Jesse Ventura

[Paulitey]

Would Jesse Ventura, who spoke at the Rally for the Republic, and was an Independent Governor, be a good running mate for Ron Paul in 2012?

Ventura is pro-gun, pro-drug, anti-war, and anti-torture.

[__27__]

Would Jesse Ventura, who spoke at the Rally for the Republic, and was an Independent Governor, be a good running mate for Ron Paul in 2012?

Ventura is pro-gun, pro-drug, anti-war, and anti-torture.

And an absolute socialist. I've known Jesse my whole life, he lived just down the street from me as I grew up, was one of my HS football coaches, was mayor of my town, and governor of my state. I think he's a good guy, I love what he does as a CELEBRITY in promoting some ideas I certainly agree with, but as a legislator, he is an utter disaster. If your aim is to reduce government and increase individual liberty, Jesse is not your man.


The sad thing is, after saying all of this, if he HAD really decided to run for the open senate seat in '08 he would have had my vote over the neo-con Coleman or Al Frankenberry.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Ventura is pro-gun, pro-drug, anti-war, and anti-torture.Hell yes. Drugs for everyone!

[FSP-Rebel]

Hell yes. Drugs for everyone!
Mmm, Drugs..

[Paulitey]

yes drugs

[Paulitey]

drugs for everyone

[Paulitey]

voluntary though...lol

[Jeremy]

No. Clueless on economics. I am under the impression that he was a big spender as governor?

[Paulitey]

probably yes he was...he even said in his book that a true free market cannot work, and that we need limited regulations.

But he is an honest man, and pro-drugs!

[__27__]

No. Clueless on economics. I am under the impression that he was a big spender as governor?

Big spender is an understatement. He is still bragging about 'his' light rail system. The one that took more than $385,000,000 in FedGov funds, and currently operates at a near $12,000,000 annual deficit.

[Paulitey]

omg thats no joke

[Jeremy]

Yeah he would pretty much be the worst choice for VP.

[Paulitey]

there are worst...like Mike Huckabee

And I think Jesse Ventura would be a fine VP because VP was no power.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

No truthers (Ventura) or semi-racists (Rockwell) please.

These are the kooks that brought down Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. Why would you want to confirm everything the neocons said about Ron Paul by putting one of these types on the hypothetical ticket?

[krazy kaju]

Ventura would be a political disaster, imo, but he's an alright guy with some alright ideas.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No truthers (Ventura) or semi-racists (Rockwell) please.

These are the kooks that brought down Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. Why would you want to confirm everything the neocons said about Ron Paul by putting one of these types on the hypothetical ticket?

Lew Rockwell a kook? Yes, Ron Paul who agrees with us on Codex Alimantarus, isn't a kook, but a world reknown economist Lew Rockwell is a kook. Good grief, am I in 1984? Hello?

[Indy Vidual]

...semi-racists...

What is a semi-racist? :confused:
Someone who can't stand colored 18-wheel trucks? :p

[evilfunnystuff]

i voted yes strictly cause he would draw a lot of votes simply due to his persona i probly should voted no now that i think about the question and its wording a little more

he does seem like a good guy however i think there are much better choices i did have hope he would really do some reading and drop some of his collectivist leanings but he didnt id support him for another office as long as he was better than the other candidates though

[klamath]

He has been continuing to support Obama. I trust Ventura like a hole in the head. He never endorced RP in the primaries or tried to help him in MN. He did join RP's RFTR but I suspect it was only to help divide the Republican party. He is a Obama man.

[ClayTrainor]

There was a time when I dreamed about a Paul / Ventura ticket. Now I realize that Ventura is far too ignorant on economics, and too much of an ego-maniac.

Recently when JV was on Alex Jones a caller called in and said something along the lines of "Jesse, i really hope you and Ron Paul run in 2012, Ron Paul as president and you as VP..." Jesse cut him off and said "Why do i have to take second place?" in a frustrated manner. (not exact quotes)

No thanks Jesse, this isn't about you.

[jmdrake]

No truthers (Ventura) or semi-racists (Rockwell) please.

These are the kooks that brought down Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. Why would you want to confirm everything the neocons said about Ron Paul by putting one of these types on the hypothetical ticket?

