11 ms·

What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by this. Who c

by dkhenry 15y ago

What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by this. Who cares what the other candidates are tickling our ears with. Paul is the only one who I feel would actually stand up to the Movie Industry.

makmanalp 15y ago
I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-and-boobs-afternoonsnoozebutton http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.
- kissickas 15y ago
  Ron Paul has claimed he didn't write those comments (taken from newsletters a few decades ago) and has renounced them, at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_y...
  - gahahaha 15y ago
    Ron Paul didn't decide he had never written or read his newsletters until 2001 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-che...
- llambda 15y ago
  Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestation of some kind of conspiracy against him. I'm quite honestly baffled that supporters of a purist would allow exceptions... Alternatively, twice I've been told by Paul supporters that they are in fact are not supporters, but rather anarchists (this only comes up in the context of such content as the newsletter debacle).
  - cheez 15y ago
    There is a conspiracy against Paul. I'm not American and I've followed Paul since 2008. The media definitely conspires against him. Jon Stewart even called them out on it. Google it.
    - espeed 15y ago
      Here it is... Daily Show: Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecis... Quora: How are MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News so united in their snubbing of Ron Paul? http://www.quora.com/How-are-MSNBC-CNN-and-Fox-News-so-united-in-their-snubbing-of-Ron-Paul?q=ron+paul+cnn http://www.quora.com/How-are-MSNBC-CNN-and-Fox-News-so-unite...
    - jduran 15y ago
      Yes the media definitely conspires against him. Just not for reasons you might think, his F#@king nuts !
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful. Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent. First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context... But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was using Paul's name. That doesn't mean that you should let Paul off the hook. It means that what you should be concerned about is not that he's a racist ass, but that he may have a lapses in judgment, as here where he allowed someone else to use his name without monitoring closely how they used it. It's worth noting, though, that there are some very strong parallels here between Paul's misstep and President Obama. Consider Obama's association with the explicitly anti-American, anti-Semite minister Jeremiah Wright, and with the communist and terrorist Bill Ayers. Indeed, in my opinion, Obama comes out much dirtier in this comparison, because he refused to disavow those other people, and particularly Wright, who is acknowledged to have served (still?) as a mentor to Obama, shaping his thinking. In contrast, Paul condemns those statements, and there's no reason to believe that he ever took their writers' ideas as guidance. More discussion of this here: http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/comment-page-3/ http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-raci...
  - veidr 15y ago
    Jeremiah Wright isn't my cup of tea, either, but 'anti-American'? That's absurd.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      'anti-American'? That's absurd. Well, it's not my phrasing. - - - - - Begin Quote [1] An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." - - - - - End Quote [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1#.Tv3ZxTWNN7c http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443...
- jterce 15y ago
  Frankly, anyone who has paid attention to what Paul has actually said or done in the last 20 years knows this in no way represents his views. In fact, quite the opposite, Paul is by far the most open and tolerant in the GOP field. The fact that some people are willing to focus on these says more about them than about Paul.
  - narrator 15y ago
    The mainstream media works its magic by taking a mural 100 miles square and repeatedly hilighting the same 50 square inches. They do this in order to create the perception that fits their agenda, and ignoring the rest. It's an extremely effective technique. It's very easy to control what people think, not by lying to them, but controlling what they think about.
  - roguecoder 15y ago
    http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/ http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ro... has good details on one close staffer's view of his distrust of Black and Latin@ culture. He's not racist, as long as people of all colors assimilate into his culture. I can see the confusion: people who aren't part of this culture see that as a set of racist, irrational beliefs that lead to stop-and-frisk harassment and profiling in airports, whereas Ron Paul obviously has a cultural fear of people different from himself and doesn't equate that with skin color except by correlation. He doesn't consider this "racism", and thus is offended by the implications. We disagree on the terms and on whether or not it is a disqualifying feature for the highest office in the land, but we should at least be able to agree that the only evidence we have for what he believes have been the things he's done or said. That he began claiming he never did them when they became politically inconvenient doesn't mean he's changed his mind. I wouldn't care what he said 20 years ago if he stood up and said, "yes, I said those things. Since then, however, I have spent more time with people from cultures I had previously been isolated from and feared, as many of us do when faced with the unfamiliar. I now appreciate that theses communities have come together in the face of adversity and are an assets to this nation." Instead he claimed that Not Me did it, and looks about as mature as that kid from Family Circus while doing so.
  - 15y ago
