One reason Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are presidential vanity candidates and long shots to win their parties presidential nomination.
"The Patriotic Sheep" are often the most difficult to work with because they won't take a minute to consider that which they do not know…these folks are so busy defending the Constitution that they are often the last to consider the damage they are inflicting. — Rick Koerber, The “Brain-Off” Conspiracy…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments126 - Mike
Anyone who talks against Ron Paul is a pathetic coward.
The nation's median real wages have decreased in the last 35 years, despite the massive gains in productivity.
The nation's foreign owned debt is at its highest level in history.
Social Security obligations have reach 60 TRILLION dollars, a figure we can never hope to afford.
The dollar is crashing, losing around 50% of its value against the euro since the euro's launch.
You all want this to continue?
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He upholds his oath to office, unlike all the other politicians. He's never voted to raise taxes, never voted for unconstitutional spending. Never voted for foreign wars that drain the American tax payers.
You cowards who insulted Ron Paul and his supporters are useless.
127 - STM
BTW, who the hell is Ron Paul? Never heard of the bloke. Is he important or something? Seems to be causing a stir here, whoever he is
128 - Paul
#80. You can infer that the military seems to favor Ron Paul's foreign policy, policy o nthe Iraq war, etc. Pretty strong stuff actually. I thing with their donations they are saying "get us the hell out of Iraq! And don't start anymore bogus wars!"
129 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Irene, please don't waste your time quoting the Bible to me...
Jews who consider leaving the Holy Land are committing a sin, the sin of lack of faith in G-d (see the deaths of Elimelekh, MaHlon and Khilion in the Book of Ruth and the Midrashic commentaries in Ruth Rabba concerning them). Jews who consider turning it over to our enemies are committing the far greater sin of rejecting His Land Covenant with us... We're not talking Israeli civil law, which defines as treasonous most of the activities of the Israeli government leaders quoted above, we're talking Torah.
By 1968, the Israeli government had already begun to doubt and reject the miracle of the 1967 victory over the Arabs. See my comment to the article referenced. And we have been paying a very high price for doing so, and continue to pay a high price.
There is no "justice" to the "Palestinian" side, for there is no "Palestinian" side. There is only the anger on the part of Arabs that Jews - the Sons of Israel - are reasserting their control over the Land of Israel - something which the Qur'an, as well as the Torah defines as G-d given.
Unfortunately, too many Jews have walked away from their own faith to even understand the Land Covenant, and too many Arabs choose to misread their own Qur'an and follow the heretic el-Wahhab instead.
This is costing US - both Arabs and Jews - a huge price in blood.
The fact Europeans and the United States have chosen to insert itself into the problems here, have only paved the way for the realization of the Biblical prophecies of Zechariah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel and Amos, all of which are coming true in our faces and our own lifetimes. As a guide to all of this, read the prophecies of Bila'am - backwards. There you will see in its first lines (read backwards) what is happening now.
As for your own quotes, Jerusalem has already become a rubble and has been rebuilt. See Amos 9:9-15. That prophecy is not complete. When the State of Israel falls and is replaced by a Jewish messianic state (don't confuse Christian messianic thinking for Jewish messianic thinking), the prophecy in Amos will have been totally fulfilled.
130 - Dave Nalle
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He upholds his oath to office, unlike all the other politicians. He's never voted to raise taxes, never voted for unconstitutional spending.
Except for his vote this year for HR5385 to build permaent structures to support a standing army. And his vote this year for HR 3010 to provide $100 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting a government owned media/propaganda outlet.
These don't involve funding, but they do involve taking away basic constitutional rights from selected groups, when he voted for HR2587 in 1999 to prohibit funding to any agency that permitted gay adoptions. And for HR2679 in 2006 which exempts public officials for civil penalties for violating the separation of church and state? Or for HR2122 in 1999 to require background checks at gun shows? Or in 2004 to protect the violation of the separation of church and state in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Never voted for foreign wars that drain the American tax payers.
Really? Then who's paying for the wars he voted to authorize under the AUMF of 2001 which he voted for and which led to the invasion of Afghanistan?
Yes, Paul is better than most of our legislators, but he does have his achilles heels and parts of the constitution he's willing to overlook, particularly when the constitution comes into conflict with his extreme religious beliefs.
Dave
131 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
As for Ron Paul, whatever some voters think of him, the article author's assessment - that he is a vanity candidate with only a very long shot to win - is on the money.
132 - STM
Mike wrote: "The dollar is crashing, losing around 50% of its value against the euro since the euro's launch. You all want this to continue?"
