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

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); 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.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

If you cared about gay rights, you should vote for Ron Paul

W

whoa2whoa

Slut
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Posts
205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
(whoops, mods please move to hot topics, thanks)

He is running as a republican, but he really isn't one. He is a libertarian.

He believes that state's should decide what they do or do not want. Unlike all the other republican Bshitters who want to force their religion down our throats.

He believes DADT should stay, and believes federal government should stay out of what defines marriage. I know, the thought of voting republican is crazy. Thankfully he really isn't like the rest and tells the truth, and supports the constitution.


He will help further gay rights, better than Obama ever will.
 
I think that any democrat has the potential to do much better for gay rights (and would like to add how you didn't qualify the statement about Obama, when we just saw DADT repealed). Why wouldn't Obama be good for gay rights?
 
So gay rights is the only thing important to you? You are saying that if I decide to vote for somebody else, then I don't care about gay rights? I should not care about the countless other issues that could impact my life?
 
Spiff said:
So gay rights is the only thing important to you? You are saying that if I decide to vote for somebody else, then I don't care about gay rights? I should not care about the countless other issues that could impact my life?
Click to expand...

That comment, for me, invokes the nonsensical ideal of "gay issues"- issues relevant to gay people.
 
whoa2whoa said:
(whoops, mods please move to hot topics, thanks)

He is running as a republican, but he really isn't one. He is a libertarian.

He believes that state's should decide what they do or do not want. Unlike all the other republican Bshitters who want to force their religion down our throats.

He believes DADT should stay, and believes federal government should stay out of what defines marriage. I know, the thought of voting republican is crazy. Thankfully he really isn't like the rest and tells the truth, and supports the constitution.


He will help further gay rights, better than Obama ever will.
Click to expand...

How is believing DADT should stay helping Gay RIghts?

Of the current crop of Republican candidates I support Paul and Huntsman, as I believe they have the most integrity and aren't panderers to the Evangelical base of the Party. I agree with his Foreign Policy the most, however the country as a whole simply has a disagreement about the role of Government in our society.

You aren't going to change society's opinion on that. As a result, Paul's principles make him a polarizing figure which will never allow him to achieve the Presidency, much less the Republican nomination.

Furthermore, people give Paul too much credit ... well to be frank, people give whomever the President too much credit in what they can and can't do. In order for Paul's principles to work, he obviously needs the Legislative Branch of Government to pass bills that reflect his principles .... and that simply isn't going to happen.
 
MystikWizard said:
How is believing DADT should stay helping Gay RIghts?

Of the current crop of Republican candidates I support Paul and Huntsman, as I believe they have the most integrity and aren't panderers to the Evangelical base of the Party. I agree with his Foreign Policy the most, however the country as a whole simply has a disagreement about the role of Government in our society.

You aren't going to change society's opinion on that. As a result, Paul's principles make him a polarizing figure which will never allow him to achieve the Presidency, much less the Republican nomination.

Furthermore, people give Paul too much credit ... well to be frank, people give whomever the President too much credit in what they can and can't do. In order for Paul's principles to work, he obviously needs the Legislative Branch of Government to pass bills that reflect his principles .... and that simply isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

I meant he doesnt want DADT, my mistake.


And his views follow what the constitution is all about. He has great ideas to cut all the BS spending Bush and Obama has done. Time to get someone in who will actually make a budget surplus for the first time since Clinton.

Obama and Romney sure as hell aint gonna do it.
 
whoa2whoa said:
I meant he doesnt want DADT, my mistake.


And his views follow what the constitution is all about. He has great ideas to cut all the BS spending Bush and Obama has done. Time to get someone in who will actually make a budget surplus for the first time since Clinton.

Obama and Romney sure as hell aint gonna do it.
Click to expand...

And how is Ron going to get a budget surplus if Congress won't work with him or support his ideas?

That is why I say that people give the office of the Presidency way too much focus when they should be focusing on Congress equally, if not more.

