the man who lacks the intellectual capacity to form a reason argument. Darwin would be so proud of you two.

my dad can beat up your dad

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also said, quite openly, that he also supports any voluntary association of people.

Shutting down the discussion doesn't help your case at all. It makes you look desperate.

I said you should go through the thread again and look at what I have posted. Not my fault simple instructions flummox your teeny tiny brain.

LOL. Yamato, the man who thinks atheists and Jews are evil, thinks my opinions of his beloved Ron Paul are "nasty"? Hilarious.

Have they? Point out where.

By "us" you mean you? And how am I jamming something down your throat? I'm merely exercising my rights that you Americans need a piece of paper to justify.

Really now? I'm still here, unconviced. I asked for an argument Yam, not an attempted shutdown.

It's the only way I can get my point across to you Yam. Repetition. They say seven times and people memorize it.

My M.O has actually succeeded in the past. So far, you haven't been able to conclusively produce any form of argument than can come anywhere near what I have put forward and you've constantly skipped over questions which I put to you because your "standards" only apply to Israel and not anyone else.

Not my fault I can pick away and what you put without difficulty. Produce something watertight.

Right back at you, Yammy. I do learn from the best at how to be "nasty" to people.

And you still haven't answered my questions about other countries. Is this another one of Yamato's "skirt the hard questions"? You'd make a good politician Yam.

Voluntary association of the people doesn't require federal treatment. Learn how to differentiate two entirely different and even polar opposite things.

Your self-pruning aside, you've convinced nobody that there's a "flip flop", when a position couldn't be more clear. You just prevent yourself from understanding a principled and consistent position due to these emotions about yourself that get too carried away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my dad can beat up your dad

lol

I just can't believe someone can mix up voluntarism with using federal power to control people. I'm sure I speak for you too on that one.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voluntary association of the people doesn't require federal treatment.

Why not? If people's rights are being denied to them, shouldn't the federal government representing all Americans do something to ensure the rights of said Americans are either protected or upheld? You people are so ready to claim protection or justifications from amendments in your constitution which protect your rights. Why is it you can't vouch for the rights of others?

Or maybe you just think gay people are icky. After all, Ron Paul does so I can't imagine the apple falls far from the tree, figuratively speaking.

Your self-pruning aside, you've convinced nobody that there's a "flip flop", when a position couldn't be more clear.

I haven't convinced you. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, you just don't believe that I'm right.

You just prevent yourself from understanding a principled and consistent position due to these emotions about yourself that get too carried away.

No, what I don't understand is why people support someone who claims to be a principled person who supports the rights of others and then denies people those rights. But that's Republicans for you.

A strange bunch indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? If people's rights are being denied to them, shouldn't the federal government representing all Americans do something to ensure the rights of said Americans are either protected or upheld? You people are so ready to claim protection or justifications from amendments in your constitution which protect your rights. Why is it you can't vouch for the rights of others?

Or maybe you just think gay people are icky. After all, Ron Paul does so I can't imagine the apple falls far from the tree, figuratively speaking.

I haven't convinced you. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, you just don't believe that I'm right.

No, what I don't understand is why people support someone who claims to be a principled person who supports the rights of others and then denies people those rights. But that's Republicans for you.

A strange bunch indeed.

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

The Republicans? The Republicans hate Ron Paul whenever he's running for office because his consistency doesn't represent their hypocrisy. Are we a Democrat now?

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

Ron Paul is a principled person if there ever was one. Name a political figure from the US you think is a principled person and let's do a head to head on their voting records. You haven't produced anything that looks inconsistent about Ron Paul but a lot of poorly constructed opinion turning reality upside down and forcing it down our throats as accurate. That doesn't cut it. Bring some real evidence, not comments that Dr. Paul made that you only think made him inconsistent.

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:

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://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2010/02/09/the-ron-paul-voting-record/

Opinion is no match for his principle, michaelw. He's probably the most principled statesman we've ever had in our federal government, certainly in my lifetime. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.