There's never been any actual evidence that "truthers" in any way hurt Dr. Paul's campaign. None whatsoever. I've never met a single real person who ever said "I won't vote for Dr. Paul because he's associated with the 9/11 truth movement.". I've met plenty who cited that as a reason to vote for Dr. Paul. I also met many that didn't like Dr. Paul's "blowback" position on terrorism or the fact that he was against the war in Iraq. I met one person that mistakenly thought Ron Paul supported gay marriage, some who thought he had dropped out and a couple that didn't know he was pro life. Please quit propagating this unfounded fallacy.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Gaius1981]

I seem to remember him saying something like this during his speech at the Rally for the Republic:

"I'll be watching you. If you do all the hard work, I might just consider stepping in and reaping the rewards."

[Peace&Freedom]

There's never been any actual evidence that "truthers" in any way hurt Dr. Paul's campaign. None whatsoever. I've never met a single real person who ever said "I won't vote for Dr. Paul because he's associated with the 9/11 truth movement.". I've met plenty who cited that as a reason to vote for Dr. Paul. I also met many that didn't like Dr. Paul's "blowback" position on terrorism or the fact that he was against the war in Iraq. I met one person that mistakenly thought Ron Paul supported gay marriage, some who thought he had dropped out and a couple that didn't know he was pro life. Please quit propagating this unfounded fallacy.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Exactly. I've encountered some Paul supporters on this board who said they don't want to be associated with truthers, but that's it. That implies this is mainly an internal matter among liberty people. Even if you could dredge up a transcient case of a voter turned off by this issue, it probably works on balance the way the pro-life issue cuts for Republicans: for every vote you might lose based on that stance, you gain more votes from those attracted to the position. Overall, Ventura has been an active student of the entire liberty movement and his high-profile background would serve as excellent balance to Paul on a 2012 ticket.

[Elwar]

pro-drugs!

Something tells me (like his posts) that "Paulitey" is a troll.

[dr. hfn]

I take back my yes vote...

[Jeremy]

Something tells me (like his posts) that "Paulitey" is a troll.

Just naïve lol

[catdd]

First off, I believe building 7 was imploded, but I stopped talking about it because I don't want to hurt RP in any way. That said, I believe Ventura has wrecked his Vice/Presidential aspirations by going public with it because there may never be another investigation to back him up.
I also do not like his open borders policy.

[krazy kaju]

I'll defend Jesse Ventura, even though I don't like him at all. I think he's an asshole, but he would be an okay VP. He already has a pretty well-known name, he's friendly with many media personalities (e.g. Sean Hannity), and he already had experience when it comes to executive power when he was the governor of Minnesota.

[RevolutionSD]

No. A total statist, not liberty-minded.

[RevolutionSD]

I'll defend Jesse Ventura, even though I don't like him at all. I think he's an asshole, but he would be an okay VP. He already has a pretty well-known name, he's friendly with many media personalities (e.g. Sean Hannity), and he already had experience when it comes to executive power when he was the governor of Minnesota.

Being friends with Hannity is NOT a plus!

[__27__]

There's never been any actual evidence that "truthers" in any way hurt Dr. Paul's campaign. None whatsoever. I've never met a single real person who ever said "I won't vote for Dr. Paul because he's associated with the 9/11 truth movement.". I've met plenty who cited that as a reason to vote for Dr. Paul. I also met many that didn't like Dr. Paul's "blowback" position on terrorism or the fact that he was against the war in Iraq. I met one person that mistakenly thought Ron Paul supported gay marriage, some who thought he had dropped out and a couple that didn't know he was pro life. Please quit propagating this unfounded fallacy.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Are you telling me you believe Paul is against gay marriage?

[jmdrake]

Are you telling me you believe Paul is against gay marriage?

He said he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act had he been in congress at the time and he introduced legislation to remove review of DOMA from the federal courts. He went on to say that had he been in the Texas state legislature he would do all he could to "oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage".

See:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Many people have made a big deal about Ron Paul citing the "right to contract" when asked about gay marriage during the Google interview. What most people miss is the fact that most of the "rights" people seek through "marriage" can be secured through contract regardless of state laws. Rights to inheritance, visitation, end of life decisions etc can all be secured through contract. What cannot be secured through contract are "rights" that directly affect third parties to the contract. (Health insurance benefits come immediately to mind. So do various tax consequences).

