Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have now all vowed to enforce anti-porn laws. They might as well write letters to every 18-40 year old man and tell them to vote for Obama, amirite?
Is he? Not saying he isnt, its a genuine question. Because hes libertarian I would have thought he opposed Goverment infringing or limiting marraige in any way. Who governs least, governs best bla bla bla.
Also, he's not in favor of gay marriage. He's just in favor of letting the states decide, much like on most issues. Don't fall for the idea that he's a libertarian. He's just a dime-a-dozen Republican with good foreign policy.
Ron Paul didn't write those newsletters. He's cleared up many times now that they were written by an uncredited staff of ghost writers, he was too busy at the time to pay close attention to them, and he now disavows them. They are a non-issue at this point and don't need to be brought up anymore. Ron Paul has a great stance on race relations in the US.
He doesn't want to legalize gay marriage at the federal level, but nor does he want to ban it. If he was a "dime-a-dozen Republican", he would do what Romney/Gingrich/Santorum want to do and make it illegal for gays to marry at the federal level. His stance that the states should decide is consistent with his libertarian values.
I see you're right. Thats quite bad actually. (Im not from America, Im from New Zealand). I did like his ideas foreign policy even if they were simplistic but I recken thats what the US needs. I really thought he was different. I liked the idea that someone running actually had a consistant ideology. Ron Paul used to be the only republican I thought was worthwhile. I thought I was being all open minded. (I vote green party, so that practically makes me a communist in the US)
why not give him the chance to explain it himself
well I as a black man have never seen anything that leads me to believe he is a racist so I choose to support him.
actually he is in favor of the government not being involved in marriage period, but if government must be involved he would prefer for it to be on the state level.
here are some of his opinions on homosexuality
you should actually try to look deeper into such claims rather than believe the first article you see.
Thanks! I mean its all politics, I suppose it comes down what he does, not how he feels. I respect that he has probably got more integrity than most politicians but hes not perfect. Though ( I will do more research before i blurt my opinion out again) he should have the balls to make gay marriage legal. Instead of trying to pass the buck to the state. I know it would make him unpopular with republicans, but man if he did that then i would really respect him.
your welcome, and nobody can be perfect. the reason why he will not make it legal I believe is because under the constitution he has no authority to do so. he wants to decrease the role of the federal government not expand it as the others have done.
ugh but can the states do a better job? I dunno, it was a hypothetical. What hes proposing is de-centralisation not libertarianism. Fuck that, letting gay people marry is the right thing to do. Is there somthing in the constitution about discrimination?
Actually I dont understand the US system at all. Seems rather silly to have soo many arms of goverment fighting each other for power.
not sure, but I am certain that there would be at least several states that would legalize it, so there would be someplace they could go if that is important to them.
the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes the equal protection clause. that deals with equal protection under the law for all people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eq...tection_Clause
though this really has little to do with marriage.
we only really have 3 branches of the government "fighting" each other for power (3 branches of federal government at least). we go by a checks and balances system, having 3 branches of government that each have powers that restrict the others stops one branch from being to powerful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch...#United_States
this goes into further detail but I'm sure you don't want to read all of this.
don't worry man, it can get pretty complicated and very few people actually understand it well. your average American really only has a very basic understanding of how our government works.
never give up until it's over, there are many primaries and caucuses left to go. also he could likely win here in my state California, I know he won a majority of the straw polls here. and since California's population is so high we have more delegates than any other state so that could give him a huge boost if not a lead. we'll see how he does come June.
notice that the first word, the one that starts with an "I" and ends with an "f"... yeah that word is pretty important, i put it there specifically for instances such as this.
Usually people don't just randomly bring up hypothetical situations so I thought your comment was weird. It's like me saying "if you're a spam robot made by MLIA, you're a great troll."
Just men? Women watch it too, haha
How about telling them to vote for Ron Paul?
Ron Paul 2012
Because he's racist and against gay rights.
Is he? Not saying he isnt, its a genuine question. Because hes libertarian I would have thought he opposed Goverment infringing or limiting marraige in any way. Who governs least, governs best bla bla bla.
Here are some racist things he has said:
http://loop21.com/top-5-racist-...tes-newsletter
Also, he's not in favor of gay marriage. He's just in favor of letting the states decide, much like on most issues. Don't fall for the idea that he's a libertarian. He's just a dime-a-dozen Republican with good foreign policy.
