Ron Paul is doing it again.

[Demosthenes11]

I love me some Ron Paul ^-^

and lolerza WE DESERVED GETTING ATTACKED GAWD

[guartz]

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)
Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)

Ah yes, that. You know, to a untrained eye this may very well seem like some republican notjub voting record. However, if one pays just a slight more attention to paul's voting records, one would see that he has consistently voted against federal government interference on all these issues. Even on things you guys believe federal government should do, like make a federal law to allow gays to marry, or make a federal law to create another bureaucracy for stem-cell research.

I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp.

[Restrat]

so banning gay adoption isn't government interference?

[guartz]

so banning gay adoption isn't government interference?

not just gays, everyone not related or married. "amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. "

He also voted Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.


Remember, he's not an anarchist, he's a constitutionalist. Adoption isn't covered as a right.

[Demosthenes11]

guartz...making...sense...mind.......oh god...exploding...

[Correction]

so banning gay adoption isn't government interference?

not just gays, everyone not related or married. "amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. "

He also voted Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.


Remember, he's not an anarchist, he's a constitutionalist. Adoption isn't covered as a right.

Preserving the way things are on gay rights (no marriage, no military service) and then hiding behind 'oh sorry you're not married no adoption and I AM a pure constitutionalist after all' is shoddy politics. Pure constitutionalists make shitty, shitty leaders when things need to change from the status quo.

[archibaldcrane]

Adoption isn't covered as a right.

Just because it isn't covered in the constitution doesn't mean ...it...shouldn't...exist? Why would you prohibit people who aren't blood relatives of an unwanted child from being able to adopt?

That...just...sounds really fucking stupid and terrible. Does that make sense to anyone?

I also don't see how

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

isn't government interference into private practice, unless that bill was bundled in a bunch of big government bureaucracy.

[guartz]

so banning gay adoption isn't government interference?

not just gays, everyone not related or married. "amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. "

He also voted Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.


Remember, he's not an anarchist, he's a constitutionalist. Adoption isn't covered as a right.

Preserving the way things are on gay rights (no marriage, no military service) and then hiding behind 'oh sorry you're not married no adoption and I AM a pure constitutionalist after all' is shoddy politics. Pure constitutionalists make shitty, shitty leaders when things need to change from the status quo.

Oh gee, imagine that, a 78 year old guy who doesn't trust gays. What a novelty.

joking aside, I still prefer a leader who follows the law consistently.

[guartz]

Adoption isn't covered as a right.

Just because it isn't covered in the constitution doesn't mean ...it...shouldn't...exist? Why would you prohibit people who aren't blood relatives of an unwanted child from being able to adopt?

That...just...sounds really fucking stupid and terrible. Does that make sense to anyone?

I also don't see how

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

isn't government interference into private practice, unless that bill was bundled in a bunch of big government bureaucracy.

This is true, but I think Ron Paul has very old and traditional views on family, etc. So whenever constitution allows, he will let his personal bias decide. The alternative candidate is Kucinich, if Paul's traditional values bother you.

edit: Ps, yes, that thing would have been a huge bureaucracy.

[Vistani]

so banning gay adoption isn't government interference?

You see the gay adoption is already banned and the interference and the libertarianism and the freedom and the DOWN WITH COMMUNISTS and the gay adoption and the something and the vote for Ron Paul. Pretty simple if you think about it.

[archibaldcrane]

so banning gay adoption isn't government interference?

You see the gay adoption is already banned and the interference and the libertarianism and the freedom and the DOWN WITH COMMUNISTS and the gay adoption and the something and the vote for Ron Paul. Pretty simple if you think about it.

Epic explanatwin.

[Dezzimal]

Yea guartz is pretty much on the money. Ron Paul wants to discontinue a bunch of government institutions including but not limited to the IRS and the Federal Rserve.

By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. - Ron Paul

[archibaldcrane]

He apparently also wants to abolish the government organization that helps foster children find loving adoptive families.

[Correction]

Oh gee, imagine that, a 78 year old guy who doesn't trust gays. What a novelty.

joking aside, I still prefer a leader who follows the law consistently.

Even when the laws are total bullshit and don't reflect the view of the people who elect their own leaders.

Way to think for yourself there, Ace.

[archibaldcrane]

It's kinda funny, cause I don't trust 78-year old men to make good decisions.

[pohibaba]

Oh gee, imagine that, a 78 year old guy who doesn't trust gays. What a novelty.

joking aside, I still prefer a leader who follows the law consistently.

Even when the laws are total bullshit and don't reflect the view of the people who elect their own leaders.

Way to think for yourself there, Ace.

Wait, are you saying our constitution is total bullshit?

[Correction]

Oh gee, imagine that, a 78 year old guy who doesn't trust gays. What a novelty.

joking aside, I still prefer a leader who follows the law consistently.

Even when the laws are total bullshit and don't reflect the view of the people who elect their own leaders.

Way to think for yourself there, Ace.

Wait, are you saying our constitution is total bullshit?

I'm not a fan of repeating myself, so read the thread yourself to get the context of what laws I speak of.

[Anyway]

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)

i should vote for him just for this alone

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Oh gee, imagine that, a 78 year old guy who doesn't trust gays. What a novelty.

joking aside, I still prefer a leader who follows the law consistently.

Even when the laws are total bullshit and don't reflect the view of the people who elect their own leaders.

Way to think for yourself there, Ace.

Wait, are you saying our constitution is total bullshit?

I'm not a fan of repeating myself, so read the thread yourself to get the context of what laws I speak of.

I think he is talking about gay marriage and gays in the military.

[BRP]

Looks like people are cutting back on those useless charities and donating to something that will actually help the world.