So here's the short of it. The only way Ron Paul would support gay marriage is if it was passed through a referendum or (possibly) through the state legislature. He's never said how he'd vote on such a referendum or state law if it was put to him.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Lew Rockwell a kook?

If he is a racist he is one; and everyone here does accuse him of writing those awful newsletters.

[Zippyjuan]

Jessie being a "truther" is one reason I would not vote for him.

[Meatwasp]

Something tells me (like his posts) that "Paulitey" is a troll.

I had the same feeling.
No I would not vote yes for Jessie. I don't trust him.

[jake]

i'm afraid it would be seen as a joke. he WOULD be good, but he would NOT win.

[GunnyFreedom]

He said he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act had he been in congress at the time and he introduced legislation to remove review of DOMA from the federal courts. He went on to say that had he been in the Texas state legislature he would do all he could to "oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage".

See:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Many people have made a big deal about Ron Paul citing the "right to contract" when asked about gay marriage during the Google interview. What most people miss is the fact that most of the "rights" people seek through "marriage" can be secured through contract regardless of state laws. Rights to inheritance, visitation, end of life decisions etc can all be secured through contract. What cannot be secured through contract are "rights" that directly affect third parties to the contract. (Health insurance benefits come immediately to mind. So do various tax consequences).

So here's the short of it. The only way Ron Paul would support gay marriage is if it was passed through a referendum or (possibly) through the state legislature. He's never said how he'd vote on such a referendum or state law if it was put to him.

Regards,

John M. Drake

DoMA is badly named. It's primary purpose is really to subvert the "full faith and allegiance" clause specifically WRT the concept of marriage. Full faith and allegiance defies the Constitutional principle of the several sovereign States, and should be opposed quite regardless of whatever issue happens to be pushed under FF&A at the time.

Support for DoMA does NOT equal opposition to gay marriage. It simply means that Georgia should NOT be forced by Uncle Sam to give benefits to a given couple just because Massachusetts saw fit to marry them.

The way I see it, and I am certain the way RP sees it also, is that the State has no business being involved in marriage in ANY capacity whatsoever, whether to approve, disapprove, license, deny licenses, or grant special taxation & social favors etc.

What people do not seem to grasp is that the practice of licensing marriage was created during segregation in order to make sure that black people could not marry white people. I think we as a society have evolved beyond that nonsense, and therefore it is time to get the State out of the marriage business altogether.

I also agree with RP's statement that the Government has no business defining marriage. None AT ALL. Marriage is a social & religious doctrine, the definition for which belongs exclusively in the domain of one's freedom of religion. If we allow Government to define marriage today, then tomorrow they will surely attempt to define God.

I am as vehemently opposed to government defining marriage as heterosexual, as I am opposed to government defining marriage as inclusive of homosexuals. The entire concept of GOVERNMENT defining what is essentially a religious doctrine is repugnant, no matter WHAT definition they choose.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Paul is TOO OLD to run for President. People will never elect someone his age.

[GunnyFreedom]

Paul is TOO OLD to run for President. People will never elect someone his age.

Reagan was TOO OLD for office too. Just sayin'

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If he is a racist he is one; and everyone here does accuse him of writing those awful newsletters.

Without Lew Rockwell this world would be 5000% worse. He alone is the only reason we have a fighting shot. In the late 70s most staunch Austrians and not the ones who drifted with the funding, had no funding. The billionaire that was funding their efforts changed his heart and ideology and the faux-Austrians went with him. Lew and a few others like Murray stuck to their convictions and through Lew's entreprenuerial spirit setup the LvMI. Without the LvMI we would be in a world of pain. Secondly, Lew is not a racist, tacit or otherwise.

Secondly, being a racist per se isn't necessarily wholly "bad/evil" etc. Committing acts of violence and impeding on anothers liberty IS. Unless of course you believe that we must be forced into neat little diverse communities with appropriate racial mixtures, and all sorts of other coercive measures. Again, Lew is not a racist. You should be thanking Lew for all his contributions and for the eternal vigilance in liberty.

[cindy25]

ventura is pro-draft, pro-war tax.

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure if you missed the entirety of what I was saying so I'll repeat the only important part.

So here's the short of it. The only way Ron Paul would support gay marriage is if it was passed through a referendum or (possibly) through the state legislature.