Actually, yes (rubs hands gleefully thinking about holiday to Portugal in July, the Aussie dollar rising on the back of a falling greenback, and the favourable Euro exchange rate to be had as a result).
You've had it all your own way for far too long. Now it's my turn to get a decent exchange rate for my holidays. If Ron Paul is responsible for that in some small way, all hail to Ron.
133 - Anthony Grande
He might be a good congressman and have a decent record but I don't know anyone who wants to immediately pull out of Iraq shouldn't be running this counry.
134 - Jared P
This is a very slanted article to only help you propel one of the other candidates. Ron Paul may not have the money the other candidates have and that may indeed make him a long shot. But think about this for a minute. Look at these comments from Ron Paul supporters. These are people that are seeking out people like you who try to slander Ron Paul to set the record straight. These are also the same people who will tell there friends, family, and strangers about the message that Ron Paul is giving. I don't know if your just brainwashed by the current administration or you've been paid to slander him but not one person here agrees with you. It's funny why that is. I guess you have to pay your mortgage so you sold your liberty and your country. It's not going to do you much good when the dollar crashes.
135 - Jared P
David, You now know of at least 50.
136 - Jared P
I'm sorry I meant Anthony you now know at least 50 people who want to march right out of Iraq.
137 - Dave Nalle
Jared, in other words they are fanatics whose loyalty to Ron Paul admits to no challenge and no alternative viewpoint and they will do everything they can to silence those who don't agree with them.
Good lord, they sound like Democrats.
I'm hoping some of them will take the time to explain why Ron Paul opposes gay marriage and gay adoption and wants to put prayer back in the public schools. Boy, that's the true definition of a libertarian/constitutionalist.
Dave
138 - STM
I reckon from what I've now read, the prospect of people like Ron Paul getting into power makes a really good case for compulsory voting in the US ... so that blocs can't be formed by special interest groups and thus ensuring that any elected government is truly representative of the wishes of ALL the people.
In this case, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that bloc consists largely of right-wing evangelical Christians (do it my way or it's the highway, in direct contravention of the teachings of the founder of Christianity, BTW), and we saw what happened there last time. That is the REAL danger to your way of life ... power manipulated into the hands of a minority with dangerous ideas in terms of what constitutes a democratic and representative government.
139 - Anthony Grande
'I'm sorry I meant Anthony you now know at least 50 people who want to march right out of Iraq."
I don't know fifty but that is basically why I joined the army over a year ago.
AG
140 - Jared P
From what I have seen lately it has been the other way around. The GOP has tried to silence Ron Paul For instance in Iowa he was not included in the Iowans for Tax Relief rally. Ron Paul had to have his own rally and had more attendence. He was also bashed by Fox news after the South Carolina debate when he was confronted with a leading question about wether he thinks we invited the september 11th attacks. This was not what he was saying and the gentleman asking the question seemed to be set up with Giuliani to attack him. As you can tell when you watch Giuliani try to make his one liner he was tapping his thumb to the beat of his rehearsed comeback. Things like that is are driving support for Ron Paul. Fox's Hannity had to add that Pauls campaign was over but sure enough he had the came in second in their polls. 25% That's pretty amazing considering he was talking to the base of republicans. Now imagine what he can do for the party when he brings independants and democrats to the republican party. I think the GOP should wake up and embrace him because without him they will be a complete minority for 4-8 years. I was going to vote for Hillary but after looking at her voting record found she was just as bad as all of the terrorist pushing neocons. Our country can not handle another war. We can't secure our borders. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that we are in a war on terror but anyone can walk into our country without much resistance. Ron Paul is right. Shut down the border, bring our troops home to secure it. Do away with the Federal reserve and let congress start printing the money without financing it through income tax which by the way is unconstitutional and the 16th amendment was never ratified by the states. This is the only way we are going to be able to take our country back so our children can actually have a future in this country. Unless of course we just secumb to the New World Order. One world goverment and conquer all of the other countries that dont like us. As far as Pauls opinion on abortion he believes its up to the states to decide. I personly believe in a womens right to choose. I dont care about gays getting married or adopting as long as their good citizens that don't mess with my property Im all for it. Not sure what Pauls stance is on the issues but you have to read between the lines with Paul He does what the constitution says and so far everything that I've read has been verified by his voting record. Plus he talks with passion and knowledge. And from what I 'm able to tell he's very consistent.
141 - Jared P
And I to add to that I think that as a supporter of Ron Paul we can sometimes be over zealous. I apologize but we are not trying to silence anyone just give the man a fair shake and read up on his true agenda.
