[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

I'm sorry, but as a member of a minority group, I simply don't feel comfortable voting for someone who fraternizes with former KKK leaders, and denounces the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as being unconstitutional.

I'm not sure when or where he supposedly fraternized with former KKK leaders (nor do I see its relevance, since he himself is about as anti-racist as you can get). Him voting against the Civil Rights Act, stems from his opposition to collectivism, which he views as the root of racism. He opposed the Civil Rights Act because he didn't agree with the idea of forced integration, which it promotes. But, as he explains, this opposition is motivated by his belief that "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty". This is of course consistent with his view that racism is a part of collectivism, and that the only true way to oppose it is to recognize peoples' liberties as stemming from each of them as an individual, not from their membership in any particular racially-defined group.

However, even if he opposed it then, he has no intention on repealing it now (and I doubt he could even if he wanted to), so it is a "moot point".

Not to mention his kooky views on returning to the gold standard, abolishing all gun control, etc...

There's nothing "kooky" about having honest money, or giving people their constitutional "right to bear arms", since gun control laws really only effect adversely the people who abide by them. It doesn't stop criminals from getting and using guns, it just stops law-abiding citizens from having them to defend themselves with.

As far as chances of winning...I think its pretty clear now who's going to get the GOP's nomination. And as far as I know, he has virtually ruled out running as an independent, so the point is moot.

As moot as the point may be, it's still true.

[MaleFashionista]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

from what you've written it seems that the only thing you know about Ron Paul and conservatism is that - you hate conservatism and everyone that is conservative.

The least you could do is have something substantial to back it up.

Contemporary American conservatism does not advocate returning to a gold standard and allowing private institutions to issue their own currencies. Nor does it necessarily support abolishing all gun control measures...including restrictions assault weapons and concealed weapon laws. Nor does it necessarily mean supporting an all out ban on embryonic stem cell research...Ron Paul is more of a hodgepodge of Libertarian ideas and hardcore right wing conservatism than anything else.

If anything, I tend to lean right on everything except a handful of social issues...and I hardly believe that rejecting Ron Paul & some of his kookier stances is tantamount to a wholesale rejection of conservatism.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

Contemporary American conservatism does not advocate returning to a gold standard and allowing private institutions to issue their own currencies. Nor does it necessarily support abolishing all gun control measures...including restrictions assault weapons and concealed weapon laws. Nor does it necessarily mean supporting an all out ban on embryonic stem cell research...Ron Paul is more of a hodgepodge of Libertarian ideas and hardcore right wing conservatism than anything else.

If anything, I tend to lean right on everything except a handful of social issues...and I hardly believe that rejecting Ron Paul & some of his kookier stances is tantamount to a wholesale rejection of conservatism.

The "assault weapons ban" that you're referring to Ron Paul repealing is a ban on assault-style weapons. It bans the semi-automatic variants of military rifles, which is pointless - they're functionally the same as a normal hunting rifle.

Real "assault weapons" have been restricted since 1968.

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

There's nothing "kooky" about having honest money, or giving people their constitutional "right to bear arms", since gun control laws really only effect adversely the people who abide by them

Agreed on all counts.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Obama leads Clinton by only 2 delegates

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Three days after the voting ended, the race for Democratic delegates in Super Tuesday's contests was still too close to call. With nearly 1,600 delegates from Tuesday contests awarded, Sen. Barack Obama led by two delegates Friday night, with 91 delegates still to be awarded. Obama won 796 delegates in Tuesday's contests, to 794 for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to an analysis of voting results by The Associated Press.

In the Republican contest, Sen. John McCain had a commanding lead in the race for delegates.

Nearly a third of the outstanding delegates are from Colorado, a state where Obama won the popular vote. California, a state that Clinton carried, had 20 Democratic delegates still to be awarded. Neither state expected to have complete results before next week.

Obama won the popular vote in 13 states Tuesday, while Clinton won in eight states and American Samoa.

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton has 1,055 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Obama has 998.

A total of 2,025 delegates are need to secure the Democratic nomination.