Based on everything Ron Paul has said or done on the issue it is irresponsible to suggest that he supports gay marriage. Now, maybe he would vote for it if it was on a ballot initiative or if he was a state legislator but he has not said that. Also note that I've been very careful nott to say he opposed gay marriage. He clearly opposes congress, the federal judiciary or the state judiciary authorizing gay marriage.

Now here's the political rub. Ron Paul made a definite appeal to Christian conservative voters. He had slim jims tailored to fit them. But some seem so anxious to force fit Ron Paul into their own mold of what they think a liberty candidate "should" be that they needlessly alienate such voters. Saying "Ron Paul supports gay marriage" (when there's no evidence that he does) is needlessly counterproductive. And before you misunderstand me further, realize I'm not saying you said Ron Paul supports gay marriage. I agree with most of your post in fact I actually said most of that already.

Regards,

John M. Drake


DoMA is badly named. It's primary purpose is really to subvert the "full faith and allegiance" clause specifically WRT the concept of marriage. Full faith and allegiance defies the Constitutional principle of the several sovereign States, and should be opposed quite regardless of whatever issue happens to be pushed under FF&A at the time.

Support for DoMA does NOT equal opposition to gay marriage. It simply means that Georgia should NOT be forced by Uncle Sam to give benefits to a given couple just because Massachusetts saw fit to marry them.

The way I see it, and I am certain the way RP sees it also, is that the State has no business being involved in marriage in ANY capacity whatsoever, whether to approve, disapprove, license, deny licenses, or grant special taxation & social favors etc.

What people do not seem to grasp is that the practice of licensing marriage was created during segregation in order to make sure that black people could not marry white people. I think we as a society have evolved beyond that nonsense, and therefore it is time to get the State out of the marriage business altogether.

I also agree with RP's statement that the Government has no business defining marriage. None AT ALL. Marriage is a social & religious doctrine, the definition for which belongs exclusively in the domain of one's freedom of religion. If we allow Government to define marriage today, then tomorrow they will surely attempt to define God.

I am as vehemently opposed to government defining marriage as heterosexual, as I am opposed to government defining marriage as inclusive of homosexuals. The entire concept of GOVERNMENT defining what is essentially a religious doctrine is repugnant, no matter WHAT definition they choose.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not sure if you missed the entirety of what I was saying so I'll repeat the only important part.

So here's the short of it. The only way Ron Paul would support gay marriage is if it was passed through a referendum or (possibly) through the state legislature.

Based on everything Ron Paul has said or done on the issue it is irresponsible to suggest that he supports gay marriage. Now, maybe he would vote for it if it was on a ballot initiative or if he was a state legislator but he has not said that. Also note that I've been very careful nott to say he opposed gay marriage. He clearly opposes congress, the federal judiciary or the state judiciary authorizing gay marriage.

Now here's the political rub. Ron Paul made a definite appeal to Christian conservative voters. He had slim jims tailored to fit them. But some seem so anxious to force fit Ron Paul into their own mold of what they think a liberty candidate "should" be that they needlessly alienate such voters. Saying "Ron Paul supports gay marriage" (when there's no evidence that he does) is needlessly counterproductive. And before you misunderstand me further, realize I'm not saying you said Ron Paul supports gay marriage. I agree with most of your post in fact I actually said most of that already.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Which is probably why the post was phrased as a clarification rather than a disagreement. :)

[erowe1]

ventura is pro-draft, pro-war tax.

I actually don't mind the idea of an explicit war tax. We have to understand that everything the goverment spends comes from some kind of tax. When they increase spending by adding some new item to the budget, whether that's a war or anything else, they automatically increase taxes. And if those tax increases aren't done explicitly, then they take the form of deficit spending funded by an inflation tax. When we're at war I think it should be funded by an explicit tax, not just a hidden inflation tax, and that every income tax payer should see the line on their 1040 that says what they're paying for the war and that they wouldn't be paying if we weren't at war. Don't get me wrong, the war tax would still be evil, but it would be an evil that is already forced on us by the war spending. The only way not to have a war tax is not to go to war.

The draft is different. Even when we are at war, while we can't do it without a war tax of some form, we can do it without a draft. And even if the war itself is wrong, adding a draft on top of that would only be adding more wrong.