142 - Jared P
For the comments about inflation. Bernanke was quoted last nite on CSPAN as saying that "core inflation does not include food prices and oil". So there you have it. If the fed says inflation was 5% than you have to do the additional math to find the true inflation # add in the increase of food and oil. Bernanke also agreed with everything the Ron Paul said. You can watch the video at youtube.
Bernanke is going to keep manipulating the markets to try and pull us out of the recession that is already happening. First it was the stock market, then it was the housing market, and now its the dollar. But I believe the problem will always exist as long as we are running a deficit. There are only so many ways to manipulate the economy until it fails. I believe that a greater depression is nearer than you think. What are we going to do when the chinese no longer offer us credit? What will Wal-Mart do?
That's why I believe a vote for withdrawing the troops is the only way to secure ourselves. This is more important then ones beliefs to fight wars with Iran and Iraq and Alqueda. We could have used that money to spend here to make us more secure. We still could have disabled there money supply without dropping a single bomb or loosing a single life. If our economy fails we loose anyways. Thats exactly what happened to the soviets when they attacked afghanistan. The war is much too expensive to be there for years without an end in sight.
143 - Irene Wagner
Dave Nalle--You said you were confused about comment #114. In response to your addressing Ron Paul supporters as "tinfoil hatters" in comment #113, I explained that one doesn't need to believe in conspiracy theories to see a relationship between Islamic anger at the US, culminating in 911, and the treatment of Palestinian Israelites described in the video "Peace Propanda and the Promised Land"
As for Ron Paul's criticism of the US succumbing to pressure from Jewish lobbies, that's nothing to do with conspiracy theory either. Both Ruvy in Jerusalem and A.K.Smith in their very distinct expressions of Jewish thought and feeling, have come to the conclusion that US military and "diplomatic" involvement in the Mideast is *NOT* good for the Jews. That puts the lie to the major premise of Abel Keogh's article: namely, that those in opposition to that involvement, (Ron Paul supporters in particular) are antisemites.
144 - Irene Wagner
Dave Nalle, you also reqested information about Ron Paul's views on homosexual rights. Here it is, right from the horse's mouth.
In this article, you'll see that, as he does with other thorny ethical issues such as abortion, Ron Paul defends each the right of each state to decide how it wants to settle the matter. Constitutionally speaking, if a state decides to welcome gay marriages, it would have that right, but the federal government could not force a state to recognize these marriages. People will tend to congregate in geographical areas where their lifestyles and values are supported and appreciated.
Don't forget Dave Nalle, that the conflict between the "traditionals" and the "gays" isn't one-sided. The homosexual agenda can sometimes be as unfair as the extreme rightist's is. Remember the court decision in which the Boy Scouts had to fight for the right to exclude homosexuals from the role of scoutmaster?
145 - Tom
#121 " July 19, 2007 @ 21:03PM " Dave Nalle [URL]
Opposing Bush's war on terror is not unamerican. Opposing America because Bush has engaged in a war on terror is unamerican. Do you get the difference, Tom?
Yes I understand the difference. For example voting for a bill that is a direct attack on the constitution like the Patriot Act is 'opposing America' like you said and would be considered unamerican. Is there something else you had in mind?
146 - Lumpy
Lukens u might want to read up on some of the stuff &hmadinejad has actually said. u seem kind of ill informed.
147 - Irene Wagner
And finally to Ruvy in Jerusalem,
We agree on the point most germane to the article under discussion--that the US should get out of Mideastern military affairs.
And now, STM if you'll excuse me, a Christian, from expressing her views in a political forum:
Ruvy, I can't understand how anyone, religious or not, would think that the Jews don't deserve a homeland. I don't consider the "Christians" who persecuted Jews in Europe to be of the same faith I am. (They certainly weren't taking to heart the latter half of Romans chapter 11, which explicitly tells Christians not to have a haughty attitude toward the Jews, because the Jews after all, were first in God's heart.)
But Ruvy, when God restores a PEACEFUL Jerusalem to the Jews, it's going to be in such a way that the whole world knows the power and reality of God. The victory is going to be "not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts."
And importantly, too, Ruvy, Isaiah speaks of the WHOLE WORLD being blessed in the city of Jerusalem. Other nations will stream to it to learn of God. That's a Biblical promise to the Jews AND to ALL the nations, to whom the Abrahamic promise guarantees a blessing as well.
I'm not sure how that peace is going to be accomplished by continuing centuries of escalation of hostility and animosity between Jews and the other Semites.
It's all about: you did this to us, so we're going to do this to you, and it's our land, the Bible (or the Koran) says so, so we're taking it now no matter HOW many centuries your family's been on it. A nation that claims to be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy has to let the fulfilment come GOD's way, again, not by might, but by his spirit.