- vaksel 15y ago
  it's bs. he had a 30 year career in politics, if he was really a racist, there'd be some video proof to support it of him actually saying this...or hell anything else to support that...but there isn't + then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8... the bottom line, is that if the worst thing that they'd been able to dig up about him, are some comments from ~20 years ago that weren't even written by him...then he is one of the cleanest politicians in generations.
  - rationalbeats 15y ago
    I have a hard time accepting that answer. Those quotes were taken directly from these newsletters http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rXxdXLObxdk/TvFkFgQzpSI/AAAAAAAAFhI/7JTQdR7vC6k/s1600/Dr.%2BRon%2BPaul%2527s%2BFreedom%2BReport%252C%2BApril%252C%2B1978%2B-%2BPage%2B1%2B-%2BA%2BNon-Conspiratorial%2BPresident%252C%2BIf%2BWe%2BHad%2BOne.png http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rXxdXLObxdk/TvFkFgQzpSI/AAAAAAAAFh... It has his name, his face, and says by Ron Paul He also benefited financially for over 2 decades from these newsletters. You had to write a check to Ron Paul to get these newsletters example http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vT7kX8KDLI4/TvFnrfhhwVI/AAAAAAAAFk4/E3Byqoaj4Iw/s1600/Ron%2BPaul%2BPersonal%2BLetter%2B-%2BDear%2BSupporter%252C%2Bas%2Ba%2BPersonal%2BThank%2BYou%252C%2BIf%2BYou%2BSubscribe%2BBefore%2Bthe%2BPresidential%2BConvention%2Bon%2BSeptember%2B5%252C%2BYou%2BMay%2BHave%2BMy%2BNewsletter%2Bfor%2Ban%2BUnprecedented%2B50-Percent%2Boff%252C%2B49.50%2BRon.png http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vT7kX8KDLI4/TvFnrfhhwVI/AAAAAAAAFk... So as far as I am concerned, after viewing the physical evidence, I conclude Ron Paul made large sums of money from distributing and claiming at the time to write, hate speech, promoting misogyny, and promoting fringe conspiracy theories, in an effort to scare people into sending him money. Reminds me of how Glenn Beck operates. Ron Paul's excuses today lead me to conclude he is either lying, or completely incompetent, and would not have the ability to lead a Cabinet effectively. In other words unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. EDIT: I see the downvotes flying in. I provided evidence of the claim. Sorry to see his hero worship is so strong that people will ignore factual hard evidence. Kind of pathetic really. This reminds me of the circlejerks over at Reddit... thought the people over here were a few steps above that base level of ignorance.
- llambda 15y ago
  Also this is worth reading[1]. Paul seems to be directly linked to an anti-gay rhetoric that is leading part of his campaign. [1] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-run-iowa-campaign.php http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-ant... Edit: I'm curious to know why anyone would downvote this? When presented with direct evidence, is it really logical to immediately push it away? Oh well... To the commenter below, if you had read to the second paragraph of the article you would have found this: 'Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.'
  - atarian 15y ago
    I didn't downvote (I don't have enough points yet), but I can already see some problems with that article. For one, it's based on newsletters published 20 years ago which he's repeatedly told the media that he did not authorize to use his name. The only other thing that's trying to stick to Ron Paul in this article is completely based on hearsay. So no, it's not direct evidence. EDIT: I seriously hope you're not trying to tell me that Ron Paul is a terrible person because one of his supporters favors the death penalty.
    - llambda 15y ago
      He doesn't "favor the death penalty" he calls for the execution of people based on their sexual preference in accordance with Biblical law. This man's endorsement was touted by Paul's Iowa campaign. So yes, I find that offensive and reprehensible; Paul should immediately repudiate the endorsement.
      - nirvana 15y ago
- cheez 15y ago
  That's definitely not official. Might well be a rival. Come on man, use your brain. RP has been reelected over and over.
- nirvana 15y ago
  These are not credible at all. These are, when its all said and done, lies used to paint Ron Paul. The very interesting thing is, why? What is the motivation of such people to bash Paul as a homophobe when there's decades of actions on his part that are anything but? What's the motivation of people to bash Paul as a racist, when he has freely associated with people of every color without any hatred his whole life? When in the 1970s he gave a poor family free medical care because he was a doctor and they couldn't pay? (and it didn't matter to him that they weren't white.) I'll tell you the motivation. The people attacking paul now do not give a damn about the rights of gay people or about racism... after all, they themselves are racist, and they support a guy-- Obama-- who opposes gay marriage and gay rights and is widely known to be a homophobe, by his actions. The motivation is that Ron Paul represents a credible threat to change the US federal government to one that protects rights of the people, limits itself from controlling the economy, and lets people be free to pursue their ambitions. This is very threatening to people whose sole career has been peddling influence.
megablast 15y ago
Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more. He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  against abortion This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level. He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much. I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing. CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.
  - tvon 15y ago
    You just said that Ron Paul is not against abortion, but that he is opposed to it.
    - bmelton 15y ago
      More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
      - tvon 15y ago
        What a cop out. Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).