[jmdrake]

Which is probably why the post was phrased as a clarification rather than a disagreement. :)

Ok. Well thanks for the further clarification. :)

[jmdrake]

I actually don't mind the idea of an explicit war tax. We have to understand that everything the goverment spends comes from some kind of tax. When they increase spending by adding some new item to the budget, whether that's a war or anything else, they automatically increase taxes. And if those tax increases aren't done explicitly, then they take the form of deficit spending funded by an inflation tax. When we're at war I think it should be funded by an explicit tax, not just a hidden inflation tax, and that every income tax payer should see the line on their 1040 that says what they're paying for the war and that they wouldn't be paying if we weren't at war. Don't get me wrong, the war tax would still be evil, but it would be an evil that is already forced on us by the war spending. The only way not to have a war tax is not to go to war.

The draft is different. Even when we are at war, while we can't do it without a war tax of some form, we can do it without a draft. And even if the war itself is wrong, adding a draft on top of that would only be adding more wrong.

My view on the war tax is this. If you have the votes to pass the war tax you have the votes to defund the stinking war in the first place. Maybe if a "war tax" was put in place during a time of peace such that any approval of deployments of troops into hostile action required a war tax that might help. But then again we're in this mess because congress has shown it's willingness to go along with deployments that aren't proper declarations of war.

The case that needs to be made, in my opinion, isn't that this war isn't "properly paid for" but that it's unnecessary and unwinnable.

[__27__]

I'm not sure if you missed the entirety of what I was saying so I'll repeat the only important part.

So here's the short of it. The only way Ron Paul would support gay marriage is if it was passed through a referendum or (possibly) through the state legislature.

Based on everything Ron Paul has said or done on the issue it is irresponsible to suggest that he supports gay marriage. Now, maybe he would vote for it if it was on a ballot initiative or if he was a state legislator but he has not said that. Also note that I've been very careful nott to say he opposed gay marriage. He clearly opposes congress, the federal judiciary or the state judiciary authorizing gay marriage.

Now here's the political rub. Ron Paul made a definite appeal to Christian conservative voters. He had slim jims tailored to fit them. But some seem so anxious to force fit Ron Paul into their own mold of what they think a liberty candidate "should" be that they needlessly alienate such voters. Saying "Ron Paul supports gay marriage" (when there's no evidence that he does) is needlessly counterproductive. And before you misunderstand me further, realize I'm not saying you said Ron Paul supports gay marriage. I agree with most of your post in fact I actually said most of that already.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Opposing gay marriage (the act, not speaking legally) would be in complete contrast to everything Ron has ever said. The same could be said about where you stated he was "Pro-Life", he has said (and it is in line with his views) that he does not believe in abortion, however he does NOT think it is a federal issue, either allowing it or forbidding it. But on a personal view level, which is what I was speaking to, I have a near impossible time believing Ron would want to impose his vision of marriage on anyone, and force gay couples to not enter a contract.

This is how liberty candidates can be contorted for slanderous purposes, because for instance as we both agree Ron would not want the Federal Government to sanction gay marriage for the sole reason that he believes it's a states rights issue, however it is often painted as him being against gay marriage period when that simply isn't true.

[jmdrake]

Opposing gay marriage (the act, not speaking legally) would be in complete contrast to everything Ron has ever said. The same could be said about where you stated he was "Pro-Life", he has said (and it is in line with his views) that he does not believe in abortion, however he does NOT think it is a federal issue, either allowing it or forbidding it. But on a personal view level, which is what I was speaking to, I have a near impossible time believing Ron would want to impose his vision of marriage on anyone, and force gay couples to not enter a contract.

This is how liberty candidates can be contorted for slanderous purposes, because for instance as we both agree Ron would not want the Federal Government to sanction gay marriage for the sole reason that he believes it's a states rights issue, however it is often painted as him being against gay marriage period when that simply isn't true.

:rolleyes:

Just because someone supports a gay couples right to enter into a contract does NOT mean that person supports gay marriage! Gay people can enter into contracts IN EVERY STATE IN THE UNION! Marriage is different because it involves people who are not party to the contract! You'd be hard pressed to find ANYBODY who thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to enter private contracts that don't require marriage. Such contracts include living wills, powers of attorney, inheritance etc. But those are all truly private contracts. Gays rights to define themselves do not extend to a right to force everybody else to recognize that definition.

