Before you accuse me of lying outside the pit, you ought to read what I wrote.
I never said that Paul SUPPORTED anti-Sodomy laws. What I said was that Paul believed that state governments had the power to regulate private sexual behavior and to jail people for engaging in what he calls “gay sodomy” and that’s what he clearly thinks.
Here are the relevant exercepts from my posts that you didn’t bother reading before a cussing me of being dishonest.
To his credit, C4nuck clearly read and understood what I said so please don’t try and argue I was unclear.
And of course Paul makes it clear that he does believe state governments have the right to regulate sexual behavior “based on local standards”.
As I said, Paul is not a believer in individual liberty and individual right because no one who believes states can lock up gay people simply for having sex does.
Deeg didn’t accuse you of lying. He (?) said the interpretation was dishonest. While that’s a little vaguer than I might like - I prefer that people make it clear they are saying a particular interpretation is dishonest or that a statement isn’t true - it isn’t the same thing.
Fine. That’s a judgement call. I really do find it hard to believe that if the roles were reversed people would be so quick to believe, well, pretty much any other politician. But being dismissive of people who bring it up isn’t going to help you, it’s a legitimate issue and until Paul really addresses it, who really wrote it, why he kept the money he gained from it, how he never noticed what was going on in over 10 years, it’s going to remain a legitimate issue.
I have no idea why the leader of the Texas NAACP would defend Paul. Maybe he’s making political hay, or maybe he honestly believes that Ron Paul isn’t racist. I really have no way to know. As for the doctor thing, well, it’s possible to be racist and not actually hate the people you’re racist against. It’s possible to be racist but like individuals because they’re 'one of the good ones." Maybe his principles as a doctor override his racism. I don’t know. Ending the drug war? Maybe his libertarian ideals override his racism. I don’t know.
But then, I do know what he said about TSA agents, and that was certainly a racist comment. I hear something like that and it inclines me to give more weight, a lot more weight, to the idea that he wrote the newsletters.
So, it’s only applicable to whites who say it to blacks? It’s OK for blacks to do it to blacks? If I call one of my white friends a nigger, which I have done many moons ago, am I racist? If I call one of my black friends, nigga, am I racist?
All I’m saying is someone who says or has said the word in some contexts is not automatically a racist. Same goes for “queer” or “fag” IMHO. Yes, there are plenty of examples where using the word equates to racism and/or homophobia. I’m not arguing that.
Believing that states have the right to regulate such acts doesn’t mean he agrees with it, or would vote in favor of it which is basically what you were insinuating (you clearly think he’s racist and homophobic).
If you want to take the federalist approach to law then let’s just give up our freedom right here and right now and be done with it. Whether or not YOU agree with something, doesn’t mean you have the right to force it down EVERYONES throat no matter how legitimate or correct you think you are. If a state wants to rule against gay sex, and I disagree with it, I can freely move to a state that allows it. If the federal government rules against gay sex, I have to move to a different country since I am no longer free in America.
All misdeeds are not equal and do not cancel out. I just happen to think that the majority of the GOP candidates raise more serious concerns, in regards to getting MY vote, versus these issues being raised at Ron Paul. I’ll try to come back to your other claims later, I am taking fire from multiple people :D, and haven’t been able to get to all of it. I have to get ready for work, I’ll check back in after.
What about my claim that Paul believes that states have the right to regulate people’s private sexual behavior isn’t well-documented?
I linked to a column where Paul specifically claimed that “The State of Texas has the right to regulate social matters like sex using their own local standards.”
What isn’t “well-documented” about that.
Are you asking for a video of Ron Paul typing up the column or reading aloud the column?
That question isn’t meant to be insulting or sarcastic its just that since you earlier demanded an audio recording of Paul’s Salon interview I thought you might be asking for something similar.
Because it isn’t the President’s job to stop people saying stupid, bigoted things, it’s to stop them doing stupid, bigoted things. If the racists want to have an epistolary circle-jerk, let them.
No he can’t. Remember, people who choose not to get vaccinated, or have their kids vaccinated, are making an informed choice for which they assume the responsibility. People who publish racist comments under their own names are innocent victims and it should not be held against them in any way.
You know what is part of the President’s job? Telling the Press Secretary what press releases to put out in the President’s name.
You know what else is the President’s job? Telling the Attorney General what priorities to pursue and how to interpret laws and regulations.
In fact, you know that most of the President’s job consists of delegating things to his staff and Cabinet. He doesn’t actually go out and prosecute people himself. Nor does he vet his own judicial appointments, or personally write his budget proposal. What he does is take final responsibility for all those things that are done in his name.