by dkhenry 15y ago

makmanalp 15y ago

I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-and-boobs-afternoonsnoozebutton http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

kissickas 15y ago
Ron Paul has claimed he didn't write those comments (taken from newsletters a few decades ago) and has renounced them, at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_y...
- gahahaha 15y ago
  Ron Paul didn't decide he had never written or read his newsletters until 2001 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-che...
llambda 15y ago
Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestation of some kind of conspiracy against him. I'm quite honestly baffled that supporters of a purist would allow exceptions... Alternatively, twice I've been told by Paul supporters that they are in fact are not supporters, but rather anarchists (this only comes up in the context of such content as the newsletter debacle).
- cheez 15y ago
  There is a conspiracy against Paul. I'm not American and I've followed Paul since 2008. The media definitely conspires against him. Jon Stewart even called them out on it. Google it.
  - espeed 15y ago
    Here it is... Daily Show: Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecis... Quora: How are MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News so united in their snubbing of Ron Paul? http://www.quora.com/How-are-MSNBC-CNN-and-Fox-News-so-united-in-their-snubbing-of-Ron-Paul?q=ron+paul+cnn http://www.quora.com/How-are-MSNBC-CNN-and-Fox-News-so-unite...
  - jduran 15y ago
    Yes the media definitely conspires against him. Just not for reasons you might think, his F#@king nuts !
CWuestefeld 15y ago
I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful. Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent. First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context... But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was using Paul's name. That doesn't mean that you should let Paul off the hook. It means that what you should be concerned about is not that he's a racist ass, but that he may have a lapses in judgment, as here where he allowed someone else to use his name without monitoring closely how they used it. It's worth noting, though, that there are some very strong parallels here between Paul's misstep and President Obama. Consider Obama's association with the explicitly anti-American, anti-Semite minister Jeremiah Wright, and with the communist and terrorist Bill Ayers. Indeed, in my opinion, Obama comes out much dirtier in this comparison, because he refused to disavow those other people, and particularly Wright, who is acknowledged to have served (still?) as a mentor to Obama, shaping his thinking. In contrast, Paul condemns those statements, and there's no reason to believe that he ever took their writers' ideas as guidance. More discussion of this here: http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/comment-page-3/ http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-raci...
- veidr 15y ago
  Jeremiah Wright isn't my cup of tea, either, but 'anti-American'? That's absurd.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    'anti-American'? That's absurd. Well, it's not my phrasing. - - - - - Begin Quote [1] An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." - - - - - End Quote [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1#.Tv3ZxTWNN7c http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443...
jterce 15y ago
Frankly, anyone who has paid attention to what Paul has actually said or done in the last 20 years knows this in no way represents his views. In fact, quite the opposite, Paul is by far the most open and tolerant in the GOP field. The fact that some people are willing to focus on these says more about them than about Paul.
- narrator 15y ago
  The mainstream media works its magic by taking a mural 100 miles square and repeatedly hilighting the same 50 square inches. They do this in order to create the perception that fits their agenda, and ignoring the rest. It's an extremely effective technique. It's very easy to control what people think, not by lying to them, but controlling what they think about.
- roguecoder 15y ago
  http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/ http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ro... has good details on one close staffer's view of his distrust of Black and Latin@ culture. He's not racist, as long as people of all colors assimilate into his culture. I can see the confusion: people who aren't part of this culture see that as a set of racist, irrational beliefs that lead to stop-and-frisk harassment and profiling in airports, whereas Ron Paul obviously has a cultural fear of people different from himself and doesn't equate that with skin color except by correlation. He doesn't consider this "racism", and thus is offended by the implications. We disagree on the terms and on whether or not it is a disqualifying feature for the highest office in the land, but we should at least be able to agree that the only evidence we have for what he believes have been the things he's done or said. That he began claiming he never did them when they became politically inconvenient doesn't mean he's changed his mind. I wouldn't care what he said 20 years ago if he stood up and said, "yes, I said those things. Since then, however, I have spent more time with people from cultures I had previously been isolated from and feared, as many of us do when faced with the unfamiliar. I now appreciate that theses communities have come together in the face of adversity and are an assets to this nation." Instead he claimed that Not Me did it, and looks about as mature as that kid from Family Circus while doing so.
- 15y ago
vaksel 15y ago