Really it's sad that some people are so insecure that they feel the need to force Ron Paul's views to fit their own. When Ron Paul made it publicly clear that he's not a "truther" I was willing to accept that. Those who support gay marriage need to be mature enough to realize he doesn't support that position either.

Finally you mentioned Ron Paul's pro life stance. Do you realize that he voted for the late term abortion bill? That is a federal law that bars certain abortions. Sure he lamented that this wasn't the best tactic, but considering that he felt there was no other way to stop late term abortions he voted for that. By contrast there is no evidence of any vote by Ron Paul that supports gay marriage. No hint that he would ever vote for such a thing even if he was in the state legislature. There's never been any statement by Ron Paul in support of any ballot referendum in support of gay marriage. All you have is that he supports gays having private contracts (which I support), his general support for "liberty" and your personal interpretation of what that means.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[__27__]

:rolleyes:

Just because someone supports a gay couples right to enter into a contract does NOT mean that person supports gay marriage! Gay people can enter into contracts IN EVERY STATE IN THE UNION! Marriage is different because it involves people who are not party to the contract! You'd be hard pressed to find ANYBODY who thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to enter private contracts that don't require marriage. Such contracts include living wills, powers of attorney, inheritance etc. But those are all truly private contracts. Gays rights to define themselves do not extend to a right to force everybody else to recognize that definition.

Really it's sad that some people are so insecure that they feel the need to force Ron Paul's views to fit their own. When Ron Paul made it publicly clear that he's not a "truther" I was willing to accept that. Those who support gay marriage need to be mature enough to realize he doesn't support that position either.

Finally you mentioned Ron Paul's pro life stance. Do you realize that he voted for the late term abortion bill? That is a federal law that bars certain abortions. Sure he lamented that this wasn't the best tactic, but considering that he felt there was no other way to stop late term abortions he voted for that. By contrast there is no evidence of any vote by Ron Paul that supports gay marriage. No hint that he would ever vote for such a thing even if he was in the state legislature. There's never been any statement by Ron Paul in support of any ballot referendum in support of gay marriage. All you have is that he supports gays having private contracts (which I support), his general support for "liberty" and your personal interpretation of what that means.

Regards,

John M. Drake

:rolleyes:

"Marriage is for straights" advocates need to get over their insecurity over a word. I'm so sick of anti-gay bigots trying to bend Dr. Paul's views to fit their own.

As for abortions, Dr. Paul has stated that he is for the overturning of Roe v. Wade but NOT for any constitutional, legislative or case law replacement that would BAN abortion on a federal level. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If not wanting to federally recognize gay marriage means that Dr. Paul does not support gay marriage, then not wanting to federally ban abortion also means he does not support a pro-life platform.


And LOL @ "Gays rights to define themselves do not extend to a right to force everybody else to recognize that definition.", you truly are an insecure homophobe aren't you?

[GunnyFreedom]

:rolleyes:

"Marriage is for straights" advocates need to get over their insecurity over a word. I'm so sick of anti-gay bigots trying to bend Dr. Paul's views to fit their own.

As for abortions, Dr. Paul has stated that he is for the overturning of Roe v. Wade but NOT for any constitutional, legislative or case law replacement that would BAN abortion on a federal level. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If not wanting to federally recognize gay marriage means that Dr. Paul does not support gay marriage, then not wanting to federally ban abortion also means he does not support a pro-life platform.


And LOL @ "Gays rights to define themselves do not extend to a right to force everybody else to recognize that definition.", you truly are an insecure homophobe aren't you?

Non-sequitur. If I define myself as a "three eyed Venusian Slothbard" and someone rejects my self-definition, does that mean that they hate thirty-something white male former Marines?

It is not up to me, or to the State to define marriage. The definition of marriage, for most people, stems from their religious beliefs. If their particular church defines marriage as an eternal religious compact between a man and a woman wherein two bodies become one flesh, then they will not recognize homosexual marriage no matter what you, the state, or the Methodist church tells them.

There are plenty of churches now that will recognize gay marriage. Get married in one of them and be happy. But don't expect a Southern Baptist to recognize you as being married.

And recognizing that something is a sin is not the same thing as hating a collective group. I can recognize that fornication is a sin, but I don't hate fornicators. I can recognize that the entertainment of lust is a sin, but I don't hate people who look at women and fantasize internally. That's just stupid.