And if Ron Paul is such a poor manager and judge of character that he allows a newsletter to go out from his office, with his name on top and his signature on the bottom full of racist, homophobic, and crazy crap what will his AG get up to in his name? When we find out that President Paul signed an Executive Order his AG drafted allowing him to purge all blacks, Jews, and gays from the department of Justice should we give him a pass because he didn’t read it and had no idea what he was signing?
Yes. Some other statements that don’t carry a damaging stigma and can be used without significant precaution:
“At least 39 white women have been stuck with used hypodermic needles -perhaps infected with AIDS- by gangs of black girls.”
“The 1992 [LA riots] are just the preshocks of the holocaust which is coming to America’s urban areas.”
"As children, [blacks] are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” to steal & loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against “The Man.” And “The Woman.”
This one’s less serious, but it’s a peach: “Order was only restored in LA [after the riots] when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
I thought that you were implying that Paul was homophobic because he was against the decision. If not then that was my error and I apologise. That might better explain my use of “dishonest” in my post; if not and it wasn’t clear then that’s also my fault. I am not a great writer and tend to be ambiguous.
You’ll notice in that exchange we weren’t discussing Paul’s attitudes towards minorities or gays but the idea that Paul somehow is a champion of “individual rights and liberty”.
I argued that no one who argued, as Paul does, that state governments have the right to regulate people’s private sexual activity can be seen as a champion of “individual rights and liberty.”
C4nuck rather foolishly insisted that there’s no way that Paul would ever have said such a thing and rather smugly dared me to prove he had.
Once I did, C4nuck, promptly reversed course and tried to defend Paul’s position.
This exchange began by you trumpeting about how Ron Paul was big believer in individual rights and liberty.
When I pointed out that Paul believed states had the right to regulate people’s sexual behavior including punishing people for engaging in gay sex, you got extremely irate, declared I absolutely had to be wrong and blustered that there’s no way Paul would have ever said anything like that, or as you put it:
Once I linked to a column of Paul passionately arguing that states have the right to prosecute people for sexual behavior that is considered immoral “based on local standards” you promptly reverse course and are now actually defending Paul’s statements.
In fact, you seem to go further by saying “what’s the big deal, if gays don’t like it, they can always move”(paraphrase).
By the standards you’re posting there was nothing wrong with Jim Crow since if blacks in South Carolina didn’t like the way they were treated they could always uproot their families and leave.
Similarly, what was the big deal with those that idiotic interracial couple in Virginia suing to have their marriage recognized in Virginia?
If they didn’t like the fact that Virginia didn’t recognize their marriage, they could always just move to Washington DC, which did recognize such marriages.
Haiti is a third world country, I’m not sure they count under Paul’s claim. If you count them, then, ya, I guess he’s technically wrong.
This is all assuming you believe he wrote the hate speech in those letters. I don’t. Maybe I’m confused again. :o
Extremely irate? Where do you come up with that?
To me, you seemed to be insinuating that Paul would support legislation to make gay sex illegal, or, tell people what they can and cannot do behind closed doors in regards to sex. Supporting the right of a state to form it’s own legislation on any matter, including sex, is something he would most likely vote yes on. That doesn’t mean he would vote in favor of legislation regulating private sexual acts between two consenting adults. I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Being a proponent of states rights doesn’t make you a homophobe.
You are completely blowing this out of proportion and taking it to the absolute extreme. No state is going criminalize homosexuality. Get real. And, I’d like to see a business today try to reinstate segregation…let’s see how long they remain in business.
Why is everything black or white with you? Only whites can be racist? Only blacks can say the n word? You never did answer that one. There seems to be an ever emerging theme of black or white with you…but, I guess I’m the xenophobic racist because the mere thought of anyone saying that word is completely ludicrous. :rolleyes:
I disagree with his views on the gold standard. That would never see the light of day if he were to some how get elected anyway. I don’t know what specific conspiracies you are talking about. 9/11? That’s a topic in and of itself…all I will say is that I don’t believe the official government story and I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t think his foreign policy is bad at all. I guess I’ll have to search for this other thread, I just signed up the other day and haven’t begun to scratch the surface of topics here.
There are sodomy laws on the books in several states right now, and the only legal impediment to their being enforced is a Supreme Court ruling that Ron Paul wants to nullify. Lawrence v Texas, which really wasn’t all that long ago, wasn’t based on theory. Two men really were arrested for consensual sex, and Ron Paul really would allow states to start that kind of gay-bashing once again.
If I call one of my white friends a nigger, which I have done many moons ago, am I racist? If I call one of my black friends, nigga, am I racist?