I believe the miracle of '67 of God's defending his people against their enemies, but that's not Divine Sanction for the nation of Israel to engage in wanton acts of aggression of its own.
I believe I know what role America is to play in bringing about that peace, and it's NOT military. I support the efforts of peace-making organizations like musalaha and I support the endeavor for which the major universities of America like Yale and Princton were originally designed, propagation of the good news of the Prince of Peace, without whom there will never be peace in Jerusalem.
And you called it right, Ruvy. Peace in Jerusalem is NOT the vision of ALL Americans. They should not have to pay for it in any way, including in the occult way of allocation of tax money or in the obviously horrific way of the blood of their sons and daughters. America is supposed to be a place where the government stays largely out of the way (except for maintaining the peace) allowing We the People to follow our own dreams and visions.
148 - Christopher Rose
Irene, As the Blogcritics Comments Editor, I'd like to welcome you to our pages and just give you a little headsup. As you seem to be developing into somewhat of a frequent commenter here and are clearly an avid linker, please follow the Blogcritics protocol of formatting links properly. That means like this Blogcritics rather than simply pasting in a raw url. Just in case you're not sure how, here is a very easy explanation of how to format a url.
Thanks!
149 - Mike
to #130 Dave Nalle,
Stop with the misinformation, it's ridiculous.
QUOTE:
Except for his vote this year for HR5385 to build permaent structures to support a standing army. And his vote this year for HR 3010 to provide $100 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting a government owned media/propaganda outlet.
Truth:
HR 5485 is absolutely not unconstitutional. Since when is funding programs for veterans who fought and bled for the country unconstitutional? The constitution allows federal funding for national security. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting funding a standing army like you claim.
QUOTE:
These don't involve funding, but they do involve taking away basic constitutional rights from selected groups, when he voted for HR2587 in 1999 to prohibit funding to any agency that permitted gay adoptions.
Truth:
You're spreading misinformation:
"In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill."
QUOTE:
And for HR2679 in 2006 which exempts public officials for civil penalties for violating the separation of church and state?
Truth: HR 2679 is constitutional and that is why Ron Paul voted for it. The first amendment only prohibits the federal government from establishing an official state church, like the church of England.
In fact, if Utah wanted to create a state Mormon church, it could, according to the constitution. If Ohio wanted to create a State Hindu church, it could. The only thing the fist amendment prohibits is the establishment of an official state church by the federal government.
150 - Mike
Ron Paul is the greatest politician in American history, and I stand by him 100%.
151 - A.K. Smith
Hey, good interview from yesterday, in which Dr. Paul is given the chance to say he is a 9/11 conspiracy believer and to disavow his libertarian philosophy.
Instead he embraces his libertarian/Constitutional beliefs and says he is not a 9/11 conspiracy believer but acknowledges that some of his supporters are. Overall, this should put to rest some of the concerns about Dr. Paul.
152 - Cindy D
Ruvy,
Regarding Posts 118 and 129
You speak about Jews who belong to peaceful organizations that disagree with you by saying, "their members deserve to be hung by the neck." You display not an ounce of tolerance, nor any inclination to see those you disagree with as even misguided. Instead you harbor a wish to kill your fellow Jews for disparate beliefs. I can certainly see that Rabbis for Human Rights and Jewish Voice for Peace would be such a great threat to your extremest mindset.
It becomes clear now, what you are. Of course, to you, "There is no 'justice' to the 'Palestinian' side, for there is no 'Palestinian' side."
Do you hear yourself? Do you fully comprehend the seething hostility and racism, the marginalization of an entire people inherent in the core of your beliefs? You are reactionist and violent.
"I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the (insert the race of those you wish to justify oppressing here), I am fighting for the Lord."
You do recognize that quote don't you? Do you recognize yourself in it?
Jewish messianic thinking-- isn't that about redemption and peace? And you wish to achieve this peace and redemption how? By cruelty and subjugation? By hanging peaceful members of your own faith?
There is something wrong with your picture. I am not Jewish, so I will not debate with you about scripture. I do know, however, that the Torah is interpreted. Your interpretation is not only frightening, there is no place for it in a civilized world.
153 - Irene Wagner
Christopher Rose: Yikes! Sorry for making you follow behind doing all my a-hreffing for me! But thanks, and...
...SHALOM, MY FRIENDS!
...Ron Paul, Y'all! 2008
154 - Irene Wagner
And whatever the outcome of the election there will be Shalom.
