The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Even Ron Paul won't endorse John McCain!

blueto21

blueto21

Sex God
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Posts
900
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Tallahassee
Although, he's not supporting Obama either but he's also not supporting the nominee of his own party, John McCain. That should be a HUGE red flag for many people. Oh, and I agree with Paul's last comment completely. There is no way in hell I would ever consider voting for someone that jokes about bombing Iran or someone that said going into Iraq was a good idea and that it was worth America's blood and treasure.


I mean...................HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..........America, are you listening?

 
Obama desperately needed Hilary's endorsement, and even with it, isn't exactly owning the polls.

McCain has no need nor interest in Paul's endorsement.

Lex
 
Figures that Phil Gramm of all people placed that call. What was Gramm thinking? Got to respect Paul for sticking to his principles.

I don't have a sense that most of Paul's supporters are going to come over and vote for Obama, like I initially did. However, voting for Bob Barr or writing in Dr. Paul's name, is better than voting for McCain.
 
Well, so much for the lunatic fringe vote.
 
^ Figures....
people who actually believe in the Constitution are "lunatic fringe" to iman.

Obama could make no better pick for the Supreme Court than Ron Paul, for two reasons: first, the man is actually interested in seeing the Constitution upheld, and could care less about what interests will be served by what decisions; second, there are still a few million dedicated Paul-ites out and about, who just might stomach a vote for Obama if it meant Justice Ron Paul in the future.
 
Kulindahr said:
^ Figures....
people who actually believe in the Constitution are "lunatic fringe" to iman.

Obama could make no better pick for the Supreme Court than Ron Paul, for two reasons: first, the man is actually interested in seeing the Constitution upheld, and could care less about what interests will be served by what decisions; second, there are still a few million dedicated Paul-ites out and about, who just might stomach a vote for Obama if it meant Justice Ron Paul in the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah? How does Ron stand on Full Faith and Credit? Right to choice? Gay marriage? Gay adoption? Beyond the "states' rights" copout?

Basically, I suspect there are some skeletons in that closet that would prevent MY wanting him to be an arbiter of things Constitutional.
 
iman said:
Well, so much for the lunatic fringe vote.
Click to expand...

iman, you are aware that most of Ron Pauls supporters can be classified as libertarians, who, from what I can tell, believe in every part of the US constitution.
 
RandomAccess said:
Yeah? How does Ron stand on Full Faith and Credit? Right to choice? Gay marriage? Gay adoption? Beyond the "states' rights" copout?

Basically, I suspect there are some skeletons in that closet that would prevent MY wanting him to be an arbiter of things Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Adoption falls under states' rights, and that's not a cop-out, it's the Constitution.
It's my understanding that with respect to gay marriage, Paul stands where I do: against it, but only because "marriage" doesn't belong in the law, it's a form of freedom of association, concerning which the law cannot legislate, rather individuals should be equally free to decide with whom they wish to associate and how, and if there is some degree of association on which the government has decided to confer special benefits and privileges, that degree of association ought to have a neutral name, and the only function the government ought to have is to register the fact that individuals have entered into such an association (my latest term for it is "registered union", which includes the concept that the government's only job is to register what individuals have in fact done/chosen).
If by "right to choice" you mean the abortion issue, IIRC Paul holds that such a matter belongs to the states, except that as a doctor he has commented that it ought to be possible to arrive at a medical definition of when life begins and make that the law of the land.
As for the full faith and credit clause, he holds that it means what it says, and that in terms of common institutions and basic rights, the states have no choice but to recognize the status(es) conferred by other states -- including driver's licenses, concealed carry licenses/permits for firearms, contractual relationships, etc.

Paul in the past has gritted his teeth, so to speak, and voted for things he personally didn't like but saw were what the law of the land required. I would expect that very rare sense of rectitude and honor to guide him on the bench as well.
 
Glafna said:
iman, you are aware that most of Ron Pauls supporters can be classified as libertarians, who, from what I can tell, believe in every part of the US constitution.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair there's a good number who don't recognize the sixteenth amendment, authorizing an income tax, because the process by which it was "ratified" was irregular at best and improper at worst -- the latter meaning, of course, that it wasn't ratified at all.

And many also object to the cute little phrase "Congress shall have authority (or authority) to enforce this by appropriate legislation" (or its kin), because it has led to effectively handing over legislative authority to bureaucrats -- all those critters in the executive branch who sit and make up regulations without having been elected -- when the Constitution explicitly says that all legislative authority is vested in Congress, which wasn't just a statement giving authority, but also limiting it by asserting that only elected representatives can make law -- whereas the vast majority of federal law is now made by faceless functionaries.

Some have a problem with the federal government owning vast tracts of land, even though the Constitution in Article IV speaks of "territory or other property belonging to the United States", which arguably implies that the United States may own territory that is not part of a state.

Yet ALL Libertarians/libertarians are big on the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", which McCain and many like him pretend doesn't exist, when they speak of things being called rights which "aren't listed in the Constitution". For that reason alone we need a libertarian on the Supreme Court -- to remind everyone, all the time, that if it looks like a right, smells like a right, feels like a right... then it's a right!
 
Constitutional "strict constructionists" remind me of Bible "Fundamentalists", they pick and choose and interpret what suits their prejudices and agendas and ignore the passage of time and then claim to be the only true Christians or Constitutionalist.

Of course, switching one's support from Paul to Obama is completely irrational and illogical, it is an indication of dissatisfaction and disaffection not of a political point of view.

It is nice to see Paul shilling for Federal tax money to bail out the folks in his district that built on the water's edge and got blown away in the hurricane. Federalism has it's uses.
 
iman said:
Of course, switching one's support from Paul to Obama is completely irrational and illogical, it is an indication of dissatisfaction and disaffection not of a political point of view.
Click to expand...

Your damned right I'm dissatisfied with a lot of the workings of our government right now. How is that not a political point of view? :rolleyes:
 
logcabiner said:
Isn't Paul the crazy with the national sales tax idea?
Click to expand...

Lots of people have had that one. One virtue is that it would encourage savings -- what you save wouldn't get taxed -- and hit the rich hard instead of letting them have loopholes (e.g., consider the sales tax on a $20 million yacht).
 
Kulindahr said:
Lots of people have had that one. One virtue is that it would encourage savings -- what you save wouldn't get taxed -- and hit the rich hard instead of letting them have loopholes (e.g., consider the sales tax on a $20 million yacht).
Click to expand...

Kuli, Kuli, Kuli. . . We've been over this ground before.

A poor person spends every dime they get just trying to survive. Therefore, every dime that comes into their possession would get taxed as it goes back out.

Middle class folks, like many of us here, would have a similar situation in that most of our hard earned money would be spent on survival and maybe the occasional luxury as a token of the "American Dream."

Now, RICH folks, on the other hand, would put the lion's share of their income into savings and investments, or even send it offshore, avoiding any sales tax. Therefore, only a small portion of the money they take in income would be taxed under "sales" tax.

Sales taxes favor the rich. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. The only fair tax system is a progressive tax with no loopholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top