F
freethinker83
Guest
I agree with you. I’m glad that he would like to get the federal government out of our personal lives.
- Status
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
As long as government is involved in marriage at all, Republicans will continue to fight and in some cases lose against gay marriage. Getting government out of marriage makes the fight for gay marriage obsolete.
It’s not at all Demcoratic, because they want government involved in marriage just as much as Republicans do.
R
Rascalking
Guest
I’d like to see the fed out of our lives too, but the Ron Paul way isn’t the right way to do so. His ideas are quite extreme. Does he intend to issue an executive order to abolish the departments he wants too? It’s impossible! He lives in a dream world, it seems.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
If you don’t know, then why are you asking and assuming at the same time?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
One of Pope Benedict’s non negotiables when it comes to politics is:
recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Ron Paul’s position on marriage conflicts with the non negotiable listed above, because he is not willing to defend marriage.
Why is Ron Paul at the top of the polls in Iowa which is meant to be conservative. I don’t think Ron Paul is a conservative, he is a libertarian who is running as a Republican because he knows he would not have a chance if he ran third party. That is my opinion.
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
He wants the government out of marriage completely.
I don’t want to watch the video so be specific about what he says here that you find so detestable.
He wanted us to go after Osama right after 9/11 with a letter of marque and reprisal. Also, he comments on how we had him at Tora Bora and let him go.
S
scipio337
Guest
Wow. More “US = Iran” moral equivalency?
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
If there is no government definition of marriage, there is no such thing as gay marriage. They would immediately lose any power in the courts to force the government to recognize gay marriage if there is no such thing as marriage in the governments eyes to begin with.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
He doesn’t bash Israel, he just tells the truth.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Good way to advance the discussion.
R
Rascalking
Guest
Be careful- Sometimes saying those things-(yes, it was hiliarious and spot on!) can get you in trouble. It’s a matter of who tattles first and the Ron Paul devotees can take things the wrong way-they’ll run and tattle.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
The only ones acting childish are the ones calling names and refusing to partake in the discussion rather than contribute.
S
scipio337
Guest
I suppose reason and historical context will overcome such overt fallacies?
But remember, Sweden isn’t being attacked by al Qaeda because they have a non interventionist foreign policy…except for the one earlier this year.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8702215&postcount=466
Don’t even get me started about 9/11.
R
Rascalking
Guest
I think this is what bothers me the most about Ron Paul. If his international policy isn’t “cut and run, leave our allies” the bigger problem is that many people THINK it’s “cut and run, leave our allies”.
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
Sweden is in Afghanistan. Still though, they have been lightly involved in the middle east, and correspondingly have little terrorism.
Please go on.
S
scipio337
Guest
But Paul said they weren’t being attacked. Period.
And we certainly don’t want to provoke Islamists with cartoons, right??
The US didn’t cause, provoke, or carry it out with thermite charges.
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
And until recently they hadn’t been. Going into Afghanistan isn’t going to win a country any favors.
I don’t buy into the conspiracy, but why do you deny that we provoked terrorism? Osama told us directly why we were attacked; why we would ignore that?
S
scipio337
Guest
It’s not because they have troops in Afghanistan.
thelocal.se/32106/20110217/
I admit we upset Islamists with our policies. Whether its the fact that we support Israel, or the fact that we don’t stone a woman to death for being raped by someone who isn’t her husband. Or our support of “moderate” (doublespeak for “not Islamic enough, by al Qaeda standards”) Islamic regimes.
My question is, how much of our foriegn and domestic policy do you want to change to suit the delicate sensibilities of the Islamist street?
G
gilliam
Guest
A note about Iowa. Usually in the caucus, someone is not selected the first time. What happens is those who do not get a lot of votes drop off and a second vote is taken. That means that on a first ballot in the caucuses Ron Paul, Newt Gingruch and Mitt Romney take the first three spots and go to a run off. Does anyone think the supporters of Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry will support Ron Paul?
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Did I read it wrong or is this a correct presumption?
They sent troops into Afghanistan and some dude drew a cartoon. They had one attack since then and some guy want’s to blame all this violent terrorist extremism in Sweden now on the cartoon. ?
- Status