155 - Dave Nalle
HR 5485 is absolutely not unconstitutional. Since when is funding programs for veterans who fought and bled for the country unconstitutional?
That's hardly all that's in the billl.
The constitution allows federal funding for national security. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting funding a standing army like you claim.
The intent of the founders was that the nation would be defended by state militias. Do you contest that? The Constitution is clearly structured to support that approach to national defense. If any one person was most responsible for the Constitution as it was written it was James Madison who wrote "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." And also go read his first inaugural address. It has a long section on how undesirable a standing army is. Almost all of the founding fathers commented on this. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the creation of a standing army. If Paul doesn't know this then he's no constitutionalist.
You're spreading misinformation:
And you're spreading bullshit.
"In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill."
Nice doublethink there. The bill was promoted by the religious right as blocking gay adoption and opposed by pro-gay groups on that same basis. During this campaign gay-rights advocates have asked Paul's campaign about it and they refuse to reply or explain in any way. Prohibiting gay adoption clearly violates the Constitutional right to free association if you're a strict interpretationist.
Truth: HR 2679 is constitutional and that is why Ron Paul voted for it. The first amendment only prohibits the federal government from establishing an official state church, like the church of England.
Utter crap. This is the propaganda stance of the religious right. I can see who your secret masters are. As with the standing army issue, minimal research will provide you with all the examples you need of the framers stating unequivocally that the intention was far more broad than just preventing a state church.
In fact, if Utah wanted to create a state Mormon church, it could, according to the constitution.
Really? Then why was state funding of churches in some of the New England states done away with in the 19th century on a constitutional basis?
If Ohio wanted to create a State Hindu church, it could. The only thing the fist amendment prohibits is the establishment of an official state church by the federal government.
Both untrue and directly contradicted by multiple Supreme Court rulings. Again, you're just dead wrong and spreading religious right propaganda.
I can see why you support Ron Paul now.
Dave
156 - Irene Wagner
Whoever wins, Shalom.
Darn it, Dave Nalle. First Ron Paul supporters as antiSemites, then you come out with an antiChristian zinger like the one in your last comment. Be consistent with your stance on religious bigotry. Preferably, you'll choose to avoid it altogether.
And DON'T put words in Ron Paul's mouth regarding his stance on gay rights. I gave you a link with his own words on this and other ethical issues on which WE THE PEOPLE are polarized. Now READ it, and let Ron Paul speak for himself without your twisted commentary. All sides deserve to be heard, the issues deserve to be debated in a STATESMANLIKE manner, by the representatives of the geographical areas who will be directly impacted by them.
And the IDEA of dropping the ball on wounded vets! Yes, state militias would be best, but the wounded vets had answered the call to defend the country, as they understood it, in the only manner currently available. It was an important enough concern for Ron Paul to give a Yes vote to the bill. You don't agree with 100 percent of the bill, and I'm not sure Ron Paul did either. So there, he isn't so much of an idealist that he can't get the job done with reasonable realistic compromises.
157 - Ray
Dave, You seem to want to minimize AIPAC's influence...check out Gregory Levey's article excerpt from Article "Inside america's powerful Israel lobby."
"I don't sit behind my desk and come up with this stuff," Coleman said, stressing that he often consulted AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr for policy advice. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that she, too, often spoke to Kohr and others in the AIPAC leadership. "They're like daily phone calls," she said, as other Democratic and Republican members of Congress onstage nodded in agreement.
I think Levey knows what he is talking about.
158 - Irene Wagner
Dave Nalle,
I GAVE you a link in which Ron Paul stated his stance on divisive ethical questions. He's about state's rights, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? If you want to live in a state that supports your gay agenda, Dave Providence in Rhode Island might be more comfortable for you than Austin in the state of Texas. And if I can't tolerate the idea that in the hospital down the street, partial birth abortion specialists are cutting off the heads of half-born babies, then maybe I'll have to relocate to the Dakotas or Nebraska.
It's a pluralistic nation. Issues like these deserve to be debated locally by the people who will be affected by the decision most, not rammed down their throats by the federal government. And debated in a STATESMANLIKE manner, not lobbing ad hominem slurs the way...some people do.
And the IDEA of cutting off funds to wounded vets! They served in the only way available to them. State militias would be the Constitutional Way, but don't you DARE tell a wounded vet that. It was an importantant enough issue to Dr. Ron Paul that he voted on a bill that YOU might not have been 100% comfortable with. And you're the hawk, anyway, right? So you just want to send US soldiers into the meat grinder and to hell with them when the Neocons can't use their broken bodies any more?
