quote:

You know I hate to agree with you period, but this is much worse. Spare the pity party though, I would still vote for Ron Paul above any candidate they would put forth. It's not that he's a tower of virtue, I just think he's quite a bit less nasty than most of the choices we sheeple get.

quote:

sanctity of life act

quote:

I strongly disagree with RP on kicking social issues back to the states in general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

I strongly disagree with RP on kicking social issues back to the states in general.

Curious as to why you think it's a bad idea?

quote:

What would happen to gays in Texas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

What would happen to gays in Texas?

Yeah I'm not too fond of some of the remarks he made about marriage being One Man/One Woman. I think though he could be reached because of his Libertarian background as to why it should be liberty to all. I think if he pushes that back to the states, wouldn't that potentially be a plus in many other states?

Could you not conceivably see many states falling in line if enough were on board? How about a flood to a particular state because of ruling for it? Man what a draw for a state that allowed it, right? I don't really think you guys are thinking it through.

What's happening to gays in Texas now? Oh that's right, it's banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state#State-by-state_listing

quote:

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown
of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the
fundamental, unchanging truths that have been
ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be
presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to
include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant
special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin),
custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil
penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority
granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

quote:

And you think it would be a good idea to let the states decide social issues?

quote:

So not only do they not want to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere they want to make gay sex a crime, not allow homosexuals to care for their children and decriminalize gay bashing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

So not only do they not want to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere they want to make gay sex a crime, not allow homosexuals to care for their children and decriminalize gay bashing.

The problem here is, he's not your typical Republican and has all but been ostracized by them. I think with his much more open mind he'll approach problems with rational head. I also think that he'll listen to the people and if the majority of them want something passed, I believe there's a better chance that it'll happen with someone like him than any other member of either side.

quote:

So he's been ostracised by the Republicans for having an open mind, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

So not only do they not want to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere they want to make gay sex a crime, not allow homosexuals to care for their children and decriminalize gay bashing.

The problem here is, he's not your typical Republican and has all but been ostracized by them. I think with his much more open mind he'll approach problems with rational head. I also think that he'll listen to the people and if the majority of them want something passed, I believe there's a better chance that it'll happen with someone like him than any other member of either side.

Is he the perfect candidate, absolutely not but I think he is better than what's offered in the rest.

You vote your way and I'll vote mine. Just think it out clearly. I don't hold out much hope for that....but there is a spark.

quote:

Your confusion seems to be getting worse.

quote:

What I'm saying is that in Texas the GOP is in complete control of the government and the above is their stated desire in regards to treatment of homosexuals. Which is a direct argument against your support of RP's desire to devolve decisions on social issues to the states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Perry will have a hard time getting votes nationally because most people, not raving lunatic cons, do not think highly of people whose indifference to their responsibilities resulted in the death of an innocent man.

quote:

It's too bad he is so weak on defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

Your confusion seems to be getting worse.

It's not mine you should be worried about, yours is clouding your judgement.

quote:

What I'm saying is that in Texas the GOP is in complete control of the government and the above is their stated desire in regards to treatment of homosexuals. Which is a direct argument against your support of RP's desire to devolve decisions on social issues to the states.

What you seem to be confused about is the States right to make a decision on what happens in it. I'm not sure if things go the way, maybe, you'd like to see them go, that you'll get Texas, anytime soon, changing it's mind. Regardless of which way you vote. Do you really think the Feds will step in and make it mandatory? Whether you think it would be a good thing or not..should they? Following the rule of Law I say no despite my feeling that the law should be changed..just not at all cost. Feds don't need their noses in our lives every minute of the day.

So part of my point was, you'll at least have a guy who, whether he believes in it on a personal level or not, will be more apt to follow the letter of the law constitutionally in situations like this. He may choose to pass it onto the States. He may not.
This is nothing more than a straw-man approach. You argue as if him passing more power to the states is going to change something. They are already doing what they want to a great degree.

Do you have anything else you don't like about his policy or is this it?