It's truly cool how Ron Paul lives by traditions and religions that are different than mine, but what is beautiful is how much he respects his liberty to do just so and knows it's wrong to take that from us! Power to the fucking people!
Government have you forgot we own you!? The fact this man has made it so far is a huge testament to greatness that lives in our country! Breath of fresh air! Let's show the world too! R.P. 2012!!!
The thing is 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' isn't dealing with sexual behavior in the military. It is simply about being openly gay in the military. Though I agree with Paul about many things, I'm not afraid to admit he is very wrong about others, such as calling 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is 'decent'.
@151user Just so you know, he changed his mind and was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." So give him credit for changing his position and voting to end the policy.
Pfft, tell that to the dumb over patriotic homophobe rednecks that sign up. They are the reason the gay ones live in fear. The rednecks would treat them like shit if they ever found out about the gay part, take their body armor away, not watch their back. Just like those Consciences Observers from a while back. Military policy can change all it wants, its the stupid assholes, that supposedly represent The people and our country (Bullshit), that make life hard for those that are not dumb.
The fact that he put homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same level, saying they should be treated equally (which is more than the rest of the candidates can say) shows that he doesn't think it matters if gays are in the military. he pretty clearly says that orientation shouldn't be an issue.
There is heterosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, and it is not being dealt with as it needs to be. Women in the military are harassed, abused and not respected too much of the time, and are afraid to take it to authorities for fear of losing their very hard-won positions. Let him take that question up front instead of this eternal gumming the same bone about gays.
@manthasagittarius1 Uhhh. I just got out of the military and about half my bosses (over a six year period) were women. No one had a problem with it, and no one questioned their authority (you wouldn't want to anyway). Back on the video's subject, I knew of a couple people that were gay and we served together with no problem. Good people are good people no matter their race, sex, or sexual orientation. There are a lot of really good people serving in our United States Military. Ron Paul 2012!
@dasrockness I'm not sure what the relevance of "uhhh" is at the start of your post, but since it is not actually "duhhh," I'll let it go. Your experience with female bosses in the military, as you report it, is encouraging, but there are undeniably too many documented cases of the other kind. Whether you're a gay man or a harassed woman, "Don't ask, don't tell" means "or you'll lose your job." That is a shameful abuse of the rights you put yourself on the line to defend.
@manthasagittarius1 Don't ask, don't tell has absolutely nothing to do with sexual harassment. Therefore, a harassed female worker could not be dethroned from her "hard-won" position by the likes of don't ask, don't tell. Don't worry your little heart though, the policy was repealed late last year. The military takes sexual harassment VERY seriously. Read UCMJ Article 93. No woman is in danger of losing her job for reporting anything. Same goes for the men.
@FMAiscool He actuallygave a full blown answer. but obviously you just want a yes or no. instead of a real concise explanation about individual rights and being treated as equals.
The reason why ron paul wont be president is because he sees government as it is today to be useless and overbearing and thinks current issues should be done away with instead of an overly complicated alteration because most issues are a waist of time to even consider.
@dilutedpants - he's for states choice on abortion laws. PERSONALLY he is pro life, but he has no desire to impose that on others. you have to admit he's a pretty genuine guy. I trust him more than anyone else personally.
For those who don't understand what he just said, I will summarize:
Sexuality, of ANY kind, should not be involved with the military. It's irrelevant and disruptive in itself, and therefore it shouldn't matter whether or not someone is gay. It simply shouldn't come up.
Regardless of your opinion on Don't Ask Don't Tell, this is a fact.
@therealcritic28 It is not reasonable to ask that the topic of sexuality not come up in the military. These men and women are living and working so closely together. Do you really think everyone's going to be absolutely asexual for the 1 year they're deployed abroad? A man won't even talk about how much he misses his wife? DADT is asking for the homosexuals to remain silent because heterosexuality is an assumption in our society. That's a fact. DADT is completely unfair.
You don't understand what I'm saying . . . I am NOT saying that people should "be asexual" during their service! You're right, that would be ridiculous. I'm saying that inappropriate sexual acts that disrupt the discipline of militarism have no place in the army. I am completely against DADT. People should be able to be open about their orientation and free from fear of prejudice. But as in ANY workplace, unacceptable lasciviousness should not be tolerated from anyone.
@therealcritic28 Okay, I may have misread the phrase you used "It (sex/sexuality/sexual orientation) simply just shouldn't come up", since I see not mentioning one's sexual orientation as an impossibility (which is what DADT advocates). I agree with your reply, but I disagree with Ron Paul/your interpretation of Ron Paul. The first thing he says is that the current policy (DADT) is fine. Ron Paul, we agree that gay/straight disruptive sex=bad BUT should gays come out in the military or not??
He says it is 'decent,' a rather weak lauding adjective; when combined with his later assertion that homosexuals should NOT be singled out in such situations, this leads me to believe that he simply agrees with the basic premise of DADT: to prevent disruptive sexual behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, but he clearly seems against unjust treatment of soldiers because of a reason as idiotic as their sexuality. He probably avoided being completely straightforward in order to maintain neutrality.
@therealcritic28 That is definitely not what he said. He said that the current policy (DADT) is fine. Under that policy, ANY "homosexual behavior" is considered disruptive. His "treat everyone equally" argument was a cop out. It's the same argument that anti-gay marriage advocates use when they say "everyone has the equal right to marry people of the opposite sex". That's a cop out and you know it. Ron Paul is a decent orator, so I won't fault you for being confused. He is not a good candidate.
@Greggor88 Now that you're done patronizing me: By saying that people shouldn't be discriminated against due to their orientation, he implies that he agrees with the DADT premise of disruptive sexual behavior being unacceptable BUT it should not single out gays. His response is certainly not a "cop out," it is a neutralized way of promoting justice. Your analogy doesn't correlate, because he doesn't patently twist words to imply that gays are unnatural, he clearly advocates /real/ equality.
@therealcritic28 I'm not sure you understand what DADT is. Read the wiki article. "The policy prohibited people who 'demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts' from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence 'would create an unacceptable risk...' " DADT literally prevented confirmed gay people from serving in the military. What about that do you and Ron Paul agree with? There's no mention of disruptive behavior. It's ANY behavior by homosexuals
I know. Mind, it is the /very basic/ premise of DADT that has merit: that sexual behavior is disruptive. I am against DADT because, obviously, the policy in its entirety is prejudiced and wrong. But if the homophobia were stripped away, it becomes a decent policy. Of course it would be an almost entirely different policy, and could no longer be referred to as Don't Ask Don't Tell, but there would still be a connection.
@therealcritic28 Okay, but if you neuter DADT in that way, then, like you said, it's a completely different law with a completely different goal and intent. So why bring up its validity in the first place? It seems like he's trying to inject an argument into a discussion where one didn't exist before. That's one of my major problems with Ron Paul. He's a fast talker, and he devolves every discussion into FREEDOM RIGHTS FREEDOM AMERICA CONSTITUTION FREEDOM VOTE RON PAUL 2012! Stick to the issues.
It's /almost/ completely different. Same very basic goal. He says he thinks it's 'decent', which is a pretty weak compliment, and then goes on to basically explain its flaws, however indirectly. As annoying as it is, politicians still have to remain kind of neutral while stating their opinions. He wants to be elected, so, they all do. At least he actually believes what he's saying. To you, he's a fast talker, but to me, he's more intelligent and honest than the rest.
@therealcritic28 You'll be interested to know, then, that sex in the military is not banned, nor is it considered disruptive (with restrictions due to rank). Up until DADT's repeal, homosexual sex was the exception to that rule. Tell me again what's "decent" about it.
@therealcritic28 People in the UK find sexual behavior in the military helpful. Because the same thing that makes people want to fuck, makes them want to fight. Even though it is technical against the law in the UK, it is an unenforced law.
@therealcritic28 what about the sexual act of talking about your wife or girlfriend back at home? should a homosexual be kicked out of service because he talked about his boyfriend because it makes his fellow soldiers "uncomfortable"? under DADT he can be. like it or not the people who you love (and love to have sex with) come up in conversation and shouldn't be a subject of censorship over the fear of losing your job
@therealcritic28 The point with Don't Ask Don't Tell, is that it only targets homosexuals. And therefore is discrimination. If all in the military had to keep their girlfriends/wives/boyfriends/husbands/lovers etc. a secret and not ever talk about sex or relationship or dates with others, not allowed to have photos or letters of them with them when they're abroad, then it'd be equal. But it only targets gay people.
He did. He proved why the question should be irrelevant, and gave his opinion without sounding like a prejudiced asshole. Which is more than the rest of them can claim to have done.
This is coming from a very liberal person, by the way.
@therealcritic28 Sooo....basically never expose your sexuality and act like you're not interested in either sex. Make sure "the Creator" doesn't find out of your homosexuality OR your heterosexuality, otherwise "you won't be treated the same way" lol
No, nothing needs to be hidden. But nothing needs to be flaunted, either. The military is not a dating site for any sexual orientation . . . Sexuality as in sexuality that would disrupt the purpose of the military is what should be avoided.
I don't think that they, or anyone else, do. I'm saying that the act of doing so in a way inappropriate to the job a member of the military has set out to perform is unacceptable regardless of their sexual orientation. It's relevant because the person asked what Paul's opinion was specifically about gays in the military, and his answer was honest, showing he doesn't think in terms of gay people specifically, he thinks of sexuality in general as not having a place in a soldier's job.
@therealcritic28 That's why it's called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And with that logic, I suppose Ron Paul is all for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell;" but instead he includes heterosexuality in the mix.
Except Don't Ask Don't Tell is a policy that causes people to be kicked out if they simply /know/ your sexuality. Knowing someone's sexuality doesn't make it disruptive, which is the unjust part of DADT. It's only disruptive if you know it because they're running around flirting with or screwing people--which would risk morale, order and such as detailed in the policy if people of /any/ sexual orientation were doing so.
Because it wasn't part of the question. I used that phrase. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining my take on this well.
He clearly says that "it doesn't matter if you're gay" and that individuals should be treated equally. That demonstrates his belief in justice and not throwing people out of the army because of their sexuality. Maybe he's personally uncomfortable about homosexuality, which I would not agree with or approve of, but at least he's not prejudiced, unjust and ignorant.
@therealcritic28 That's my point. He's switching his words to get the approval of both sides. And the question includes whether gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military. It was obviously a part of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He's most likely uncomfortable about homosexuality like you said, but wants higher approval ratings.
@FMAiscool If he just said yes then all the ignorant gay hating dipsticks would just boo him and get butt hurt.
that's why he says yes but in an eloquent and rational manner that people of intelligence could understand and left the ignorant bigots dumbfounded and confused.
@MrHexxor @OHMAHGAA If you've read my other comments, it sounds like he's saying "no." Sounds like he doesn't want to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but goes on to say (in defense) that he wants heterosexuals to not mention their sexuality either. Therefore, he uses the excuse of heterosexuals to cancel out anyone's expectations that he's a homophobic. There's no real intelligence to politics. Just tricks.
@FMAiscool He isn't saying no, if you listen to what he says he says people shouldn't be lumped into groups such as gays or straight or whatever that all humans are equal and should be treated as individuals. he's saying that if more people understood this then we wouldn't be dealing with this issue at all because there would be no issue to deal with. So, he was saying yes you're just one of the derps that didn't understand.
This video is old btw, he already voted to repeal it.
Did you follow anything? He said he's for DADT because Orientation is irrelevant, debates are for reasoning to their answers not just a straight up "yes" or "no" although they should put a note tab for clueless people like you
@FMAiscool Heterosexuals should be on equal footing as homosexuals and vice versa; that is all he is saying. You're also making a lot of assumptions about his homophobia, bro.
@therealcritic28 he has blatantly supported medieval ideas in the past, and some in the present. therefore, i can't trust him if he keeps changing his positions. besides, i'm pro-choice and believe in evolution, which apparently makes me an outcast :P
@FMAiscool Answers don't have to be spoon-fed to you to be there. He says the problem is disruptive behavior and he thinks THAT should be what's used to gauge whether someone is dealt with - NOT whatever group they fit into. Voters aren't in fifth-grade; they don't all need answers to be word-for-word straightforward to understand. Usually.
@derkmill funny, because my grandfather also served in Korea. Does that mean he should be President as well? I am offended by the fact he puts a grouping of WOMEN, GAYS, and MINORITIES. What about men? He seems relatively confused in regards to who he should be grouping grouping grouping. Just emphasizing the vast amount of times he utilized the word GROUPINGS. Inarticulate.
what a great answer. Clear, concise, and unequivocal. Try to get a straight answer like that from the doubletalkers presently vying for office (with the exception of Ron Paul).
ron paul is honestly the saviour of the republican party. i don't agree with all of his policies but at least he gives a shit about human rights which sadly i can't say for the other republican candidates.
you know, I am primarily left..but I am also a lesbian. So usually voting for republicans is definitely out for me; however, I like how he answered this question. We should all be treated the same. If there is conduct that is destructive, whether homo or hetero, it should be dealt with. you don't single someone out. You treat everyone the same. He also said that when it comes to gay marriage, anything voluntary should be permitted.
@angelicanoelle47 But wait, he just said that he agrees with the policy that gay people can't say that they're gay when they're in the military. Being disruptive is a completely different issue.
@angelicanoelle47 We would all be treated the same IF homophobia didn't exist. Unfortunately, it does. Heterosexuals are privilaged in the military. They don't have to deal with the sexual discrimination that homosexuals do. Thus we need to protect this underprivileged group. To say "we should all just treat everyone the same..." is a nice idea, but it could only exist in a post-race, post-class, post-sex society.
His answer seems to contradict each other can someone fill me in?
He says it's a decent policy... Which shocks me. But whatever. Implying he would keep it and not let gays OPENLY (<-----Very Important) serve in the military unlike their heterosexual colleges who can openly talk about how much they love the opposite sex.... Than the second half of his answer which makes complete sense to me and makes me love Ron Paul, but the two don't correlate and a lot is left for questioning...
@sicsempertyrannis7 He just sounds like a huckster to me. What is the point of even bringing up "disruptive behavior"? Sounds a bit like the language in his newsletters. Of course he followed along in getting rid of the policy but lets not forget this guy doesn't believe in evolution, that he makes false claims about the founding fathers being Christian and claims that this is a Christian nation, should be so officially and should merely tolerate other religions. Comes across dishonest to me.
@GenghisCohen1 I know he doesn't believe in evolution. He is a Christian man that lives the typical "American Dream" family. I am agnostic and a man of science so naturally this rubs me the wrong way. But what is so amazing about Ron Paul is he understand that his lifestyle is his FREEDOM and does not wish to Crusade! All of the candidates and Obama are Christians yet Ron Paul I see as the most tolerant to other religion/tradition. This is why RP is known for his emphasis on civil liberties!
I don't know what to think of Ron Paul. I look at the man and I think he's very inoffensive. Then I look at his viewpoint on some of the 'issues' and...
He probably won't be nominated by the Republicans anyway, he's too out there. It's probably Romney who'll get the nomination. Or else one of the Ricks'll get it and Obama will have the election in the bag.
@Thecruel Why is that what a decent leader would do? That doesn't even make sense. No politician ever just says "yes" or "no". Even obama doesn't do that. Why? Because they realize that questions are often geared to back them into a corner and saying "yes" or "no" won't accurately convey what they intend. Don't be an idiot.
@andyivytownley I get what you're trying to say, but a leader also has to expand on why they are saying "yes" or "no". It can't just be one answer, there has to be an explanation.
@OHMAHGAA I'm confused? What are you talking about?
I already know this. He is a Libertarian and stands for equal rights, and follows the constitution. I'm not confused about anything.
I was saying that I never knew that such a smart human being would run for President, because ever since John F. Kennedy, Presidents have gradually gotten stupider.
@andyivytownley Obama isn't a good leader, so I don't know why you would consider him as an example. Leaders are decisive. These are the type of government officials we can rely on. Ron Paul not saying "yes" or "no" merely means the majority of people can't clearly understand him. And maybe you should actually read my comment before ironically calling someone an idiot. I said that "yes" or "no" should be followed by a justification and explanation.
@iheartmilfs its not on these issues. its mostly on the conservative economic policies he presents. a 10% flat tax would wildly benefit the rich (they hoard and send their money overseas.. Trickle down economics is republican bullshit to make the rich richer) and it would also destroy the poor and with 1 in 2 americans being low income thats not good.
Clear cut answer. Nicely done. He said in the very beginning that the current policy is a decent policy. He said he regards gays as individuals and doesnt see their sexuality as a reason to exclude them. Rather decide on their behaviour.
What about bissexuals, are they allowed in the military? What about heterosexual with homosexual tendencies? What about heterosexuals wanting to try something new? Dude if they didn't allowed people who sometimes practice homosexual behavior every country's navy would collapse like instantly.
@lifeistoodmshort Notice how he didn't say that... He was speaking about unprofessional conduct in the military. He very clearly states that regradless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, it's something that should be dealt with. That was his point. DODT is useless, because it's not your sexual orientation that matters, but your actions.
@ManeFuk Yea but in another interview he says he's against gay marriage then says something different later on in his campaign ..In my personal opinion the things he claims he's going to do if won election are simply outrageous. Legalizing Heroin,Crack Cocaine, Prostitution and every other drug known to man..plus letting Iran create nuclear bombs knowing that there whole religion is based on conquering whites which they call the devil in a big war which they are planning and eliminating freedom.
@lifeistoodmshort Legalization of drugs is not going to make everyone into "crack-fiends" almost all deaths from drugs come about BECAUSE of prohibition. Gangs kill each other over turf, Law enforcement and gangs kill each other because of the illegality of drugs, and many users die because they get different potency in their drugs, hence overdoses. Drugs are not the issue, they are no worse than alcohol, which is also a drug.
@lifeistoodmshort The idea around the "black market" of prostitution also results in the death of prostitutes and the jailing of customers, over the use of someone's own body. Christianity and almost ALL religions are based on the idea that they are right and all others should convert or die. Deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with "letting" Iran build a bomb, international pressure or UN sanctioned intervention will be the resolve, not illegal American invasion.
@USFISTER To justify an invasion of another nations sovereignty you must proceed through the UN security council, to which the United States is a member. The United States has signed documents stating you will adhere to the rules, including the bill on the use of force proposed by Woodrow Wilson post-WWI. Despite not having the go support of the council the United States endorsed, The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and violations of these treaties is illegal under international law.
@USFISTER The problem isn't with the service men and women of America, they are some of the bravest people in your country, but you politicians feel the need to invade countries that they once supported in attempt to secure monopolies. In attempt to force democracy, secure oil and territory they have broken the rules they drafted a century ago to prevent this occurance. Because America has the right to invade whoever the want whenever right? they just have that right despite what they preach?
@Waredwr What oil? Which decade have you been living in? The only thing that's happened to oil since these wars has been an increase in price. And what territory? Last I heard, American troops left Iraq. What rules from a century ago? Do you even know what you're talking about?
@USFISTER As per the treaty you created and signed. There was no formal declaration of war against Iraq, nor any country the US has sent military hardware too (including Yemen, Oman, Pakistan). Without a declaration of war you cannot set foot in a sovereign nations lands without breaking international laws. the century old treaty being the Geneva convention, specifically Protocol I. the statues cited are called "security council resolutions" all found in the UN codexes that the US signed.
@USFISTER Now after reading the two posts I have left for you, why don't you research some of the UN laws that govern your nation? or just because your the US your allowed to break any and all laws you wish, when you wish? To reiterate, Geneva conventions (specifically protocol I), and security council resolutions. I feel bad that your education systems focus so much on yourselves but ignore some of the good you've attempt to do the world, despite the fact you routinely ignore it.
@USFISTER You seriously have no idea what the United Nations Security council is or how it operates. It has no legal authority in the US? Are you kidding me? If you signed the treaty to bind all other nation it applies to you too. The United States, Britain, France and other allies signed it, which held rules including When and Why war may be declared. The United States almost created these laws solely. Quite simply, if the council's members do not say you can go to war, you can legally
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
So every human has it's rights but a woman shouldn't be able to decide what to do with her body, like getting an abortion? I love Ron Paul but I wish he could see that if he makes abortion illegal, it will only result in women getting rid of their fetuses in dangerous ways (inserting blunt objects, drinking it to death, throwing herself down stairs, etc). It's just like when they prohibited alcohol, though it's a different topic. It won't end anything.
@FrauStormm What? He's not going to make abortion illegal, he wants the government out of the affairs of people's personal lives, is that so hard to understand? Pay a little less attention to the mainstream media and do some reading for a change.
@FrauStormm No, Ron paul will not pass a federal bill to make abortions illegal, his whole view is the federal government is too big and controlling, and inefficient in welfare for the people (education, epa, fda, social security, ect) he would give the powers to the state to make the decisions, and you would choose what state to live in according to its laws/ way of life, it's how america was in the 1800, since then its been more fed, and our state have little to no say in the matter.
@inademv And what makes him a scumbag? His 55 years married to the same woman? His 5 years of service in the military during The Korean War? His 30 years of service to our country as a Congressman who votes for more freedom and less taxes EVERY time? Maybe you should check the facts before you make accusations.
@derkmill His vile discrimination from the top down in congress for people who don't agree with his religious convictions are what make him a scumbag. And no, he voted in favor of the Marriage Protection act which would have removed individual rights to sue the DOMA law.
@inademv Only because suing the DOMA law and removing it would ultimately lead to the federal government being forced to make a decision on the issue... and he knows that it will not go the way that gays would like it to.
@JoobyFoo DOMA WAS a decision on the issue. It redefined marriage and blocked same sex marriages at a federal level. Even now in states that have legalized same sex marriage, same sex couples cannot receive federal marriage rights because of DOMA.
@inademv It did not redefine marriage. It defined the term "marriage" as it was used in the words of the bill itself in order to avoid confusion. Have you ever written any legal documents? You have to do this in order to prevent loopholes. Footnote after footnote.
@JoobyFoo "Section 3. Definition of marriage In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
This is a change in the official meaning of the word in practice. redefinition
Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in denying rights to same-sex couples. I am very sure that Paul disagrees with Section 3, as he is a champion of liberty. Since it is a minute part of a large bill that is appropriate for him to believe in, he signed it. He is not perfect, but he is much closer to perfect than any other candidate today.
@JoobyFoo Even after I do tell you everything wrong, you'll still disagree with him, so why waste time explaining?
The best way for people to have a change in belief is to let them figure it out for themselves, I suggest beginning with researching to find anything truly productive (meaning, without repercussion) these agencies have done.
@inademv if this one thing keeps you from voting for him, moreso forces you to vote for someone else... your choice, but your priorities of determinants are seriously off.
worry about doma now, or let the country suffer economic downfall, worry about doma now, or let the country suffer economic downfall...
@JoobyFoo A functioning economy sprouts from a functioning society. This is the reason why social conservatives have nothing valuable to offer the political discourse imo.
@inademv Is it me or has gay marriage ever been legal? Gay marriage is not a determinant of a functioning society.
What is the point of allowing gay marriage when you will no longer have any economic gain from it due to the country going broke because of war mongering, money printing, politicians?
@JoobyFoo It isn't a state issue. Federal marriage rights apply to all married citizens and DOMA is discriminatory in this regard because, as I mentioned previously, it redefined marriage in a way that was of no direct or relevant interest to the state with respect to the rights and benefits being granted. Ron Paul and the entire Republican party's asinine discrimination in policy on that basis is vile because it is pointlessly divisive and harmful to society.
the main purpose of the military is to defend and protect america. it is not a place to start social drama. who the fuck cares if your gay. I don';t care, just don't be shoving who you are in my face. Like any sexual relationship keep it to yourself, both hetero and homo.
Way to completely sidestep the question. He conveniently declines to mention that rights are NOT equal for all groups (if a man tells his commanding officer he's heterosexual, does he get kicked out?), and then doesn't say what he would do, if anything, to change to current situation.
@tgdemon228 he was saying that if someone tells their commanding officer that they are heterosexual it should be treated the same way as saying that he is homosexual. Everyone has equal rights and don't get them from a certain group that society labeled them with...were you even listening???
"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." God's Word
so wait... was he in favor of ending Don't ask Don't tell? Cause on one hand he says that the current discrimination is ok and on the other he says every one should have the say rights either gay or str8. Can someone explain? BTW,i'd vote for ron paul if i were american.
When deployed/serving/on orders there is no sex allowed. So he is saying it doesn't matter who gays have sex with, no homo/hetero sexual relations allowed.
@PureEvilJester ok, i agree with you, but its ok to ask or to tell, right? i mean you can ask or tell without engaging sex. So then i'm wondering why he says the current law (at that time) was ok. Is he not libertarian and pro-freedom? I know he wouldn't bring back this law, he's cool, but i'm a bit disappointed that he didn't speak his mind then.
I'm a big Ron Paul fan - however, why can't he just answer the question straight? Say it straight - Gays should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. Peace.
@Gymbruden Han utgår från en princip och jag tycker svaret är klockrent - alla är individer och därför lika mycket värda och bör därför få vara med i militären. Att BARA svara "ja" eller "nej" skulle inte betyda nånting och skulle inte vara att svara på frågan. Men visst, det är ett känsligt ämne och många av hans potentiella väljare gillar inte, för att inte säga avskyr, homosexualitet. :)
@Gymbruden I think the reason he isn't saying it straight like that is because he knows a lot of republican voters at home won't want to hear it like that. They need a little sugar coating which he did wonderfully. RON PAUL 2012
im straight and im in the army, that said i could care less if someone im working with is gay. its their own buisness
scribbie145 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
go to my channel and check out my new Ron Paul video!!
see why this man should be president!
emetts2112 1 day ago
I CONCUR, RON PAUL. And, I would add, same for Boy Scouts: its not relevant, so don't bring it up.
PersonMan1234 1 day ago
It's truly cool how Ron Paul lives by traditions and religions that are different than mine, but what is beautiful is how much he respects his liberty to do just so and knows it's wrong to take that from us! Power to the fucking people!
Government have you forgot we own you!? The fact this man has made it so far is a huge testament to greatness that lives in our country! Breath of fresh air! Let's show the world too! R.P. 2012!!!
sicsempertyrannis7 1 day ago
The thing is 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' isn't dealing with sexual behavior in the military. It is simply about being openly gay in the military. Though I agree with Paul about many things, I'm not afraid to admit he is very wrong about others, such as calling 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is 'decent'.
151user 2 days ago
@151user Just so you know, he changed his mind and was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." So give him credit for changing his position and voting to end the policy.
benmeltzer 2 days ago
@benmeltzer changing his position? I dont think you understand what he was saying in this video.therealcritic28 sums it up pretty well
qualityrkc 2 days ago
Pfft, tell that to the dumb over patriotic homophobe rednecks that sign up. They are the reason the gay ones live in fear. The rednecks would treat them like shit if they ever found out about the gay part, take their body armor away, not watch their back. Just like those Consciences Observers from a while back. Military policy can change all it wants, its the stupid assholes, that supposedly represent The people and our country (Bullshit), that make life hard for those that are not dumb.
TheBriansDenn 2 days ago
Comment removed
cavenin 2 days ago
@paradisecamo
He did avoid the question. He didn't say, he wants fags in the military or not. He just danced around the question.
taledarkside 2 days ago
@taledarkside
The fact that he put homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same level, saying they should be treated equally (which is more than the rest of the candidates can say) shows that he doesn't think it matters if gays are in the military. he pretty clearly says that orientation shouldn't be an issue.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
There is heterosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, and it is not being dealt with as it needs to be. Women in the military are harassed, abused and not respected too much of the time, and are afraid to take it to authorities for fear of losing their very hard-won positions. Let him take that question up front instead of this eternal gumming the same bone about gays.
manthasagittarius1 3 days ago 8
@manthasagittarius1 Uhhh. I just got out of the military and about half my bosses (over a six year period) were women. No one had a problem with it, and no one questioned their authority (you wouldn't want to anyway). Back on the video's subject, I knew of a couple people that were gay and we served together with no problem. Good people are good people no matter their race, sex, or sexual orientation. There are a lot of really good people serving in our United States Military. Ron Paul 2012!
dasrockness 2 days ago
@dasrockness I'm not sure what the relevance of "uhhh" is at the start of your post, but since it is not actually "duhhh," I'll let it go. Your experience with female bosses in the military, as you report it, is encouraging, but there are undeniably too many documented cases of the other kind. Whether you're a gay man or a harassed woman, "Don't ask, don't tell" means "or you'll lose your job." That is a shameful abuse of the rights you put yourself on the line to defend.
manthasagittarius1 1 day ago
@manthasagittarius1 Don't ask, don't tell has absolutely nothing to do with sexual harassment. Therefore, a harassed female worker could not be dethroned from her "hard-won" position by the likes of don't ask, don't tell. Don't worry your little heart though, the policy was repealed late last year. The military takes sexual harassment VERY seriously. Read UCMJ Article 93. No woman is in danger of losing her job for reporting anything. Same goes for the men.
dasrockness 1 day ago
@FMAiscool He actuallygave a full blown answer. but obviously you just want a yes or no. instead of a real concise explanation about individual rights and being treated as equals.
xpreshun 3 days ago
Dear GOD, I want this man as my President.
Frodification 3 days ago
he is acctually rigth
MultiApansson 4 days ago
The reason why ron paul wont be president is because he sees government as it is today to be useless and overbearing and thinks current issues should be done away with instead of an overly complicated alteration because most issues are a waist of time to even consider.
goodinsrt8 4 days ago
Ron Paul is the only candidate running for president that actually answers the questions that are asked and gives a detailed, coherrent answer.
bigbullbk 4 days ago
Ron Paul is the best
porcolegio 4 days ago
Damn... I would love him if he just had a different stance on abortion... and schooling...
dilutedpants 4 days ago
@dilutedpants - he's for states choice on abortion laws. PERSONALLY he is pro life, but he has no desire to impose that on others. you have to admit he's a pretty genuine guy. I trust him more than anyone else personally.
NinaisAlive 4 days ago
@dilutedpants What has the fed done for schooling other than inflate tuition costs? The state handles it better... which is what he believes in.
JoobyFoo 2 days ago
A conservative candidate speaking with common sense?
My brain has just exploded.
redreaper2020 4 days ago
@redreaper2020 - Ron Paul is different than the rest :)
NinaisAlive 4 days ago
For those who don't understand what he just said, I will summarize:
Sexuality, of ANY kind, should not be involved with the military. It's irrelevant and disruptive in itself, and therefore it shouldn't matter whether or not someone is gay. It simply shouldn't come up.
Regardless of your opinion on Don't Ask Don't Tell, this is a fact.
therealcritic28 4 days ago 25
@therealcritic28 - Awesome post to clarify for people. props.
NinaisAlive 4 days ago
@NinaisAlive
Thank you. Apparently you're one of the few who actually understand my point. . .
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 It is not reasonable to ask that the topic of sexuality not come up in the military. These men and women are living and working so closely together. Do you really think everyone's going to be absolutely asexual for the 1 year they're deployed abroad? A man won't even talk about how much he misses his wife? DADT is asking for the homosexuals to remain silent because heterosexuality is an assumption in our society. That's a fact. DADT is completely unfair.
vdu51189 2 days ago
@vdu51189
You don't understand what I'm saying . . . I am NOT saying that people should "be asexual" during their service! You're right, that would be ridiculous. I'm saying that inappropriate sexual acts that disrupt the discipline of militarism have no place in the army. I am completely against DADT. People should be able to be open about their orientation and free from fear of prejudice. But as in ANY workplace, unacceptable lasciviousness should not be tolerated from anyone.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 Okay, I may have misread the phrase you used "It (sex/sexuality/sexual orientation) simply just shouldn't come up", since I see not mentioning one's sexual orientation as an impossibility (which is what DADT advocates). I agree with your reply, but I disagree with Ron Paul/your interpretation of Ron Paul. The first thing he says is that the current policy (DADT) is fine. Ron Paul, we agree that gay/straight disruptive sex=bad BUT should gays come out in the military or not??
vdu51189 2 days ago
@vdu51189
He says it is 'decent,' a rather weak lauding adjective; when combined with his later assertion that homosexuals should NOT be singled out in such situations, this leads me to believe that he simply agrees with the basic premise of DADT: to prevent disruptive sexual behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, but he clearly seems against unjust treatment of soldiers because of a reason as idiotic as their sexuality. He probably avoided being completely straightforward in order to maintain neutrality.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@vdu51189
or at least, a semblance of it. Not the bravest of moves, but I still respect him for being honest and just.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 That is definitely not what he said. He said that the current policy (DADT) is fine. Under that policy, ANY "homosexual behavior" is considered disruptive. His "treat everyone equally" argument was a cop out. It's the same argument that anti-gay marriage advocates use when they say "everyone has the equal right to marry people of the opposite sex". That's a cop out and you know it. Ron Paul is a decent orator, so I won't fault you for being confused. He is not a good candidate.
Greggor88 2 days ago
@Greggor88 Now that you're done patronizing me: By saying that people shouldn't be discriminated against due to their orientation, he implies that he agrees with the DADT premise of disruptive sexual behavior being unacceptable BUT it should not single out gays. His response is certainly not a "cop out," it is a neutralized way of promoting justice. Your analogy doesn't correlate, because he doesn't patently twist words to imply that gays are unnatural, he clearly advocates /real/ equality.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 I'm not sure you understand what DADT is. Read the wiki article. "The policy prohibited people who 'demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts' from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence 'would create an unacceptable risk...' " DADT literally prevented confirmed gay people from serving in the military. What about that do you and Ron Paul agree with? There's no mention of disruptive behavior. It's ANY behavior by homosexuals
Greggor88 2 days ago
@Greggor88
I know. Mind, it is the /very basic/ premise of DADT that has merit: that sexual behavior is disruptive. I am against DADT because, obviously, the policy in its entirety is prejudiced and wrong. But if the homophobia were stripped away, it becomes a decent policy. Of course it would be an almost entirely different policy, and could no longer be referred to as Don't Ask Don't Tell, but there would still be a connection.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 Okay, but if you neuter DADT in that way, then, like you said, it's a completely different law with a completely different goal and intent. So why bring up its validity in the first place? It seems like he's trying to inject an argument into a discussion where one didn't exist before. That's one of my major problems with Ron Paul. He's a fast talker, and he devolves every discussion into FREEDOM RIGHTS FREEDOM AMERICA CONSTITUTION FREEDOM VOTE RON PAUL 2012! Stick to the issues.
Greggor88 2 days ago
@Greggor88
It's /almost/ completely different. Same very basic goal. He says he thinks it's 'decent', which is a pretty weak compliment, and then goes on to basically explain its flaws, however indirectly. As annoying as it is, politicians still have to remain kind of neutral while stating their opinions. He wants to be elected, so, they all do. At least he actually believes what he's saying. To you, he's a fast talker, but to me, he's more intelligent and honest than the rest.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 You'll be interested to know, then, that sex in the military is not banned, nor is it considered disruptive (with restrictions due to rank). Up until DADT's repeal, homosexual sex was the exception to that rule. Tell me again what's "decent" about it.
Greggor88 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 People in the UK find sexual behavior in the military helpful. Because the same thing that makes people want to fuck, makes them want to fight. Even though it is technical against the law in the UK, it is an unenforced law.
151user 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 but doesnt "dont ask dont tell" also mean if it is found that you are gay that you are removed from the military?
Vermin298 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 what about the sexual act of talking about your wife or girlfriend back at home? should a homosexual be kicked out of service because he talked about his boyfriend because it makes his fellow soldiers "uncomfortable"? under DADT he can be. like it or not the people who you love (and love to have sex with) come up in conversation and shouldn't be a subject of censorship over the fear of losing your job
KaijinDV 15 hours ago
@therealcritic28 That is exactly what I have always been thinking..
spiderrmann1995 13 hours ago
@therealcritic28 The point with Don't Ask Don't Tell, is that it only targets homosexuals. And therefore is discrimination. If all in the military had to keep their girlfriends/wives/boyfriends/husbands/lovers etc. a secret and not ever talk about sex or relationship or dates with others, not allowed to have photos or letters of them with them when they're abroad, then it'd be equal. But it only targets gay people.
DeadButBreathing 50 minutes ago
wow. thanks for not providing an answer to the question
FMAiscool 4 days ago
@FMAiscool
He did. He proved why the question should be irrelevant, and gave his opinion without sounding like a prejudiced asshole. Which is more than the rest of them can claim to have done.
This is coming from a very liberal person, by the way.
therealcritic28 4 days ago
@therealcritic28 Sooo....basically never expose your sexuality and act like you're not interested in either sex. Make sure "the Creator" doesn't find out of your homosexuality OR your heterosexuality, otherwise "you won't be treated the same way" lol
FMAiscool 4 days ago
@FMAiscool
No, nothing needs to be hidden. But nothing needs to be flaunted, either. The military is not a dating site for any sexual orientation . . . Sexuality as in sexuality that would disrupt the purpose of the military is what should be avoided.
therealcritic28 4 days ago
@therealcritic28 What makes you think heterosexuals are flaunting their sexuality? Why would the case he made be relevant to the question asked?
FMAiscool 4 days ago
@FMAiscool
I don't think that they, or anyone else, do. I'm saying that the act of doing so in a way inappropriate to the job a member of the military has set out to perform is unacceptable regardless of their sexual orientation. It's relevant because the person asked what Paul's opinion was specifically about gays in the military, and his answer was honest, showing he doesn't think in terms of gay people specifically, he thinks of sexuality in general as not having a place in a soldier's job.
therealcritic28 3 days ago
@therealcritic28 That's why it's called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And with that logic, I suppose Ron Paul is all for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell;" but instead he includes heterosexuality in the mix.
FMAiscool 3 days ago
@FMAiscool
Except Don't Ask Don't Tell is a policy that causes people to be kicked out if they simply /know/ your sexuality. Knowing someone's sexuality doesn't make it disruptive, which is the unjust part of DADT. It's only disruptive if you know it because they're running around flirting with or screwing people--which would risk morale, order and such as detailed in the policy if people of /any/ sexual orientation were doing so.
therealcritic28 3 days ago
@therealcritic28 why couldn't Ron Paul then give a clear yes or no to the part of "knowing someone's sexuality?"
FMAiscool 3 days ago
@FMAiscool
Because it wasn't part of the question. I used that phrase. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining my take on this well.
He clearly says that "it doesn't matter if you're gay" and that individuals should be treated equally. That demonstrates his belief in justice and not throwing people out of the army because of their sexuality. Maybe he's personally uncomfortable about homosexuality, which I would not agree with or approve of, but at least he's not prejudiced, unjust and ignorant.
therealcritic28 3 days ago
@therealcritic28 That's my point. He's switching his words to get the approval of both sides. And the question includes whether gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military. It was obviously a part of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He's most likely uncomfortable about homosexuality like you said, but wants higher approval ratings.
FMAiscool 3 days ago
@FMAiscool He doesn't just say "yes" because if he did, that's all people would hear and they wouldn't understand why he would repeal it.
Instead he explained his views on it and that humans are equal, therefore to say gays can't serve is unconstitutional.
OHMAHGAA 3 days ago
@FMAiscool If he just said yes then all the ignorant gay hating dipsticks would just boo him and get butt hurt.
that's why he says yes but in an eloquent and rational manner that people of intelligence could understand and left the ignorant bigots dumbfounded and confused.
MrHexxor 3 days ago
@MrHexxor @OHMAHGAA If you've read my other comments, it sounds like he's saying "no." Sounds like he doesn't want to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but goes on to say (in defense) that he wants heterosexuals to not mention their sexuality either. Therefore, he uses the excuse of heterosexuals to cancel out anyone's expectations that he's a homophobic. There's no real intelligence to politics. Just tricks.
FMAiscool 3 days ago
@FMAiscool He isn't saying no, if you listen to what he says he says people shouldn't be lumped into groups such as gays or straight or whatever that all humans are equal and should be treated as individuals. he's saying that if more people understood this then we wouldn't be dealing with this issue at all because there would be no issue to deal with. So, he was saying yes you're just one of the derps that didn't understand.
This video is old btw, he already voted to repeal it.
MrHexxor 3 days ago
@MrHexxor "There would be no issue to deal with." But there obviously is, and he didn't give an answer during this debate. Therefore, herp.
FMAiscool 3 days ago
@FMAiscool Wow, you are hopeless.
MrHexxor 3 days ago
@MrHexxor and you are mindless lol
FMAiscool 3 days ago
@FMAiscool
Did you follow anything? He said he's for DADT because Orientation is irrelevant, debates are for reasoning to their answers not just a straight up "yes" or "no" although they should put a note tab for clueless people like you
dudewutyeah 2 days ago
@dudewutyeah you know, that's a really good idea.
FMAiscool 2 days ago
@FMAiscool Heterosexuals should be on equal footing as homosexuals and vice versa; that is all he is saying. You're also making a lot of assumptions about his homophobia, bro.
punkmusicmetal 3 days ago
@punkmusicmetal That is what he's saying, and he's also not answering the question. Jeez lol. And I'm not a bro.
FMAiscool 3 days ago
@FMAiscool
It's more than the rest of the racist, homophobic crew can say, though. At least he's not blatantly supporting medieval ideas, ignorant ideas.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@FMAiscool
By virtue of the fact that he's willing to be reasonable shows he's a much better candidate in comparison to the rest. That and he's honest.
therealcritic28 2 days ago
@therealcritic28 he has blatantly supported medieval ideas in the past, and some in the present. therefore, i can't trust him if he keeps changing his positions. besides, i'm pro-choice and believe in evolution, which apparently makes me an outcast :P
FMAiscool 2 days ago
@FMAiscool Answers don't have to be spoon-fed to you to be there. He says the problem is disruptive behavior and he thinks THAT should be what's used to gauge whether someone is dealt with - NOT whatever group they fit into. Voters aren't in fifth-grade; they don't all need answers to be word-for-word straightforward to understand. Usually.
thetonestarr 4 days ago
Ron Paul is this country's savior... fuck the Republican party. Let them bite the dust.
JoobyFoo 4 days ago
@derkmill funny, because my grandfather also served in Korea. Does that mean he should be President as well? I am offended by the fact he puts a grouping of WOMEN, GAYS, and MINORITIES. What about men? He seems relatively confused in regards to who he should be grouping grouping grouping. Just emphasizing the vast amount of times he utilized the word GROUPINGS. Inarticulate.
kmordor 4 days ago
@kmordor Maybe because men are not a minority in the military
salza201080 4 days ago
what a great answer. Clear, concise, and unequivocal. Try to get a straight answer like that from the doubletalkers presently vying for office (with the exception of Ron Paul).
mikeknight4u 4 days ago
ron paul is honestly the saviour of the republican party. i don't agree with all of his policies but at least he gives a shit about human rights which sadly i can't say for the other republican candidates.
thank you ron paul, thank you.
g00dm00sic 4 days ago
How about you all join the military and then your opinion is valid.
bucknat1 4 days ago
you know, I am primarily left..but I am also a lesbian. So usually voting for republicans is definitely out for me; however, I like how he answered this question. We should all be treated the same. If there is conduct that is destructive, whether homo or hetero, it should be dealt with. you don't single someone out. You treat everyone the same. He also said that when it comes to gay marriage, anything voluntary should be permitted.
angelicanoelle47 5 days ago 12
@angelicanoelle47 But wait, he just said that he agrees with the policy that gay people can't say that they're gay when they're in the military. Being disruptive is a completely different issue.
Firestarter5757 4 days ago
@angelicanoelle47 We would all be treated the same IF homophobia didn't exist. Unfortunately, it does. Heterosexuals are privilaged in the military. They don't have to deal with the sexual discrimination that homosexuals do. Thus we need to protect this underprivileged group. To say "we should all just treat everyone the same..." is a nice idea, but it could only exist in a post-race, post-class, post-sex society.
vdu51189 2 days ago
To the dude 3 down, he says he believes that disruptive gay behaviour be stopped, just like straight disruptive behaviour.
FSM1138 5 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012 OR REVOLUTION 2013
ISMOPANAMA 5 days ago
Typical politician...never answering the question.
dance4ever231 5 days ago
@dance4ever231 Typical moron, not understanding the answer.
Mathaius833 5 days ago
His answer seems to contradict each other can someone fill me in?
He says it's a decent policy... Which shocks me. But whatever. Implying he would keep it and not let gays OPENLY (<-----Very Important) serve in the military unlike their heterosexual colleges who can openly talk about how much they love the opposite sex.... Than the second half of his answer which makes complete sense to me and makes me love Ron Paul, but the two don't correlate and a lot is left for questioning...
sicsempertyrannis7 5 days ago
@sicsempertyrannis7 He just sounds like a huckster to me. What is the point of even bringing up "disruptive behavior"? Sounds a bit like the language in his newsletters. Of course he followed along in getting rid of the policy but lets not forget this guy doesn't believe in evolution, that he makes false claims about the founding fathers being Christian and claims that this is a Christian nation, should be so officially and should merely tolerate other religions. Comes across dishonest to me.
GenghisCohen1 2 days ago
@GenghisCohen1 I know he doesn't believe in evolution. He is a Christian man that lives the typical "American Dream" family. I am agnostic and a man of science so naturally this rubs me the wrong way. But what is so amazing about Ron Paul is he understand that his lifestyle is his FREEDOM and does not wish to Crusade! All of the candidates and Obama are Christians yet Ron Paul I see as the most tolerant to other religion/tradition. This is why RP is known for his emphasis on civil liberties!
sicsempertyrannis7 1 day ago
So Ron Paul, I'll ask you again, what exactly is your view on gays in the military?
seethestarsflyy 5 days ago
I don't know what to think of Ron Paul. I look at the man and I think he's very inoffensive. Then I look at his viewpoint on some of the 'issues' and...
He probably won't be nominated by the Republicans anyway, he's too out there. It's probably Romney who'll get the nomination. Or else one of the Ricks'll get it and Obama will have the election in the bag.
MrLunitunz 5 days ago
Lika a Bawss
juna2509 5 days ago
@Dreamchigo1
Well that's.. exactly what he did.
andyivytownley 5 days ago
His intellect astounds me.
Dreamichigo1 5 days ago
@Thecruel Why is that what a decent leader would do? That doesn't even make sense. No politician ever just says "yes" or "no". Even obama doesn't do that. Why? Because they realize that questions are often geared to back them into a corner and saying "yes" or "no" won't accurately convey what they intend. Don't be an idiot.
andyivytownley 5 days ago
@andyivytownley I get what you're trying to say, but a leader also has to expand on why they are saying "yes" or "no". It can't just be one answer, there has to be an explanation.
Dreamichigo1 5 days ago
Comment removed
OHMAHGAA 5 days ago
@OHMAHGAA I'm confused? What are you talking about?
I already know this. He is a Libertarian and stands for equal rights, and follows the constitution. I'm not confused about anything.
I was saying that I never knew that such a smart human being would run for President, because ever since John F. Kennedy, Presidents have gradually gotten stupider.
Dreamichigo1 5 days ago
@Dreamichigo1 My bad I responded to the wrong comment.
OHMAHGAA 5 days ago
@andyivytownley Obama isn't a good leader, so I don't know why you would consider him as an example. Leaders are decisive. These are the type of government officials we can rely on. Ron Paul not saying "yes" or "no" merely means the majority of people can't clearly understand him. And maybe you should actually read my comment before ironically calling someone an idiot. I said that "yes" or "no" should be followed by a justification and explanation.
TheCruel 5 days ago
Ron Paul is a genius.
mfdwinslow 5 days ago
I am so confused that people can disagree with his logic. Ron Paul love from Canada.
iheartmilfs 5 days ago
@iheartmilfs its not on these issues. its mostly on the conservative economic policies he presents. a 10% flat tax would wildly benefit the rich (they hoard and send their money overseas.. Trickle down economics is republican bullshit to make the rich richer) and it would also destroy the poor and with 1 in 2 americans being low income thats not good.
dudeonthasopha 5 days ago
Clear cut answer. Nicely done. He said in the very beginning that the current policy is a decent policy. He said he regards gays as individuals and doesnt see their sexuality as a reason to exclude them. Rather decide on their behaviour.
NOSFERATUalu 6 days ago
I like Paul, but I completely disagree with his assertion that DADT is a good policy.
ijreilly01 6 days ago
What about bissexuals, are they allowed in the military? What about heterosexual with homosexual tendencies? What about heterosexuals wanting to try something new? Dude if they didn't allowed people who sometimes practice homosexual behavior every country's navy would collapse like instantly.
Konicava 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL or WW3
watch?v=lUpZhhbKUBo
XPLANEFSX 1 week ago
hmm this guy seems fishy. He looks a lot like bush.... hmmmm
stoleaccount 1 week ago
Even "experts" about the USA here in my country, predict Romney as the winner, and they support such an outcome. ILLUMINATI
CoLLecToR91 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SEND AN EMAIL TO EVERY SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IN FLORIDA STATING THAT IF YOU DON'T PUBLICLY ENDORSE RON PAUL WE WILL VOTE FOR YOUR ADVERSARY!!
MsCosmo14 1 week ago
Notice as he calls homosexuality a problem
lifeistoodmshort 1 week ago
@lifeistoodmshort Notice how he didn't say that... He was speaking about unprofessional conduct in the military. He very clearly states that regradless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, it's something that should be dealt with. That was his point. DODT is useless, because it's not your sexual orientation that matters, but your actions.
ManeFuk 1 week ago
@ManeFuk Yea but in another interview he says he's against gay marriage then says something different later on in his campaign ..In my personal opinion the things he claims he's going to do if won election are simply outrageous. Legalizing Heroin,Crack Cocaine, Prostitution and every other drug known to man..plus letting Iran create nuclear bombs knowing that there whole religion is based on conquering whites which they call the devil in a big war which they are planning and eliminating freedom.
lifeistoodmshort 1 week ago
@lifeistoodmshort Legalization of drugs is not going to make everyone into "crack-fiends" almost all deaths from drugs come about BECAUSE of prohibition. Gangs kill each other over turf, Law enforcement and gangs kill each other because of the illegality of drugs, and many users die because they get different potency in their drugs, hence overdoses. Drugs are not the issue, they are no worse than alcohol, which is also a drug.
Waredwr 1 week ago
@lifeistoodmshort The idea around the "black market" of prostitution also results in the death of prostitutes and the jailing of customers, over the use of someone's own body. Christianity and almost ALL religions are based on the idea that they are right and all others should convert or die. Deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with "letting" Iran build a bomb, international pressure or UN sanctioned intervention will be the resolve, not illegal American invasion.
Waredwr 1 week ago
@Waredwr There's no such thing as an illegal American invasion. Please tell me what laws were broken by invading Afghanistan.
USFISTER 6 days ago
@USFISTER To justify an invasion of another nations sovereignty you must proceed through the UN security council, to which the United States is a member. The United States has signed documents stating you will adhere to the rules, including the bill on the use of force proposed by Woodrow Wilson post-WWI. Despite not having the go support of the council the United States endorsed, The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and violations of these treaties is illegal under international law.
Waredwr 6 days ago
@Waredwr Please cite the codes that were violated. I would like to know. Also, the UN has no legal authority in the United States.
USFISTER 6 days ago
@USFISTER The problem isn't with the service men and women of America, they are some of the bravest people in your country, but you politicians feel the need to invade countries that they once supported in attempt to secure monopolies. In attempt to force democracy, secure oil and territory they have broken the rules they drafted a century ago to prevent this occurance. Because America has the right to invade whoever the want whenever right? they just have that right despite what they preach?
Waredwr 6 days ago
@Waredwr What oil? Which decade have you been living in? The only thing that's happened to oil since these wars has been an increase in price. And what territory? Last I heard, American troops left Iraq. What rules from a century ago? Do you even know what you're talking about?
USFISTER 6 days ago
@USFISTER As per the treaty you created and signed. There was no formal declaration of war against Iraq, nor any country the US has sent military hardware too (including Yemen, Oman, Pakistan). Without a declaration of war you cannot set foot in a sovereign nations lands without breaking international laws. the century old treaty being the Geneva convention, specifically Protocol I. the statues cited are called "security council resolutions" all found in the UN codexes that the US signed.
Waredwr 6 days ago
@USFISTER Now after reading the two posts I have left for you, why don't you research some of the UN laws that govern your nation? or just because your the US your allowed to break any and all laws you wish, when you wish? To reiterate, Geneva conventions (specifically protocol I), and security council resolutions. I feel bad that your education systems focus so much on yourselves but ignore some of the good you've attempt to do the world, despite the fact you routinely ignore it.
Waredwr 6 days ago
@USFISTER Oil prices have nothing to do with the supply...
JoobyFoo 5 days ago
@USFISTER You seriously have no idea what the United Nations Security council is or how it operates. It has no legal authority in the US? Are you kidding me? If you signed the treaty to bind all other nation it applies to you too. The United States, Britain, France and other allies signed it, which held rules including When and Why war may be declared. The United States almost created these laws solely. Quite simply, if the council's members do not say you can go to war, you can legally
Waredwr 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 week ago
@lightandbeautiful says the activist incorrectly using "lightandbeautiful"
that video is taken out of context
mermaidsareppl222 1 week ago
So every human has it's rights but a woman shouldn't be able to decide what to do with her body, like getting an abortion? I love Ron Paul but I wish he could see that if he makes abortion illegal, it will only result in women getting rid of their fetuses in dangerous ways (inserting blunt objects, drinking it to death, throwing herself down stairs, etc). It's just like when they prohibited alcohol, though it's a different topic. It won't end anything.
FrauStormm 1 week ago
@FrauStormm What? He's not going to make abortion illegal, he wants the government out of the affairs of people's personal lives, is that so hard to understand? Pay a little less attention to the mainstream media and do some reading for a change.
GeorgeGoesAcoustic 1 week ago
@FrauStormm No, Ron paul will not pass a federal bill to make abortions illegal, his whole view is the federal government is too big and controlling, and inefficient in welfare for the people (education, epa, fda, social security, ect) he would give the powers to the state to make the decisions, and you would choose what state to live in according to its laws/ way of life, it's how america was in the 1800, since then its been more fed, and our state have little to no say in the matter.
paperthinedge1218 1 week ago
Ron Paul is the shit. Americans please vote for Ron Paul.
Sincerely,
The Rest Of The World
dbal17 1 week ago
What an insane old scumbag.
inademv 1 week ago
@inademv And what makes him a scumbag? His 55 years married to the same woman? His 5 years of service in the military during The Korean War? His 30 years of service to our country as a Congressman who votes for more freedom and less taxes EVERY time? Maybe you should check the facts before you make accusations.
derkmill 1 week ago 37
@derkmill His vile discrimination from the top down in congress for people who don't agree with his religious convictions are what make him a scumbag. And no, he voted in favor of the Marriage Protection act which would have removed individual rights to sue the DOMA law.
inademv 1 week ago
@inademv Only because suing the DOMA law and removing it would ultimately lead to the federal government being forced to make a decision on the issue... and he knows that it will not go the way that gays would like it to.
He thinks two steps ahead...
JoobyFoo 1 week ago
@JoobyFoo DOMA WAS a decision on the issue. It redefined marriage and blocked same sex marriages at a federal level. Even now in states that have legalized same sex marriage, same sex couples cannot receive federal marriage rights because of DOMA.
inademv 1 week ago
@inademv It did not redefine marriage. It defined the term "marriage" as it was used in the words of the bill itself in order to avoid confusion. Have you ever written any legal documents? You have to do this in order to prevent loopholes. Footnote after footnote.
JoobyFoo 1 week ago
@JoobyFoo "Section 3. Definition of marriage In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
This is a change in the official meaning of the word in practice. redefinition
inademv 1 week ago
Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in denying rights to same-sex couples. I am very sure that Paul disagrees with Section 3, as he is a champion of liberty. Since it is a minute part of a large bill that is appropriate for him to believe in, he signed it. He is not perfect, but he is much closer to perfect than any other candidate today.
JoobyFoo 1 week ago
@JoobyFoo Maybe you ought to learn what all those agencies that he wants to wax do before you continue with that thought then.
inademv 1 week ago
@inademv I could tell you everything wrong with them. You do realize that most of Paul's supporters are quite engaged in all things political...
Assuming people don't know anything is in itself ignorant. Don't be condescending.
JoobyFoo 5 days ago
@JoobyFoo Even after I do tell you everything wrong, you'll still disagree with him, so why waste time explaining?
The best way for people to have a change in belief is to let them figure it out for themselves, I suggest beginning with researching to find anything truly productive (meaning, without repercussion) these agencies have done.
JoobyFoo 5 days ago
@inademv I must also mention, it secured states' rights to choose.
JoobyFoo 5 days ago
@JoobyFoo No, all it did was make it so that no matter what the states do, same sex couples cannot receive federal marriage rights.
inademv 4 days ago
@inademv if this one thing keeps you from voting for him, moreso forces you to vote for someone else... your choice, but your priorities of determinants are seriously off.
worry about doma now, or let the country suffer economic downfall, worry about doma now, or let the country suffer economic downfall...
JoobyFoo 4 days ago
@JoobyFoo A functioning economy sprouts from a functioning society. This is the reason why social conservatives have nothing valuable to offer the political discourse imo.
inademv 4 days ago
@inademv Is it me or has gay marriage ever been legal? Gay marriage is not a determinant of a functioning society.
What is the point of allowing gay marriage when you will no longer have any economic gain from it due to the country going broke because of war mongering, money printing, politicians?
JoobyFoo 2 days ago
@JoobyFoo Pointless discrimination is determinant of a dysfunctional society though (see: nearly all of Africa and the middle east).
inademv 1 day ago
@inademv Also, the federal government has no constitutional right to force states to accept the social practices of other states...
Give an example of the "vile discrimination" please, as I cannot find one.
JoobyFoo 1 week ago
@JoobyFoo It isn't a state issue. Federal marriage rights apply to all married citizens and DOMA is discriminatory in this regard because, as I mentioned previously, it redefined marriage in a way that was of no direct or relevant interest to the state with respect to the rights and benefits being granted. Ron Paul and the entire Republican party's asinine discrimination in policy on that basis is vile because it is pointlessly divisive and harmful to society.
inademv 1 day ago
i'm not sure... i... i don't know what to think about this... i may have to watch this again...
ultimateninjaboi 1 week ago
@ultimateninjaboi understandable, he dodged the question rather well.
inademv 1 week ago
the main purpose of the military is to defend and protect america. it is not a place to start social drama. who the fuck cares if your gay. I don';t care, just don't be shoving who you are in my face. Like any sexual relationship keep it to yourself, both hetero and homo.
MorbidEverlasting 1 week ago
Awkward moment when the only good candidate mentions the "creator" and you realize that America is screwed no matter what..
Saints9R 1 week ago
@Saints9R Oh come on, don't be a bigot.
JoobyFoo 1 week ago
Way to completely sidestep the question. He conveniently declines to mention that rights are NOT equal for all groups (if a man tells his commanding officer he's heterosexual, does he get kicked out?), and then doesn't say what he would do, if anything, to change to current situation.
Coward
tgdemon228 1 week ago
@tgdemon228 he was saying that if someone tells their commanding officer that they are heterosexual it should be treated the same way as saying that he is homosexual. Everyone has equal rights and don't get them from a certain group that society labeled them with...were you even listening???
daMANdaMYTHdaMEDVIN 1 week ago
@tgdemon228 did you watch the right video?
MegaloJoker 1 week ago
@tgdemon228 Yeah you either didn't even watch the video or you're just straight up dumb. Watch it again, and listen closely. You'll get it.
MrSelkies 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." God's Word
blattdanielmain 1 week ago
I'm a Mormon... PLEEEEEASE VOTE RON PAUL!
useruser380 1 week ago
so wait... was he in favor of ending Don't ask Don't tell? Cause on one hand he says that the current discrimination is ok and on the other he says every one should have the say rights either gay or str8. Can someone explain? BTW,i'd vote for ron paul if i were american.
qdz1005 1 week ago
@qdz1005
When deployed/serving/on orders there is no sex allowed. So he is saying it doesn't matter who gays have sex with, no homo/hetero sexual relations allowed.
PureEvilJester 1 week ago
@PureEvilJester ok, i agree with you, but its ok to ask or to tell, right? i mean you can ask or tell without engaging sex. So then i'm wondering why he says the current law (at that time) was ok. Is he not libertarian and pro-freedom? I know he wouldn't bring back this law, he's cool, but i'm a bit disappointed that he didn't speak his mind then.
qdz1005 1 week ago
He'd be great if he didn't consider abortion violence...
glitchuser4 1 week ago
From the UK.. The only viable candidate is Ron Paul. We wouldn't let the others near the top job let alone playing with sharp objects.
sammyboyman12333 1 week ago
I'm a big Ron Paul fan - however, why can't he just answer the question straight? Say it straight - Gays should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. Peace.
Gymbruden 1 week ago 4
@Gymbruden Han utgår från en princip och jag tycker svaret är klockrent - alla är individer och därför lika mycket värda och bör därför få vara med i militären. Att BARA svara "ja" eller "nej" skulle inte betyda nånting och skulle inte vara att svara på frågan. Men visst, det är ett känsligt ämne och många av hans potentiella väljare gillar inte, för att inte säga avskyr, homosexualitet. :)
STAB1L 1 week ago
@Gymbruden I think the reason he isn't saying it straight like that is because he knows a lot of republican voters at home won't want to hear it like that. They need a little sugar coating which he did wonderfully. RON PAUL 2012
Whoexactlyshatonwho 1 week ago
@Gymbruden I think he stated it perfectly. It shouldn't be an issue. You have to speak to the audience...
JoobyFoo 1 week ago
@Gymbruden He does answer the question straight - and then provides us with a solution.
objectivistathlete 6 days ago 25
@objectivistathlete If his answer was so straight, then what was it?
He said it was a decent policy... so does he want to end it or not?
Any decent leader would state their answer with either "Yes" or "No" and then give a justification or solution.
TheCruel 5 days ago
@TheCruel His answer was that we should treat all disruptive behavior the same.
objectivistathlete