Who do YOU support, Dave Nalle? Who's running for president besides Ron Paul who is working harder towards the goals of limiting the federal government (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) to be in line with Constitional balance?
And by the way, Shalom to you, too, Dave.
159 - STM
Irene writes: "And now, STM if you'll excuse me, a Christian, from expressing her views in a political forum:"
I don't have any problem with Christians posting anywhere or doing anything.
What I do oppose is evangelical Christians of the right, who contrary to the teachings of Jesus keep telling me that if I don't do things the way they say, I'm going to the other place.
Just for the record, I'm a Christian too - a practising Catholic.
So even though I know I'M right, I won't be telling you heathens how to go about it.
160 - Gary
Wow. This is an amazing article. Just to count the verbal backbends that must be made to fit so many falsehoods into so few words is amazing. I'll tell you what I got out of this article about Kucinich and Paul. 411-2. That means 2 shephards and 411 sheep. 2 Solomons and 411 Abel Keoghs.
161 - Dave Nalle
I gave you the link to Ron Paul's article where he gives his stance on how to handle divisive ethical questions
You mean where he sidestepped the responsibility under the constitution to protect citizens rights by palming it off on the states.
like abortion and the homosexual agenda.
The 'homosexual agenda'? You mean that evil plot to have equal rights under the law?
It's called "The Federal Marriage Amendment is a Very Bad Idea." Ron Paul defends the right of each individual state to decide on divisive matters such as these.
He defends the right of the states to nullify basic human rights and parts of the constitution within their borders. That's not very libertarian.
If the Constitution were being followe, then the homosexual populations of Louisville, Austin and Providence stayed in or moved to Rhode Island, promoters of the homosexual agenda might be able to hold sway in the Rhode Island State Senate.
So you're saying that they are entitled to equal rights only if they are willing to relocate to a different state? Perhaps we could force them all to relocate to a prison camp or something.
Does it bother you at all to be a homophobe and a hypocrite?
It's a pluralistic nation, and again, people tend to be happiest in geographical locations where their lifestyles and values are supported and appreciated. Decisions on such emotionally charged issues should be debated locally by the people who will be affected by the decision most, not rammed down their throats by the federal government. And debated in a STATESMANLIKE manner, not lobbing ad hominem slurs the way...some people do.
When fundamental rights are involved (and here I'm talking about gay marriage, not abortion) then it's outside of the authority of state or federal government to interfere.
And the very IDEA of allowing the US to fall down on the job of supporting its wounded vets! What do you propose we do, send them into the Middle East Meat Grinder and toss them aside when we have no more use for their broken bodies?
Where did I ever say anything like this? The bill I brought up included a lot more than just veterans facilities, and it was the other elements which I specifically referenced.
that shows that Ron Paul IS, contrary to the assertions of his detractors, able to be flexible ideologically when it comes to addressing the needs of reality.
It shows that he's willing to sacrifice his constitutional principles when personal issues and prejudices override them. It doesn't show that he has any common sense.
I haven't decided yet. I'd like to be able to support Paul, but he's making it difficult. I've voted libertarian in every presidential election but one since 1980.
(I'm taking the time to post all these comments on my own nickel by the way.)
As opposed to the vast salary I'm being paid for my editing work here at BC?
Who's running for president besides Ron Paul who is working harder towards the goals of limiting the federal government (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) to be in line with Constitional balance?
No one, but it's all worthless if he can't get elected and if once elected he can't set realistic goals and work within the existing structure to make reasonable changes.
I think the Paul candidacy is a great thing for the issues it brings to prominence, and I think he'd make a great Vice President, which is a realistic goal to aim for. I hope he stays in the campaign until the very end and thereby puts pressure on the winner to be more libertarian.
Dave
162 - Irene Wagner
Well done, Dave. You hopped right over the partial birth abortion issue I brought up. If I'm willing to move to North Dakota, don't put up such a fuss about the Rhode Island trip. Most gays living in Louisville, Austin and Providence have already changed addresses once already to be closer to kindred spirits!
And don't be so disingenuous as to claim that the only element of the homosexual agenda is to have gay unions (which exist now already without the police busting the door down) recognized as legal marriages. There's the Boy Scout thing, the adoption thing, the pushing for more awareness and acceptance for the lifestyle in public elementary school thing. And I know not all homosexuals are pedophiles, but you can't honestly deny that politically active groups like lambda exist. Let the decent boundary-respecting gays take the matter to the mat with them in Rhode Island, and force them out of the country to Greece or wherever they belong.
Well, I guess we won't carry on like this once Ron makes the ticket one way or t'other.
And thanks for not using any ad hominems in your reply to me.