I think it's you, who want to force people to accept your redefinition of terms against their will, who is using an interventionist philosophy opposed to liberty. Why not just let people be free to believe whatever the hell they want to about heterosexual or homosexual couples? Why do you have to dictate, force, and pressure people to believe the way you do, and failing that, insult them?

I am pretty safe in being willing to bet that your name is not Merriam-Webster, and therefore you are not the end-all be-all when it comes to the definition of terms. What's more, it's not even Merriam-Webster that most of us rely on for our definition of the word "marriage," it's our church, and I daresay that your...obsessive...concern over jmdrake's personal definition of this word reveals a lot more insecurity in you than it does him.

Why not just let jmdrake define the word "marriage" however he likes, and you can define the word "marriage" however you like, and the both of you can find whatever church or lack of church that appeals to the way you choose to define words? Are you really going to be that outraged/uncomfortable just because another human refuses to conform to your strict will for their life?

[SimpleName]

There was a time when I dreamed about a Paul / Ventura ticket. Now I realize that Ventura is far too ignorant on economics, and too much of an ego-maniac.

Recently when JV was on Alex Jones a caller called in and said something along the lines of "Jesse, i really hope you and Ron Paul run in 2012, Ron Paul as president and you as VP..." Jesse cut him off and said "Why do i have to take second place?" in a frustrated manner. (not exact quotes)

No thanks Jesse, this isn't about you.

I had the same falling out with the prospect of Ventura for Pres/VP. He seemed like what we needed at first. A tough guy who can rally people behind what he is supporting. But after reading what a few of our members from MN have said and then his dramatic draft and war tax claims on Larry King, I can no longer get behind this guy. I realize now that he is just as you said, an "ego-maniac." He won't restrain himself and he'll do whatever possible to prove his point. Meatheads in office...not cool. So I take back all my support for the guy. I still like listening to him and will watch his new show, but that is all. I'd rather him stay a pure media personality.

[SimpleName]

Duplicate. Please delete

[jmdrake]

:rolleyes:

"Marriage is for straights" advocates need to get over their insecurity over a word. I'm so sick of anti-gay bigots trying to bend Dr. Paul's views to fit their own.

As for abortions, Dr. Paul has stated that he is for the overturning of Roe v. Wade but NOT for any constitutional, legislative or case law replacement that would BAN abortion on a federal level. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If not wanting to federally recognize gay marriage means that Dr. Paul does not support gay marriage, then not wanting to federally ban abortion also means he does not support a pro-life platform.


And LOL @ "Gays rights to define themselves do not extend to a right to force everybody else to recognize that definition.", you truly are an insecure homophobe aren't you?

:rolleyes: There is nothing more retarded than for people like you to call others "phobes" because they don't agree with you. I'm not a "beastophobe" but I wouldn't recognize marriage between people and animals. I'm not a "polyphobe" but I don't recognize marriage between multiple people. Are you so insecure that you need other people to validate what you and/or others want to do?

Also you simply are ignorant of Ron Paul's action on abortion. He voted for the partial birth abortion law. While that was not his preference, at the end of the day he still voted for it! http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html So you are simply wrong. He voted to ban an abortion procedure at the federal level! He didn't want to, but he still did. Please educate yourself about Ron Paul's actual votes before you go around name calling his supporters that don't fall in line with your personal beliefs.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[__27__]

Non-sequitur. If I define myself as a "three eyed Venusian Slothbard" and someone rejects my self-definition, does that mean that they hate thirty-something white male former Marines?

It is not up to me, or to the State to define marriage. The definition of marriage, for most people, stems from their religious beliefs. If their particular church defines marriage as an eternal religious compact between a man and a woman wherein two bodies become one flesh, then they will not recognize homosexual marriage no matter what you, the state, or the Methodist church tells them.

There are plenty of churches now that will recognize gay marriage. Get married in one of them and be happy. But don't expect a Southern Baptist to recognize you as being married.

And recognizing that something is a sin is not the same thing as hating a collective group. I can recognize that fornication is a sin, but I don't hate fornicators. I can recognize that the entertainment of lust is a sin, but I don't hate people who look at women and fantasize internally. That's just stupid.