it's bs. he had a 30 year career in politics, if he was really a racist, there'd be some video proof to support it of him actually saying this...or hell anything else to support that...but there isn't + then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8... the bottom line, is that if the worst thing that they'd been able to dig up about him, are some comments from ~20 years ago that weren't even written by him...then he is one of the cleanest politicians in generations.
- rationalbeats 15y ago
  I have a hard time accepting that answer. Those quotes were taken directly from these newsletters http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rXxdXLObxdk/TvFkFgQzpSI/AAAAAAAAFhI/7JTQdR7vC6k/s1600/Dr.%2BRon%2BPaul%2527s%2BFreedom%2BReport%252C%2BApril%252C%2B1978%2B-%2BPage%2B1%2B-%2BA%2BNon-Conspiratorial%2BPresident%252C%2BIf%2BWe%2BHad%2BOne.png http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rXxdXLObxdk/TvFkFgQzpSI/AAAAAAAAFh... It has his name, his face, and says by Ron Paul He also benefited financially for over 2 decades from these newsletters. You had to write a check to Ron Paul to get these newsletters example http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vT7kX8KDLI4/TvFnrfhhwVI/AAAAAAAAFk4/E3Byqoaj4Iw/s1600/Ron%2BPaul%2BPersonal%2BLetter%2B-%2BDear%2BSupporter%252C%2Bas%2Ba%2BPersonal%2BThank%2BYou%252C%2BIf%2BYou%2BSubscribe%2BBefore%2Bthe%2BPresidential%2BConvention%2Bon%2BSeptember%2B5%252C%2BYou%2BMay%2BHave%2BMy%2BNewsletter%2Bfor%2Ban%2BUnprecedented%2B50-Percent%2Boff%252C%2B49.50%2BRon.png http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vT7kX8KDLI4/TvFnrfhhwVI/AAAAAAAAFk... So as far as I am concerned, after viewing the physical evidence, I conclude Ron Paul made large sums of money from distributing and claiming at the time to write, hate speech, promoting misogyny, and promoting fringe conspiracy theories, in an effort to scare people into sending him money. Reminds me of how Glenn Beck operates. Ron Paul's excuses today lead me to conclude he is either lying, or completely incompetent, and would not have the ability to lead a Cabinet effectively. In other words unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. EDIT: I see the downvotes flying in. I provided evidence of the claim. Sorry to see his hero worship is so strong that people will ignore factual hard evidence. Kind of pathetic really. This reminds me of the circlejerks over at Reddit... thought the people over here were a few steps above that base level of ignorance.
llambda 15y ago
Also this is worth reading[1]. Paul seems to be directly linked to an anti-gay rhetoric that is leading part of his campaign. [1] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-run-iowa-campaign.php http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-ant... Edit: I'm curious to know why anyone would downvote this? When presented with direct evidence, is it really logical to immediately push it away? Oh well... To the commenter below, if you had read to the second paragraph of the article you would have found this: 'Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.'
- atarian 15y ago
  I didn't downvote (I don't have enough points yet), but I can already see some problems with that article. For one, it's based on newsletters published 20 years ago which he's repeatedly told the media that he did not authorize to use his name. The only other thing that's trying to stick to Ron Paul in this article is completely based on hearsay. So no, it's not direct evidence. EDIT: I seriously hope you're not trying to tell me that Ron Paul is a terrible person because one of his supporters favors the death penalty.
  - llambda 15y ago
    He doesn't "favor the death penalty" he calls for the execution of people based on their sexual preference in accordance with Biblical law. This man's endorsement was touted by Paul's Iowa campaign. So yes, I find that offensive and reprehensible; Paul should immediately repudiate the endorsement.
    - nirvana 15y ago
cheez 15y ago
That's definitely not official. Might well be a rival. Come on man, use your brain. RP has been reelected over and over.
nirvana 15y ago
These are not credible at all. These are, when its all said and done, lies used to paint Ron Paul. The very interesting thing is, why? What is the motivation of such people to bash Paul as a homophobe when there's decades of actions on his part that are anything but? What's the motivation of people to bash Paul as a racist, when he has freely associated with people of every color without any hatred his whole life? When in the 1970s he gave a poor family free medical care because he was a doctor and they couldn't pay? (and it didn't matter to him that they weren't white.) I'll tell you the motivation. The people attacking paul now do not give a damn about the rights of gay people or about racism... after all, they themselves are racist, and they support a guy-- Obama-- who opposes gay marriage and gay rights and is widely known to be a homophobe, by his actions. The motivation is that Ron Paul represents a credible threat to change the US federal government to one that protects rights of the people, limits itself from controlling the economy, and lets people be free to pursue their ambitions. This is very threatening to people whose sole career has been peddling influence.

megablast 15y ago

Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more. He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
against abortion This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level. He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much. I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing. CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.
- tvon 15y ago
  You just said that Ron Paul is not against abortion, but that he is opposed to it.
  - bmelton 15y ago
    More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
    - tvon 15y ago
      What a cop out. Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).