163 - Dave Nalle
Irene, I don't give a rat's ass about abortion, and I agree that it's ambiguous enough that it might as well be left up to the states. It doesn't infringe on clear, constitutionally defined rights. Gay marriage prohibition does.
Every time you talk about the 'gay agenda' you expose your bigotry. Carry on, you're your own worst enemy.
Dave
164 - A.K. Smith
Dave - I wonder why anyone feels the federal government should get involved in marriage, either hetero or homosexual marriage. Why does anyone feel the need to get their marriage okayed by any level of government? My guess, although I don't know this class I, is that Dr. Paul doesn't think government has a place in marriage either. It's a little tough to tell from his position paper. We know that for him the battle over homosexual marriage is really a battle over nothing more than government benefits, or government mandated benefits from private business.
And that is something government should not be doing for either hetero or homosexual marriages. Marriage is and should be a private contract between two people, with our without their religious institution involved as they choose. A.K.
165 - Clavos
"We know that for him the battle over homosexual marriage is really a battle over nothing more than government benefits, or government mandated benefits from private business.
And that is something government should not be doing for either hetero or homosexual marriages. Marriage is and should be a private contract between two people, with our without their religious institution involved as they choose. A.K."
True. But if the benefits are available to heteros, they should be available to gays as well.
166 - Dave Nalle
Dead on, A.K. Separation of church and state suggests that the government should play NO role in approving marriages at all. Marriage is a religious ritual. The government should have nothing to do with it. The state should formalize in some way the contractual arrangement of cohabitation regardless of the genders of the people involved. Whether they call it a marriage should be between them and their church.
Dave
167 - Dave Nalle
We know that for him the battle over homosexual marriage is really a battle over nothing more than government benefits, or government mandated benefits from private business.
I don't think we DO in fact know this. I'm pretty confident that he is opposed to gay marriage in any form on a religious basis and that his states rights cop out is his way of avoiding having to admit it.
Dave
168 - G
The constitution and its amendments do not grant the federal government the power to do anything on the subject of marriage (or abortion, for that matter). Yes, the 14th amendment does guarantee "equal protection of the laws" and it grants congress the power to enforce it, but protection is not marriage. Unless I suppose, marriage grants some form of protection. I wonder if the supreme court had made a ruling on this topic?
Federalism works by the state and federal government sharing power. Sometimes this is a good thing, such as individual states allowing things like gay marriage and medical marijuana before they'd have enough popular support to be legalized by the feds. Other times its not so good, with some states holding back good legislation. In any event, you can't expect 300 million very independent people to agree on much, and federalism is designed to keep them happy with a degree of independence from each other. I don't think its perfect, and I think we have an excessive number of states in this day and age of easy travel, but its the law. And for the most part, it works.
In a recent Google interview, he said he's stated his support for gay marriage, and freedom of voluntary association in general. But I doubt he'd do anything to support it in office in any branch of the federal government. I doubt he'd support the redefinition of marriage, since he seems to look at it from a Christian standpoint, but who cares? If there was ever a president that would keep the government from infringing on freedom of association, its Ron Paul.
169 - Christopher Rose
Irene, the automatic spam prevention software is having a little brainfart and blocking some of your comments. Please just continue to post normally (ie, not repeatedly) and I will unblock them for you. It will wise up shortly, it's a bit slow on the uptake sometimes ;-)
170 - Irene Wagner
Thanks, but no Chris, don't unblock them, because then it really would be spam! I finally got my comment through when I took all HTML out of it.
171 - Irene Wagner
But I'm posting a new one now, Chris, after reading Dave's comments to me.
It's unclear to me how anyone could consider severing the head of a half-born child anything BUT a human rights violation. But that's a fight to be fought at the state level.
And I stand by my comments on the broadness of the homosexual agenda. It's the truth.
And what may surprise you, and hopefully inform you, Dave, is that I and other Christian friends were FURIOUS with the Religious Right for trying to push through the Federal Marriage Amendment, and at the state level, much "anti gay marriage" legislation.
For one thing, why was the issue brought up at that time, when the country's attention needed to be focused on the issue of War in Iraq? It seemed like a cynically-staged distraction to pull dyed in the wool Republics whose support for the war was faltering back into "the fold of those with traditional values."
Secondly, the act was unfair to "untraditional" households in general, whether or not they were gay. I don't care to know what is going on sexually between two adults in the same household. If one partner is acting in the role of caretaker and/or breadmaker, and the other has been in the role of home-maker (whether he/she is part of a gay union, or just part of a spinster sisters household) those folks should be able to afford medical care. And they shouldn't be so overburdened by income tax that the right to file jointly is almost a necessity.