Many delegates were outstanding because some states have been unable to provide all the votes in some congressional districts. The problems arose in states with counties that are split into multiple congressional districts.

The states have provided results in each county. But in some cases, they are still working to assign the votes in the appropriate congressional district.

Those votes are important because both parties award delegates based on statewide votes and on results in individual congressional districts. Democrats award them proportionally, meaning precise counts can be necessary, even when the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate.

In California, officials were still counting absentee ballots Friday. Officials had estimated that more than 1 million absentee ballots may have been submitted.

In Tuesday's Republican contests, McCain won 617 delegates to 205 for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who suspended his campaign on Thursday. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won 155 and Rep. Ron Paul won 10. There are still 36 Republican delegates to be awarded from Tuesday's contests.

In the overall race for the nomination, McCain leads with 719, to 198 for Huckabee and 14 for Paul. Romney's suspended campaign still has 298 delegates.

A total of 1,191 delegates are needed to secure the Republican nomination.

The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.

In some states, like Iowa and Nevada, local precinct caucuses are the first stage in the allocation process. The AP uses preferences expressed in those caucuses to project the number of national convention delegates each candidate will have when they are chosen at county, congressional district or state conventions.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The "assault weapons ban" that you're referring to Ron Paul repealing is a ban on assault-style weapons. It bans the semi-automatic variants of military rifles, which is pointless - they're functionally the same as a normal hunting rifle.

Real "assault weapons" have been restricted since 1968.



Agreed on all counts.

i think all gun control restrictions should be removed. in states where there are no gun control laws, crime went down. if everyone is carrying a gun, criminals are less likely to commit crimes out of fear of being shot at back.

take the store shooting here last week in the lane bryant store. if everyone was owing a gun, and those ladies had guns in thier purses, they could have shot back at that robber and everyone would have still been alive.

[MaleFashionista]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

I'm not sure when or where he supposedly fraternized with former KKK leaders (nor do I see its relevance, since he himself is about as anti-racist as you can get).

Apparently David Duke is one of his most vocal supporters...and Paul hasn't bothered distancing himself or his campaign from Duke and his ilk. In fact, he's even justified accepting campaign donations from leaders of white supremacist groups.

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

Him voting against the Civil Rights Act, stems from his opposition to collectivism, which he views as the root of racism. He opposed the Civil Rights Act because he didn't agree with the idea of forced integration, which it promotes. But, as he explains, this opposition is motivated by his belief that "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty". This is of course consistent with his view that racism is a part of collectivism, and that the only true way to oppose it is to recognize peoples' liberties as stemming from each of them as an individual, not from their membership in any particular racially-defined group.

Thank you...I've read his attempts at justifying/rationalizing his opinion.

However, I fail to see how the government was overstepping its bounds by mandating that publicly funded institutions be open to all Americans, regardless of race...or that voter registration requirements be applied equally.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that companies should be able to fire employees just because they decide to grow out a beard, or start wearing hejab? After all...its forced integration and collectivism that gives unjustly terminated people an avenue of appeal.

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

There's nothing "kooky" about having honest money, or giving people their constitutional "right to bear arms", since gun control laws really only effect adversely the people who abide by them. It doesn't stop criminals from getting and using guns, it just stops law-abiding citizens from having them to defend themselves with.

As far as the gold standard is concerned...its absolutely absurd to think that its even remotely applicable in this day and age. There quite literally isn't enough gold in the world to back the amount of US currency currently in circulation...and even if there was, the rate at which new gold is mined simply doesn't match the average rate of economic growth. You're basically tying down economic growth to a very fixed commodity...its ridiculous.

As far as your comments on gun control are concerned...where exactly do you draw the line? Do you support the legalization of drugs as well? How about getting rid of age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco purchases? What about prostitution? All of these things exist in society despite legal restrictions...so if we're to take the libertarian approach, then they should all be decriminalized.

That's the problem with extremist libertarian policy...it's almost a form of controlled anarchy.