Ron could have all of these great ideas, but without the Legislative Branch to support him, then he won't get a thing accomplished. That is what the Paul supporters don't seem to get. They are so enamored with the man himself that they lose track of the Big Picture and want to completely forget about the Legislative Branch.
 
whoa2whoa said:
(whoops, mods please move to hot topics, thanks)

He is running as a republican, but he really isn't one. He is a libertarian.

He believes that state's should decide what they do or do not want. Unlike all the other republican Bshitters who want to force their religion down our throats.

He believes DADT should stay, and believes federal government should stay out of what defines marriage. I know, the thought of voting republican is crazy. Thankfully he really isn't like the rest and tells the truth, and supports the constitution.


He will help further gay rights, better than Obama ever will.
Click to expand...

You may be missing a few things that are fundamentally wrong with Ron Paul's approach.

If state's had all the rights, we'd still have slavery in the US. There would still be segregation in the US. There would be miscegenation laws. The US would definitely slide into third world status in many regions with some federal oversight.

If states had all the power, there would still be draconian sodomy laws on the books across the country.



Ron Paul is a naive, but interesting force in politics today.

I listened to his interview with Jon Stewart the other night. Every time I want to like the guy, he blurts out some utterly stupid ideas about the economy and the role of government and the ability of corporations to self-regulate in the interests of the people. This is a naked demonstration that as smart as he is, he has no grounding in economic history.

He is unelectable as a national figure.

But he is relentlessly consistent in his views, I'll give him that.
 
This is Ron Paul's second or third attempt at the presidency. Even the Republicans don't like him.
 
I've been heaing the "Ron Paul is yr friend" stuff for 5 years now

and libertairian sentiments sometimes appeal to me

but in truth He will Never Be nominated by the GOP

once the uber christian Perry got in the race

the GOP has shown their true colors - they need that appeal to get lower income voters
 
believes federal government should stay out of what defines marriage.
Click to expand...
State governments are the ones denying gays the right to marriage. There is already a federal law - the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution- stating that states must respect the laws/licenses of other states. This includes extradition, medical licenses, and marriage licenses. The state governments just ignore it when it comes to gay marriage and the federal gov allows it. Republicans/conservatives contend that states have the right to deny gay marriage according to their state constitutions but, according to the Supremacy Clause (another federal law), the US Constituition (where the Full Faith and Credit Clause is written) always trumps the state's.
 
Ron Paul is unelectable. He doesn't appeal to the new base of the republican party. The guardians of the GOP....people like Karl Rove and his ilk, have already made it crystal clear that Paul is not their choice. This is not your father's GOP. Traditional republicans are now a minority. The existing base will never vote for a libertarian like Paul. He's just not extreme enough for them.
 
Isn't he the one that wants to build walls around the countries borders?
 
Ron Paul is the same old patriarch in libertarian drag. Anti-choice, against social programs that provide a security net for the poor, against unionization, ridiculously opposed to progress in education. He is full of fail.
 
The thread title is completely incorrect.

Ron Paul believes homosexuals are second class citizens. He sidesteps on gay marriage saying it's a state issue. He's for keeping gays out of the military. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. He's against gays adopting children.

He's against the government intervening in people's private lives, (unless he's for it) but he's for policing a woman's womb. He's for the Patriot act. Spying on private citizens.

A Ron Paul presidency would be a disaster. Luckily he will never be, nor his offspring.
 
whoa2whoa said:
(whoops, mods please move to hot topics, thanks)

He is running as a republican, but he really isn't one. He is a libertarian.

He believes that state's should decide what they do or do not want. Unlike all the other republican Bshitters who want to force their religion down our throats.

He believes DADT should stay, and believes federal government should stay out of what defines marriage. I know, the thought of voting republican is crazy. Thankfully he really isn't like the rest and tells the truth, and supports the constitution.


He will help further gay rights, better than Obama ever will.
Click to expand...

Instead of going on a long explanation as to what is wrong with his - called libertarian vies(and economics damn you mise insitute!)

I will say this. What differentiates those at the state level from the federal level? Aren't they also subjected the same mentality as federal elected official? The gist of what I'm trying to say is that one is essentially replacing same with "sameer"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top