And as I'm sure you know, Dave, Ron Paul's policies on healthcare and taxation would ease the burdens on households, be they gay or not, without requirement of federal sanction of anyone's marriage.
172 - Dave Nalle
Well, that's a bit more rational, Irene. At least you managed not to let your fear of homosexuals distract you quite as much. Now, how do you feel about polygamy?
It's unclear to me how anyone could consider severing the head of a half-born child anything BUT a human rights violation. But that's a fight to be fought at the state level.
I'm not for partial birth abortion either. I don't think anyone is except for a few lunatics. I don't get all overwrought about it, however. I think our society places way too much value on human life in general.
As for the gay marriage issue being a distraction fromt he war in Iraq, that doesn't fly. At the time it was a hot-button issue Republican support for the war was at an all-time high.
Dave
173 - Irene Wagner
Thankyou Dave.
How do I feel about polygamy?
I'll beg your indulgence and answer as a Christian first, and then I'll answer as a citizen. (Not all Christians, Jews, or Muslims will agree with me, so I don't claim to speak for all Bible-readers.)
Abraham (father of the faith of all "peoples of the Book") was a polygamist. The dynamics in his family were quite troubled to say the least, so Abraham's example stands to me as a warning rather than a vindication about the realities of polygamous households. As for the serial multiple marriages that resulted from the practice of allowing a man to divorce his wife for the most trivial of reasons, Jesus said, in the beginning it was not so. The man and wife should cleave to one another, and no man should separate them. Jesus said that Moses had made allowances for them because of the hardness of their hearts.
Jesus Christ often made reference to himself as "the Bridegroom." St. Paul in the epistles more than once makes the analogy between the relationship of a man and a wife whom he cherishes and cares for, and the relationship of Jesus Christ, and the Church he cherishes and is trying to remove the spots and wrinkles from to prepare for the Wedding at the end of the age.
So as a Christian, I see the deep and intimate love between a man and his wife, an intimacy that will admit for the intrusion of no third parties, as the ideal that God had in mind when he established marriages.
When Christian missionaries succeed in bringing the Gospel to communities where polygamy is the norm, THE BEST OF THEM (and I'm as disgusted with the worst of them as you are, Dave, probably moreso) do not try to break up these marriages. That would be cruel. What they do is to recommend that all wives be treated equally, and that monogamous marriages be held up as the ideal for young men looking for wives for the first time.
NOW AS A CITIZEN, I realize that at least some of the Muslim families relocating to the US are polygamous, and that many Muslims believe it is actually merciful to take a woman on as a third or fourth wife if she has no other means of support. On the other extreme, I know that all sorts of multiple partner randiness is going on behind closed in orgies and the like.
As a citizen, and as a Christian, too, for that matter, I'd say that its a waste of time for the State to go after polygamous Muslim and certain sects of Mormonism that allow polygamy (or any other sort of other polyamorous arrangements) AS LONG AS 1)they aren't asking that polygamous families be given special rights such as, 2) they aren't requiring private institutions such as the Boy Scouts, to hire polygamous staff 3) they aren't asking that the promotion of the legitimacy of polygamous marriages be made an educational goal of the public elementary and high schools 4) they aren't requiring churches to hire polygamous preachers and staff 5) they aren't forbidding churches to preach against polygamy.
Fair 'nuff?
174 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Irene,
When Christian missionaries succeed in bringing the Gospel to communities where polygamy is the norm, THE BEST OF THEM do not try to break up these marriages. That would be cruel.
Maybe you would like to answer this as a Christian.
Who the fuck are you to insist on shoving your "gospel" down anybody's throat? It stinks when you do it in America, but it stinks even worse when I see it in the streets of Jerusalem. In America, a "Christian" country, presumably you have "Christian liberty" - the right to shovel your gospels down non-Christians throats - and non-Christians have to shut their mouths.
But you have no such privileges in THIS country. Why don't you get your damned missionaries out of here? One day, we are liable to lose our sense of tolerance and throw them all out - dead or alive.
They are not welcome here at all.
175 - Irene Wagner
Ruvy,
The musalaha.org link must have set you off. Musalaha, in case the rest of you didn't know is a Christian organization that has reconciliation between Palestian and Jewish (Messianic) Christians as a goal, as a first step to breaking down hostilities in the rest of the country.
PS Is it kosher to use the "F" bomb on a lady? Or is it only a sin if she's frum? I know many, many Jews who must be reading your remarks right now and shaking their heads sadly.
I forgive you in advance.
Irene Wagner