The moneybomb is today! Give anything you can.

I have just finished giving the maximum of my legal limit to this man: $2500. I have not donated this money lightly.

I have given it because I'm tired of the government passing things like NDAA (indefinite detention of US citizens without trial) and the PATRIOT Act (warrantless wiretapping, etc).
I have given it because I am tired of my government saying one thing and then doing another.
I have given it because I am tired of endless wars that kill thousands of Americans and severely wound (missing legs, faces, arms) many thousands more.
I have given it because I feel that I can no longer criticize my government if I, myself, will not stand up for people who will take the government in the right direction.

Years from now, let it not be said that no one cared for liberty.

I believe that the people who support Ron Paul in this day will be looked back upon as we look upon the people who supported the great Civil Rights leaders of the 60s. Take your place in history on the side of liberty and freedom. Donate to the campaign:

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?dp=1&pid=dpmb

It sounds like rhetoric. Paul beats around the bush rather than directly declaring his support for LGBT rights and issues. He doesn't want to touch that territory at all, lest he lose supporters on either side of the spectrum; so he only makes ambiguous statements about it.

I'd jump on the campaign bandwagon if he would just come right out and say, "I support LGBT rights. I believe in same-sex marriage." Let me know if / when it comes to that. Until then...

He doesn't support group-based rights at all. As he's said many times, when you put people into groups, it causes trouble. Straight vs. gay, white vs. black, etc. When you separate groups of people, there's always going to be groups lobbying to gain more from the government.

Regardless of Paul's personal beliefs about marriage, he knows that it's none of his business what other people...other individuals, do with their lives so long as they harm no other individual. The concept of individual liberty is one that puts every single person on the most even playing field possible. There is no sex, color, or orientation in that. To me, that is not ambiguous. Rather, it's the most honest and straight-forward philosophy we have.

P.S. Welcome to the site!

I don't mind labels. I find them very apt. It's not like we're pigeon-holing ourselves into small groups and asking to be treated differently - socialization is just easier when you can identify people who belong to a certain creed or background. I love my heterosexual friends, but there's simply no way we can relate on certain issues. This society is very heteronormative, and it's uncomfortable for me at times. I can't relate to the heterosexual lifestyle anymore than my straight friends can related to mine. Sure there are commonalities, but they're really two different worlds. I have to retire to the company of LGBT sub-culture before everything stops making sense.

As far as the marital issue is concerned - we have to specify something more specific than, "Marriage is the union of two human adults." That would be lovely, if it weren't open to any kind of interpretation. I can just see same-sex couples tied-up in courts while judges try to arbitrate the issue of gender.

I'm not really sure I fully understand what you're proposing, though. You should clarify.

Welcome to the site.
I really don't know how to better simplify what Ixz said so just wait and he'll get back to you soon.

Basically, Ron Paul doesn't want to go out and support any particular group. He supports the choices and freedoms of individuals, no matter who or what they are. It's a view point I support myself. Who cares if they're black? Who cares if they're gay? The rights and freedoms afforded to us as individuals is more important than anything we want to group ourselves as.

The fact that Ixzion is talking about giving money to Ron Paul suggests to me that Ron Paul is someone who is very important to vote for.

Politicians don't typically go out and support any particular group that might cost them votes. Ron Paul is not the only one who refuses to touch base on LGBT rights issues. Even some Democratic politicians won't go near the subject. I think Paul's supporters are getting a little carried away in making it out to be some kind of noble philosophy. It's just political tactics.

And who do you support?

Let me try to think of it in another way by posing a question to you:

What disadvantages does the philosophy of individual rights have from your point of view?

I'm not in favor of "separate-but-equal" rights either, but I think you're stretching things just a bit. Don't you think he's sweeping the issue under the rug? Don't buy into political rhetoric. He needs to come out and say whether or not he believes in equal rights for LGBT people specifically; or is Paul one of those people who believes we already have "equal" access to marriage because we have the mere choice of marrying a person of the opposite sex?

Specifics, people. If Paul wants my vote, then he needs to appeal to the issues that are important to me personally. I'm not interested in hearing his supporters make excuses on his behalf.



No one at the moment. I consider myself a Libertarian, but not as fiscally as other Libertarians in the U.S. I think we have a problem when a population believes that regulating big business is more evil than human rights violations. I really wouldn't regard Paul as a Libertarian, for that matter. He is a Fiscal Conservative. I don't think he could care less about social issues.

Today was primary voting day in TX. Polls are open for another 30 minutes.

I just voted for the Doc. Feels good, man!

Good to hear.

We the People Rally Speech:



I've been silent on this thread a while, but the Republican National Committee has shown so many true colors they must have installed a new video card.

They have stripped the credentials of many fairly-elected delegates to the convention AND they, two days before the start of the convention, changed the threshold for putting one's name into nomination from 5 states to 8 states because Ron got the 5 he needed. They have cheated and changed their own rules every step of the way in Ron's campaign to become the Republican nominee. But because he did so well, it's out in the open. And we gotta keep going.

He could have more than any other and it still won't be enough.

Exactly. They just absolutely refused to have him the nominee because he would do what he said. He could have had 49 states and they would have said "oh, you have to have all 50 to win".

The fight for liberty doesn't end. It's a lifelong thing. I just thank Ron for curing my apathy and waking me up to what was going on.

There's this really bad taste in my mouth...