Oh my Lord, I nearly pissed myself laughing at this. In fact, I’m quite literally laughing as I type this.
Here in post 279 you’re arguing that you don’t find it at all strange that Paul would support the right of states to regulate sexual relations between consenting adults.
Yet in post 248, after I noted that you Paul specifically argued that Paul argued states had the right to regulate private sexual encounters you didn’t even bother hiding your derision for the idea that your hero would think that the government could sexual matters between consenting adults.
In post 248, to everyone with a functioning brain you make it clear that you find absurd the idea that Paul would ever declare states have the right to regulate people private sexual behavior.
However, once I provide proof that Paul does believer that states have the right to criminalize homosexuality, interracial sex etc. you promptly reverse course, support such state actions and pretend you’ve always believed that Paul would feel that it’s kosher for Texas to criminalize “gay sex”.
So, after declaring absurd the idea that Paul would argue that Texas has the right to ban gay sex, once you learn that Paul supports the right of Texas to do so, you promptly insist that you’ve always believed Paul would do so.
I’m reminded of scenes from 1984 or anecdotes from the Soviet Union where after the government announced new versions of historical events, people pretended they’d always believed them.
You’ve offered us keen insight into the minds of the Paul defenders and the Paul apologists.
Let me explain it one more time and hopefully you can understand it, instead of twisting my words to fit your agenda.
Ron Paul believes in states rights. That means he believes a state has the right to regulate whatever it wants, in this example it is sexual activity. It does not mean he supports a piece of legislation that criminalizes gay sex.
I do not think, nor have you shown me, that he has ever publicly stated he would be in favor of such legislation. He would, however, most likely be in favor of legislation that would allow the state to come up with it’s own law. There is a massive difference.
This is not rocket science. If this doesn’t make sense to you then I apologize. But, you can shove that condescending tone up your ass.
You would know if you read the newsletters. You’re wrong about September 11th, but I don’t feel like arguing about it with you. Paul is a big believer in Trilateral Commission conspiracies, and he’s talked about them some - so you can’t say it’s just the newsletter. He’s also said there’s a conspiracy trying to create a single North American currency. I haven’t checked his 2012 website, but this nonsense about the “Amero” was on his 2008 campaign site.
And this is in direct opposition to my belief that there are some things that nobody, state or federal, has any business regulating or limiting. Sexual activity is one. The right of equal accommodation in hotels and restaurants, the right to buy or rent housing wherever you want. “States’ rights” has become a convenient skirt for Paul and his cult to hide behind.
How do you know Ron was aware of what’s on his campaign websites? Where’s your proof? And if that’s the best the MSM can dig up on Ron Paul, well so what and hmmph.
Ron Paul wants to repeal as much as he can of the economic and environmental legislation of the twentieth century.
During a time when the status quo does not seem to be working, and does not seem to have been working for awhile - let us remember that under Bill Clinton it worked fine - there is much appeal in advocating fundamental changes. Nevertheless, reductions in taxes and government spending have not been followed by increases in employment and economic growth since reliable statistics have been compiled.
Ron Paul is a reactionary whose policies will almost certainly increase the economic hardship of the clear majority of Americans.