I think it's you, who want to force people to accept your redefinition of terms against their will, who is using an interventionist philosophy opposed to liberty. Why not just let people be free to believe whatever the hell they want to about heterosexual or homosexual couples? Why do you have to dictate, force, and pressure people to believe the way you do, and failing that, insult them?

I am pretty safe in being willing to bet that your name is not Merriam-Webster, and therefore you are not the end-all be-all when it comes to the definition of terms. What's more, it's not even Merriam-Webster that most of us rely on for our definition of the word "marriage," it's our church, and I daresay that your...obsessive...concern over jmdrake's personal definition of this word reveals a lot more insecurity in you than it does him.

Why not just let jmdrake define the word "marriage" however he likes, and you can define the word "marriage" however you like, and the both of you can find whatever church or lack of church that appeals to the way you choose to define words? Are you really going to be that outraged/uncomfortable just because another human refuses to conform to your strict will for their life?

HE can define marriage any way he damn well pleases, that's quite the point. But please feel free to fill my mouth full of words I never spoke. Continuing to use government force to impose YOUR version of marriage on people is the 'liberty minded' approach to you? I've quite clearly said that Ron's, as well as my, view is that government should have NO BUSINESS in marriage whatsoever.

The government is not your church, if you wish to keep marriage in the government arena then it must be applied equally to all citizens, not just those YOUR church defines or YOUR view defines as 'eligible'.

And don't give me the argument of "A gay person is equally free to marry, so long as he/she marries a person of the opposite sex". It would be the exact same as defining religion by government as one religion, say Islam, and then telling people "you are free to worship any way you choose, so long as you choose to worship allah".

If you wish to remove marriage from government completely, then we are in agreement.

[__27__]

:rolleyes: There is nothing more retarded than for people like you to call others "phobes" because they don't agree with you. I'm not a "beastophobe" but I wouldn't recognize marriage between people and animals. I'm not a "polyphobe" but I don't recognize marriage between multiple people. Are you so insecure that you need other people to validate what you and/or others want to do?

:rolleyes:

There is nothing more retarded than for people like you to call other people 'retarded'.

There's nothing for you to 'recognize', it's none of your damn business. What two people want to call their relationship is of no consequence to you, nor are they required to clear it with you.

The same to you as to Gunny, if you want to keep using government force to impose YOUR vision or YOUR churches vision of marriage on others, you really think that approach is the liberty friendly approach?

If you want government out of marriage completely, thus you have nothing to recognize, then we have agreed from the beginning.

[jmdrake]

:rolleyes:

There is nothing more retarded than for people like you to call other people 'retarded'.


You started with the name calling. :rolleyes:



There's nothing for you to 'recognize', it's none of your damn business. What two people want to call their relationship is of no consequence to you, nor are they required to clear it with you.


I already said I don't care what two people call their relationship. Anybody can call themselves whatever they want to call themselves based on the 1st amendment. Do you simply want to give gays the right they already have in every state? Any two people can sign some (truly) private contracts and run around calling themselves "married" even if nobody else recognizes them as such.



The same to you as to Gunny, if you want to keep using government force to impose YOUR vision or YOUR churches vision of marriage on others, you really think that approach is the liberty friendly approach?


Did you even read what Gunny wrote?

It is not up to me, or to the State to define marriage.

What part of "or to the State" do you not understand?



If you want government out of marriage completely, thus you have nothing to recognize, then we have agreed from the beginning.

In 2009 when, for the most part, states don't enforce adultery laws and sodomy laws were overturned by the supreme court the only effects of marriage are on benefits granted by the government and private entities. I'm for reducing most government entitlements so that in itself would reduce the government footprint in marriage. The question then remains, can the government enforce some new definition of marriage on private entities? Again I give you the example of gays attempting to register for a "marriage seminar". Or religious institutions being stripped of their tax exempt status because they don't recognize gay marriage. Far fetched? Not hardly looking at the result of the Bob Jones university case. (Private university stripped of its tax exempt status for its ban on interracial marriage.) Maybe you disagree with the Bob Jones result, but it's still the law of the land.

Also I'm not a libertarian and I could care less if my views conform to what you think is a "liberty" position.

The bottom line is this. The same Ron Paul who voted to federally ban late term abortions voted to block federal judges from being able to impose gay marriage on states and said he'd vote to block state judges from being able to do the same. You may call that "support" but I think most sane gay marriage supporters would disagree.

Regards,

John M. Drake