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The "assault weapons ban" that you're referring to Ron Paul repealing is a ban on assault-style weapons. It bans the semi-automatic variants of military rifles, which is pointless - they're functionally the same as a normal hunting rifle.

Real "assault weapons" have been restricted since 1968.

Exclusive: Ron Paul Video Interviews | Newsweek.com

In theory, Ron Paul has no problem with "hobbyists" owning machine guns.

[ChotooMotoo]

Any hunter that needs an automatic or semi-automatic rifle is a big looser, whose kill will be totally inedible, and needs to spend more time on the firing range. Really semi-automatic and automatic rifles have only one purpose, to kill people. You don't hunt deer with them, unless you love eating bullets.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by nectar

You're right, and it's not just the muslims: Daily Herald | Some voters who aren't Christian feel left out

does anyone care at all about domestic issues? it affects us too. healthcare, the economy, etc. why does everyone only care about foreign policy issues? what about the high gas prices for example?

those nyc cabbies, most of whom who are muslim, must be hurting badly by those gas prices. does anyone care about that?

at least a democrat in office is better than a repug. which is why the only thing that matters is which democrat can beat the repug mccain in november. and i can tell you right now it sure aint hillary.

do you want to hear the words 'president mccain' and 'vice president hukabee'???

[MaleFashionista]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

does anyone care at all about domestic issues? it affects us too. healthcare, the economy, etc. why does everyone only care about foreign policy issues? what about the high gas prices for example?

those nyc cabbies, most of whom who are muslim, must be hurting badly by those gas prices. does anyone care about that?

Do you mind explaining to me how Barak Obama = low gas prices?

To be honest, out of the three major contenders, he's probably the last one I'd vote for.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

i have a freind, a pakistani ex u.s. navyman, who owns a mac 10, a glock 9, and a really loud and powerful magnum .45 calibre. that thing was amazing to shoot off down at the shooting ranges in indiana. so yes, plenty of people do collect guns, even tech 9's as a hobby.

and as for legalizing drugs, i think that medical marijauna should be decriminalized, if not legalized, such as how they have it in california. and it should be allowed to be sold as an herbal medicinal product. hey i drink green tea, for medical purposes, believe me, when those powerful anti-oxidants hit my head, i get high off of that.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

Any hunter that needs an automatic or semi-automatic rifle is a big looser, whose kill will be totally inedible, and needs to spend more time on the firing range. Really semi-automatic and automatic rifles have only one purpose, to kill people. You don't hunt deer with them, unless you love eating bullets.

rifle's are great for long range shot's, like climbing up the roof of your house when the army blows into town like an occupying force. a semi-automatic weapon means you still have to fire the trigger over and over again.

plus on a rifle you still have to load the long range bullet and clock it back.

a fully automatic weapon simply means one click firing. you click the trigger once and it continously fires off the gun.

gun's dont kill people, people kill people.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

Do you mind explaining to me how Barak Obama = low gas prices?

To be honest, out of the three major contenders, he's probably the last one I'd vote for.

even though he can beat mccain in november?

look it really doesnt matter how you and i vote really, because our state is going straight to the democratic side anyways. that all but garunteed.

but polls show that mccain can beat hillary in november, but obama can beat mccain in november. and a democrat in the white house is sure as hell alot better than another four years of a repug. a vote for mccain is a vote for bush.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

rifle's are great for long range shot's, like climbing up the roof of your house when the army blows into town like an occupying force. a semi-automatic weapon means you still have to fire the trigger over and over again.

plus on a rifle you still have to load the long range bullet and clock it back.

a fully automatic weapon simply means one click firing. you click the trigger once and it continously fires off the gun.

gun's dont kill people, people kill people.

So basically you are agreeing with me, automatic and semi-automatic rifles have one purpose, and that's to kill people. Which means the "we need them for hunting" excuse is a bunch of hooey, as anyone whose lived around hunters, or in a hunting culture would know.

The idea that you would need such a weapon in the US is pretty silly, unless you are starting your own cult, or are trying to set up your own soveirgn state in Idaho or something.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo