It all started with this post titled "Ron Paul Sucks" where I warned that some Dems might want to reconsider their embrace of Paul as their new darling.
I noted there that he was anti choice and anti Medicare. That brought in his Libertarian supporters.
Then my co-blogger, David DeAngelo, posted this on Ron Paul's HR 4379 bill which among other things said that the Supreme Court can't adjudicate "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction..."
Translation: "I'm a straight white guy who's always had his rights in the Constitution and I want to make it easier to screw women, gays, and anyone who wants to do any sexual act that isn't male/female missionary position.
What some of you Libertarian dudes seem to forget is that most recently overturned state anti sodomy laws don't distinguish whether it's gays or straights having sex and that oral is also sodomy. (Part of me wishes these guys would have their dreams answered only to find the LOCAL police busting down their door to throw their sorry asses in jail when the wifey gives them a BJ on their birthday. Would they be screaming "states rights" then, do you think?)
Anyhoo, in the comments section of the HR 4379 post Fair and Balanced Dave gave some links to some extremely disturbing info on Ron Paul and the subject of race and his appeal to neo-Nazis.
Ron Paul started publishing a monthly newsletter in 1986 calle thed Ron Paul Political Report, but later renamed it The Ron Paul Survival Report.
In the 90's the newsletter contained
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"
"...our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"...complex embezzling" is "100% white and Asian;" and noting that
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Also, that he didn't think that "a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people." But, he continues, "black males, age 13, that have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary, and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Barbara Jordan was called a "moron" and a "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex.
The newsletter also 'advises the readers to purchase two books that offer legal advice on how to safely move money across the U.S. border, how to "buy and sell gold privately without leaving a paper trail for the IRS to follow," and how to avoid transactions that "label you a money launderer." If you follow the advice, it will "make it difficult or impossible for bureaucrats... to know what you have and where you have it," and will allow you to "bulletproof from seizure those assets you can't hide."'
At first Paul claimed the quotes were taken out of context, then he later said they were ghostwritten by a staffer (feel free to read the context here, if you can stomach it).
I called into Honsberger Live with permanent (?) substitute host Chris Moore and read some of the above quotes. Later, I got the call from John McIntire to be to be on his show, which leads me back to the beginning of this post...And, this is where you make a note to listen in. ;-)
.
18 comments:
Hmmm...This post isn't showing up fro me in "Current Posts."
Dude, saying the Supreme Court can't adjudicate on that stuff doesn't mean he's opposed to gays. YES he is openly anti-gay marriage BUT he also says the federal government does not have the RIGHT or the AUTHORITY to tell gays that they cannot get married. That is up to the church and the state. As such, states can fight it out for themselves, and liberal states are going to allow it and conservative states will ban it. That's a lot better than forcing the ENTIRE country to adopt one way or the other, considering how hostile both sides are toward one another.
This is exactly what Ron Paul's message is all about though! When the original Constitution was drafted, we had a lot of hostile states all squaring off against one another. The Constitution exists as a bridge between groups of people that inherently will not get along. It sets up a REPUBLIC (NOT a democracy) which means there are many small groups of people (i.e. gays, straights, gun owners, pacifists, etc.) all of whom have opposing viewpoints. What the Constitution is unique in being able to do is allow all those people to coexist. It gives power to the PEOPLE to decide, not to the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
So your commentary is somewhat ignorant, and maybe even willfully ignorant. I'd love to discuss it with you further in order to let you tell me more about your side of the issue. Yes, I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and yes I was a registered Democrat until a week ago when I switched to Republican in order to vote in my state's closed primary election.
You can reach me at strattond@duq.edu and I welcome anyone and everyone who wants to toss commentary my way, because I'm not afraid to hear your thoughts or defend mine with evidence and historical precedence.
Yours,
David Stratton
gee maybe we can have a civil war here by golly.
Dude, YES he is openly anti-gay marriage AND saying the Supreme Court can't adjudicate on that stuff also means he says the federal government does not have the RIGHT or the AUTHORITY to tell gays that they CAN get married.
Let's turn that around and say that that straights have no real marriage rights either. Hell, we left it up to the states until the 1960's to say that blacks and whites couldn't marry each other.
Let's go back to that too.
oh i know a lot of knuckle draggers that would be for that. sad to say.
i listened, thought it was good.
now, duck and cover maria because the defenders of this man will be here soon.
Thanks, Sherry.
Ron Paul isn't a very progressive person. I'm not inclined to vote for him. However, if it's between a pro-war Democrat (Hillary), and an anti-war Republican, I'd stop and think. I think that getting out of Iraq must happen before broader social programs are enacted. As long as troops are there, money will be flushed down the toilet.
And to address the troll's comment about Minnesota from the other thread: Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty, has a no tax pledge. He's vetoed tax increases that would've funded badly needed road maintenance. And he's made a habit of passing unfunded mandates along to local governments, who are then forced to raise their property taxes.
I would not vote for Ron Paul against any of the Democrats. But he has served a very useful purpose in demonstrating that there appears to be a vocal, if not sizable, Republican anti-Iraq War constituency, and in provoking assinine statements from the rest of the field, like Guilliani and Romney. (For example, Romney's recent "Has he forgotten 9/11?" and Rudy's laughable statement that the Iranians released U.S. hostages in 1981 because they were afraid of Ronald Reagan.)
From Ron Paul's interview at Google (watch the video here):
Q: Gay marriage, you’d be supportive of that?
A: I’m supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want.
Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment.
At his appearence in Pittsburgh Friday night, he stated that the money saved from closing down the military bases in other countries would be used to keep the commitments that we have made to our citizens in the form of Medicare and Social Security.
Don't "be fooled again" when new boss Hilary or Obama or Edwards shows themselves to be the same as the old boss (at least Richardson shows some little bit of promise).
If Ron Paul were anti-gay would Barney Frank have nice things to say about him? For instance “We first bonded because we were both conspicuous non-worshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Greenspan.” and “He is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues,”.
Don't take my word on Ron Paul. Don't take other people's words on him who try to twist things to thier ideology.
Watch his own words on the subject.
No, I am not a fan of his anti-abortion position, nor his immigration (although I have been told to look into this more as it is closer to my own position than I think). I was wary of the support he has from the christian right, but several of the people that I spoke with at the after rally party Friday night who are christian Ron Paul supporters agreed with the following: The government cannot deny the right of any two people from marriage when it is a union which provides special benefits, but marriage is a seperate function in civil and religious and no-one has any right to force any church to perform a marriage against its tenets.
I've rambled enough, check out the video, educate yourself.
Oh PUH-LEEZE! Drop the strawman argument.
No one is talking about the government forcing churches to marry gays.
NO ONE.
Church marriage is just that: you're married in the eyes of the church/temple/mosque ONLY.
You still need a license by the government to be considered to be married in the eyes of the government and the government doesn't care if the ceremony occurs in a church/temple/mosque/field/underwater/judge's office or if the ceremony is performed by a priest/rabbi/ship captain/Elvis impersonator.
We're talking about the special rights straight people get by the government when they marry. The some thousand laws, rules, benefits and privileges you get when you are LEGALLY married that can't be duplicated by a gay couple with a slew of attorneys.
Man, the more I think about this the more it bugs me.
If Ron Paul and his supporters can't figure out that there's a difference between a religious CEREMONY and the LEGAL INSTITUTION of marriage, then it's you guys who need to "educate yourself."
Moreover, his silly bill is so broadly written ("any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation;") that it would seem to say that states have the right to outlaw marriage between a man and a woman (whether the ceremony occurs in the rain, on a train, in the dark, in a tree, in a car [let me be!], in a box, with a fox, in a house, with a mouse, here or there, or ANYWHERE).
Oh yeah, no takers on the newsletter issue?
Do tell what's the Libertarian defense of the vile racist crap in that rag that Paul paid for month after month, year after year?
i don't think you'll get any maria but it doesn't mean that there aren't racist people out there secretly cheering the guy on.
sad.
I commented on Ron Pauls racists tendencies a while back. Dave Neiwert over at Orcinus had a pretty extensive rundown on Paul's associations with white supremist organizations.
You cannot be a liberal and support Ron Paul. It's simply a contradiction in terms. Now, the problem is that conservatives really do not have an anti-War candidate so they flock to Ron Paul and to my view, a lot of it really is just on the war issue. And they love the idea that he will be some kind of fiscal conservative and protect "family values." I did a long post on "The Ron Paul Political Report," and basically I cannot accept that he put out a report in his name with all of these racist statements (and the Houston Chronicle piece does not have the worst of them), but even though he was selling this report for money, he never actually read what was going out under his name until years later. But most people will accept his excuse, an excuse no one would accept in a more mainstream candidate. But no one in the mainstream press really cares about Ron Paul's past. In Texas, yes, it mattered. But on the national level, he's a novelty and you'll see him get some air time, because he's fun to interview. "You're telling me you would actually disband the CIA?" "You really think the Civil War was a mistake" "You think the federal government should never have instituted the 1964 Civil Rights Act?" He's a fun interview. But in the end, Ron Paul is a non-entity, he will not get the Republican nomination, he will not run as an independent, and no Republican candidate is going to shift his position based on what Ron Paul advocates.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron Paul is still the better choice for President compared to all the other dildos running for Pres. Hillary? What a joke. She will ruin our country worse than Bush. Obama? Yeah let's get a former muslim to be president of the united states, just so he can convert back to being muslim and let the middle east roam free here on our soil. Great choice for the Americans pffft, he is to wet behind the ears to be president anyway. Romney? HA. What a con he is, dishonest prick. And worst of all, Rudy G... ppsssht that guy feeds off 9/11 when that's all he's got, and even then he sucked at his job. Rudy needs to stop with his BS, yet another person to ruin our country. At least Ron Paul wants to do far more to help our country than these other assholes. GET A CLUE PEOPLE, LEARN ABOUT RON PAUL BEFORE YOU BASH THE GUY. I HAVE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE RUNNERS AND KNOW ENOUGH ALREADY TO SUPPORT RON PAUL.
www.ronpaul2008.com
Learn everything about him here at WWW.RonPaulLibrary.ORG
Ron Paul is better than the rest!
Post a Comment