Ron Paul wants to violate the 14th amendment and violate religious freedom

[Eviker]

Liar David Jahn, I am not making your point. Your point and my point are different points. You may read my actual words below to see how my point is not the same as your point.  I look forward to your inevitable attempt to diddle your point.  See my profile photo?  That's me already laughing at you. 

[djahn]

Djahn, I am glad to see that you are so cavalier about the rights of gays and atheists...I guess we don't matter.  Thanks, I'll remember that.

And your assessment is quite shallow...incorporation of rights under the 14th amendment covers far more than what you so casually suggested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Tim

I don't care to entertain the absurd such as "What happens if a state institutes an official state religion under this policy?" Even if someone was stupid enough to introduce such legislation it won't pass.  Good grief, they don't even allow prayer in schools.

Or, "What if a state makes homosexuality a criminal offense(bills that would do this are introduced to this day in some states) and some states start imprisoning gay people?".  Get real Tim, no one is going to stand for that.  You've lost touch with reality.

You might also remember I responded to your "What ifs" by saying "Let me know when you have a real bill that needs to be opposed in force, and there's a good chance I'll join in opposing it."  How shallow of me.

[djahn]

Liar David Jahn, I am not making your point. Your point and my point are different points. You may read my actual words below to see how my point is not the same as your point.  I look forward to your inevitable attempt to diddle your point.  See my profile photo?  That's me already laughing at you. 

OK, Erik, we'll pretend you didn't make my point.  And, we'll pretend the language of the abortion plank wasn't drastically altered to appease the pro life side of the Libertarian community.  You feel better now?

[Eviker]

I knew you couldn't resist, Liar David Jahn.  You're like a puppet dancing when I pull the strings. 

As is so often the case, anyone who cares to do so can read the actual words below and see how the conversation actually unfolded.  Your wacky claims are just additional entertainment.  Rodeo clown, sort of thing. 

[vmays]

Children, children, PLEASE!!!!!!!  We're all supposed to be Libertarians!  Erik, your use of the term "Liar David Jahn'  makes you look petty and negates many of your comments.  Not that I necessarly agree or disagree with what Davd says (actually, I often to disagree with him)  but when we stoop to name calling between ourselves it makes the whole party look bad and drives people away.

[djahn]

Actually, I was wrong about the language of the platform being altered on the abortion issue.   It is still about the same as it was in 2002 when only 53.4% of those present at the convention voted to retain it.  The 2002 language at that time was

We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.


According to this site http://libertarianmajority.net/platform-retention-votes, this plank remains the least popular plank in the platform.

[t1m0thy]

Let's take a look at the language of Ron Paul's "We the People Act" and see who is right here(notable text in bold):

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

You can see here that he is perfectly fine with states banning not only gay marriage, but "sexual practices" as well.  What could that possibly mean other than wanting to give states the right to ban gay sex? 

Open your eyes.

[t1m0thy]

It's amazing how people who will buy into pseudo scientific arguments about building 7 and the 9/11 conspiracy will deny hard evidence that is placed right under their noses...well, actually, no its not...you people are gullible sheep being led by the nose.  Wake up and snap out of it.

[Eviker]

your use of the term "Liar David Jahn'  makes you look petty and negates many of your comments.

Nah.  David Jahn is a liar.  It's not name-calling when the description is accurate.  And it's a public service to warn others of hazards in the community.   

Anyone who cares to do so may scroll down any of these discussions and see where the silly conflict always begins. 

[Eviker]

this plank remains the least popular plank in the platform.

And yet, there it is in the national platform.  Placed there in accordance with the national LP bylaws.  It has not been deleted, and there's no recommendation for deletion in 2012. 

Some people would climb a tree to make pointless arguments.       

[djahn]

Tim

No doubt Ron Paul wants to leave these issues to the states.  No argument.  Personally, I fine with leaving these issues to the states.  I like many Libertarians don't particularly care for big central government solutions.

I've already conceded "If atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, Ron Paul is not your guy."

So, what is your point?

Just because atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, doesn't mean we all have to adopt it as our number one issue.  I don't go around demanding people make my primary issues theirs.

Gay rights have advanced a lot in the last few decades.  They will continue to advance.  Most importantly, the progress that has been made was done without the intervention of a big federal government.

Let me know when you have some real legislative bills that threaten your beliefs and lifestyle.  So far, in this thread, you are dealing in the fictional land of "what ifs".  I prefer not to dawdle there. 

David Jahn

Let's take a look at the language of Ron Paul's "We the People Act" and see who is right here(notable text in bold):

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

You can see here that he is perfectly fine with states banning not only gay marriage, but "sexual practices" as well.  What could that possibly mean other than wanting to give states the right to ban gay sex? 

Open your eyes.

[djahn]

your use of the term "Liar David Jahn'  makes you look petty and negates many of your comments.

Nah.  David Jahn is a liar.  It's not name-calling when the description is accurate.  And it's a public service to warn others of hazards in the community.   

Anyone who cares to do so may scroll down any of these discussions and see where the silly conflict always begins. 

The truth is Viker lies.  He doesn't do it intentionally.  It is a result of his poor comprehension skills which we see in thread after thread.

This thread is yet another example of his juvenile behavior.  Judging from my inbox, people see that.

[djahn]

this plank remains the least popular plank in the platform.

And yet, there it is in the national platform.  Placed there in accordance with the national LP bylaws.  It has not been deleted, and there's no recommendation for deletion in 2012. 

Some people would climb a tree to make pointless arguments.       

My point on this issue from the outset has been

The LP is split on the issue of abortion as well. I don't know where people get this notion that Libs are pro choice.  Many of them are not.  I first became aware of the division of the party on that issue at the 2002 national convention where the vote to retain the abortion plank nearly failed.

I then provided proof that the abortion plank is the least popular plank in the platform and has come close to being eliminated.  You've done nothing to dispute that.

Your point is....oh that's right you don't have one.

Some people will climb a tree just for the sake of arguing even when they have no point.

[t1m0thy]

Tim

No doubt Ron Paul wants to leave these issues to the states.  No argument.  Personally, I fine with leaving these issues to the states.  I like many Libertarians don't particularly care for big central government solutions.

I've already conceded "If atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, Ron Paul is not your guy."

So, what is your point?

Just because atheism and gay rights are your number one issues, doesn't mean we all have to adopt it as our number one issue.  I don't go around demanding people make my primary issues theirs.

Gay rights have advanced a lot in the last few decades.  They will continue to advance.  Most importantly, the progress that has been made was done without the intervention of a big federal government.

Let me know when you have some real legislative bills that threaten your beliefs and lifestyle.  So far, in this thread, you are dealing in the fictional land of "what ifs".  I prefer not to dawdle there.  

David Jahn

Let's take a look at the language of Ron Paul's "We the People Act" and see who is right here(notable text in bold):

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

You can see here that he is perfectly fine with states banning not only gay marriage, but "sexual practices" as well.  What could that possibly mean other than wanting to give states the right to ban gay sex?  

Open your eyes.

Atheism isn't an issue....separation of church and state are.  

And Ron Paul's policies would effectively set gay rights back by decades and civil rights by over a century.  There is a reason equal protection was established after slavery.  Many states would and have enacted bans on gay marriage and the only thing that has prevented states like california from violating the rights of their citizens has been equal protection...or have you forgotten the recent case that struck down prop 8?

[t1m0thy]

I admit that I am having a difficult time discerning whether you are being willfully deceitful or you are simply nieve.