Ron Paul didn't write those newsletters. He's cleared up many times now that they were written by an uncredited staff of ghost writers, he was too busy at the time to pay close attention to them, and he now disavows them. They are a non-issue at this point and don't need to be brought up anymore. Ron Paul has a great stance on race relations in the US.
He doesn't want to legalize gay marriage at the federal level, but nor does he want to ban it. If he was a "dime-a-dozen Republican", he would do what Romney/Gingrich/Santorum want to do and make it illegal for gays to marry at the federal level. His stance that the states should decide is consistent with his libertarian values.
I see you're right. Thats quite bad actually. (Im not from America, Im from New Zealand). I did like his ideas foreign policy even if they were simplistic but I recken thats what the US needs. I really thought he was different. I liked the idea that someone running actually had a consistant ideology. Ron Paul used to be the only republican I thought was worthwhile. I thought I was being all open minded. (I vote green party, so that practically makes me a communist in the US)
yeah seems real racist to me
why not give him the chance to explain it himself
well I as a black man have never seen anything that leads me to believe he is a racist so I choose to support him.
actually he is in favor of the government not being involved in marriage period, but if government must be involved he would prefer for it to be on the state level.
here are some of his opinions on homosexuality
you should actually try to look deeper into such claims rather than believe the first article you see.
that is correct, look at my reply to eldorito and it will tell you how he really feels.
Thanks! I mean its all politics, I suppose it comes down what he does, not how he feels. I respect that he has probably got more integrity than most politicians but hes not perfect. Though ( I will do more research before i blurt my opinion out again) he should have the balls to make gay marriage legal. Instead of trying to pass the buck to the state. I know it would make him unpopular with republicans, but man if he did that then i would really respect him.
your welcome, and nobody can be perfect. the reason why he will not make it legal I believe is because under the constitution he has no authority to do so. he wants to decrease the role of the federal government not expand it as the others have done.
ugh but can the states do a better job? I dunno, it was a hypothetical. What hes proposing is de-centralisation not libertarianism. Fuck that, letting gay people marry is the right thing to do. Is there somthing in the constitution about discrimination?
Actually I dont understand the US system at all. Seems rather silly to have soo many arms of goverment fighting each other for power.
*dissatisfication aimed at politics not you. Actually dissatisfaction at me for not really undertanding how the systems work over there
not sure, but I am certain that there would be at least several states that would legalize it, so there would be someplace they could go if that is important to them.
the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes the equal protection clause. that deals with equal protection under the law for all people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eq...tection_Clause
though this really has little to do with marriage.
we only really have 3 branches of the government "fighting" each other for power (3 branches of federal government at least). we go by a checks and balances system, having 3 branches of government that each have powers that restrict the others stops one branch from being to powerful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch...#United_States
this goes into further detail but I'm sure you don't want to read all of this.
don't worry man, it can get pretty complicated and very few people actually understand it well. your average American really only has a very basic understanding of how our government works.
and why exactly do you think that?
Here are some actual things that were said in his newsletter.
http://loop21.com/top-5-racist-...tes-newsletter
He also voted against making crimes against gays hate crimes.
also here is another story that you should see
I wish, but his nomination is at this point extremely unlikely. This election is going to be about choosing between the lesser of two evils
never give up until it's over, there are many primaries and caucuses left to go. also he could likely win here in my state California, I know he won a majority of the straw polls here. and since California's population is so high we have more delegates than any other state so that could give him a huge boost if not a lead. we'll see how he does come June.
Source?
It's being reported on a bunch of sites, this is just the first result on Google: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012...nti-porn-laws/
15 year olds can't vote
if its fake this is the best attack campaign ever made.
Huh? It's not fake.
notice that the first word, the one that starts with an "I" and ends with an "f"... yeah that word is pretty important, i put it there specifically for instances such as this.
Usually people don't just randomly bring up hypothetical situations so I thought your comment was weird. It's like me saying "if you're a spam robot made by MLIA, you're a great troll."
Yup. Because we all know politicians keep all their campaign promises...
Hardly the point.
The point is my grizzly bear socio-economic plan would fix all of these problems.