Second R Debate

#51
#51
GAVol said:
Me too. He shouldn't have even played along with the question.
Click to expand...

It's really a minor issue but he and King made it into a big one.

This and King goading Pawlenty to attack Romney were two very low points for the debate. Two examples of the press manufacturing the news.
 
#52
#52
Getting around to the gay marriage portion... This is the stuff that bugs me. Spend an hour up there berating big government, then they go around the horn and unanimously say the federal government should define marriage (except Cain, Bachmann saying something unintelligible and Ron Paul going all Ron Paul).
 
#54
#54
volinbham said:
It's really a minor issue but he and King made it into a big one.

This and King goading Pawlenty to attack Romney were two very low points for the debate. Two examples of the press manufacturing the news.
Click to expand...

Even the folks on NPR said that moment was a groaner.

Of all the cable news outlets, I used to be able to stand CNN at least a few minutes at a time. They've since achieved near-Fox levels of un-professionalism.
 
#55
#55
milohimself said:
Getting around to the gay marriage portion... This is the stuff that bugs me. Spend an hour up there berating big government, then they go around the horn and unanimously say the federal government should define marriage (except Cain, Bachmann saying something unintelligible and Ron Paul going all Ron Paul).
Click to expand...

What does that really have to do with the size of government though?
 
#56
#56
So what's the issue at heart then -- I've always been under the impression that those likely to vote R or Lib oppose government to the extent which they do on a moral basis. Is this not the case?
 
#57
#57
milohimself said:
Getting around to the gay marriage portion... This is the stuff that bugs me. Spend an hour up there berating big government, then they go around the horn and unanimously say the federal government should define marriage (except Cain, Bachmann saying something unintelligible and Ron Paul going all Ron Paul).
Click to expand...

100% in agreement. If you want less government intrusion let's have it, not selective government intrusion where it fits an agenda.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
milohimself said:
Getting around to the gay marriage portion... This is the stuff that bugs me. Spend an hour up there berating big government, then they go around the horn and unanimously say the federal government should define marriage (except Cain, Bachmann saying something unintelligible and Ron Paul going all Ron Paul).
Click to expand...

Thank you. Also most of them support aggressive foreign policy, and the MIC accounts for a majority of discretionary spending. You can't be against big government and support the wars. Government can't possibly be small with our current foreign policy.
 
#60
#60
JayVols said:
100% in agreement. If you want less government intrusion let's have it, not selective government intrusion where it fits an agenda.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I agree to some extent, but gay marriage does crossover a little into being an economic issue as well.
 
#61
#61
GAVol said:
I agree to some extent, but gay marriage does crossover a little into being an economic issue as well.
Click to expand...

It may, but it is still government interference in the lives of its citizens.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
Well, the government can be. The military apparatus and the taxes to pay for it would be another story entirely...

This goes back to the debate you and BPV had last week. I don't like our various points of engagement in the ME. They're unnecessary. I do support military action where our national interests are at play, to extents and with conditions. We need to keep our presence around the world with major bases within a few hours reach of anywhere.
 
#63
#63
more of an issue of government intrusion in your life. I don't think the government should define marraige. I think that's something the church should do. If some churches wants to recognize gay marraige, then so be it.
 
#66
#66
golfballs03 said:
more of an issue of government intrusion in your life. I don't think the government should define marraige. I think that's something the church should do. If some churches wants to recognize gay marraige, then so be it.
Click to expand...
that's fine with me . . . But what happens when an issue arises with inheritance, ss, healthcare etc? Government has to make a decision one way or the other as to what constitutes a marriage.
 
#67
#67
GAVol said:
that's fine with me . . . But what happens when an issue arises with inheritance, ss, healthcare etc? Government has to make a decision one way or the other as to what constitutes a marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm in the Ron Paul camp on this - let's get the government out completely. Let two people engage in a legally binding contract and the terms of the contract can handle those issues.

Since that is unrealistic, let the states decide (people - not courts) and the feds abide by the terms of the contracts.
 
#68
#68
volinbham said:
I'm in the Ron Paul camp on this - let's get the government out completely. Let two people engage in a legally binding contract and the terms of the contract can handle those issues.

Since that is unrealistic, let the states decide (peopl- not courts) and the feds abide by the terms of the contracts.
Click to expand...
That would be fine with me, but I'm not sure everyone could handle letting the states make the call.
 
#69
#69
milohimself said:
Ron Paul saying no easier immigration kinda shocked me.
Click to expand...

I must've missed that part. He's never been for amnesty, but I thought he supported easier citizenship. A lot of libertarians are for open borders.

I just watched it and I wonder what he meant by "no easy citizenship". I'm going to have to look a little bit further into his platform on this.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
GAVol said:
that's fine with me . . . But what happens when an issue arises with inheritance, ss, healthcare etc? Government has to make a decision one way or the other as to what constitutes a marriage.
Click to expand...

Not really. Just drop the inheritance tax.
 
#75
#75
milohimself said:
Ron Paul saying no easier immigration kinda shocked me.
Click to expand...

It looks based on his voting record and quotes on ontheissues.org that Paul is referring to birthright citizenship as "easy citizenship." 3 different quotes:

No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it’s pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded. And that would be the case.

I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn’t be rewarded. That means you don’t give them citizenship. You can’t solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn’t be a threat to us.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul on the Issues
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top