http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49862

It is interesting for me to note that you could say that I hate gay people and you can quote me on it if you just pulled that portion of this comment and published it. The quote would not present my views, nor give the context of it as an example of how I could be misquoted. All you need to do is pull those words and state correctly that I wrote them.

“We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality. It’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights.”
-Ron Paul in Republican Presidential Debate, June 5th, 2007

John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ron Paul: Sure.

Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?

Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can’t make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state function. I think it’s a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don’t agree with that.
http://www.queerty.com/ron-pau.....-20071210/

I really don’t care who wrote what, I’m interested in a candidate that grows some balls and shoots from the hip, you either support gay people and our rights or you don’t. This Ron Paul sounds good, but read more, he really is a nut job.

> Wicks, marriage is a civil institution,
> sanctioned by the state, and that’s the way it
> should be.

Why should a consenting relationship between anybody be sanctioned by the state? Why should the state be determining anything about what adults do? If 5 men want to marry 12 women and they all want to have sex, why should the state be saying “no” to that?

What business does the state have getting involved at all?

“You can shove your bible up your ass;”

I’m an atheist. The only bible I read is online. I suppose I could stuff my keychain up my ass, it does have 4 GB on it. I have tried a carrot up my ass, I’m pretty certain that if I have any gay tendencies, I’m not a bottom.

> I’ll take the Constitution. And it’s not “gay
> marriage.” Gay people are already married.

I hope you do take the Constitution.

Because it doesn’t say anything about fucking marriage. Read it.

The Federal government shouldn’t be recognizing marriage AT ALL.

There has never been a political candidate at this level of American politics who advocated LESS state control and LESS government, period.

Where are those “Orwell was right” buttons? We need them. “War is peace!” “Hate is Love!” “Ron Paul is a fascist!”

No matter who is elected (because it won’t be Paul) we will have a neocon in office. Obama jabbering about invading Pakistan? Hillary unafraid to nuke Iran? But you were told long ago that these were the good guys, right?

And you’re calling us sheep?

I’m sure glad all of you have your priority’s straight!

You are either acting ignorant or you are truly the most stupid person on this site if you believe that most people in this country only have religious marriages that are not registered and administered by the STATE.

You, bubba, are the one who needs to find out more about who your talking to before you make an ass out of yourself.

For fucks sake! Calling Paul supporters blind supporters as you nuts vote for people that are considering using NUCLEAR WEAPONS on Iran, that is irony in the extreme.

Read about the other candidates.

Oh, it’s just hopeless.

I’m afraid you’re right. Nobody really seems to care about policy, all they care about is whether the current morons in charge have a D or an R at the end of their name.

Hell, we have a nation building, Federal government growing, deficit spending nutcase in the white house, and plenty of “Republicans” support him. I’ve been tearing my hair trying to figure out what “Republicans” are thinking, but you’re probably right, they aren’t Republicans at all.

This nation is so doomed it’s not funny. Republicans and Democrats have essentially the same policy, just different rhetoric.

And for those that don’t believe this: Is abortion illegal? It could have been, for 6 years the Republicans dominated the executive, judicial, and legislative branch.

Oh, and and that “great president” Clinton implemented the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy – you know the SAME FUCKING POLICY THAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE.

God, I hate being in a flock of sheep racing off to the edge of a cliff. I now understand what the Cassandra complex is.

GROW UP PLEASE if you want any respect from the mainstream!

I have many conservative gay friends and you make them ashamed.

Yes, apparently he would. The truth is many socialist democrats have absolutely no problem with the war or any of the over-reaching powers of the federal government. They simply want to be the ones in control of it.

They oppose it now, but that opposition will disappear once they hold office.

Didn’t the “democratic upset” in 2006 prove this? There is no opposition to policy, just opposition to party.

They don’t argue that Ron Paul IS a racist, just that they are justified in smearing him BECAUSE they feel his other policies would be “dangerous.”

The truth is, this author wants to take Ron Paul down because he wants a socialist country. And anything he has to do, including lying and smearing, is perfectly justified to acheive those means.

Their comments in the thread betray their agenda.

“You can call my concerns trivial all you want, but my bottom line is that I’m not casting a vote for some crackpot conspiracy theorist isolationist “fair” taxer who lets people bash me in his newsletters.”

Would you vote for someone who has actively enabled, and will continue to basically support, all of the government butchery (war, global military occupation, propping up dictators, bloody War on Drugs) that I discussed in my post above?

> One thing that’s hurt Ron standing amoung
> social conservatives many years ago was his
> endorsement of an openly gay candidate running
> on the Libertarian ticket. -And it looks like
> it didn’t score points with the gays either.
> Maybe it’s better politically to distance
> yourself from gays, since they don’t seem to
> do much research.

Most people don’t do much research.

This is so depressing and troubling that there is so much ignorance, and that the population can be so easily manipulated and that there are so many people willing to manipulate.

We have a true opportunity with Paul. To end our murderous wars, to stop the military industrial complex which DOES exist, to stop eroding our freedoms, to reduce an abusive and insane government, and to respect everybody’s rights – black, gay, Christian, atheist and people are throwing it away. Clinton, Obama, and all the Republicans except Paul are neocons.

Kucinich and Gravel are Democrats, they are courageous Democrats, and the Democratic voters won’t vote for them. They are “nuts”. Nuts for opposing the war, nuts for talking about the one document that protects us all – the Constitution.

We’re headed for an economic disaster, and directive 51 is in place. If you believe in God, and I do not, pray – because 51 covers any upset in the normal flow of operations.

“You can call my concerns trivial all you want, but my bottom line is that I’m not casting a vote for some crackpot conspiracy theorist isolationist “fair” taxer who lets people bash me in his newsletters.”

And you won’t be voting for one, if you vote for Paul.

As I said, you guys are pawns, and you are shooting yourselves in the heads. If you JERKS haven’t woken up to the fact the US media is total bullshit after “the new economy”, after “weapons of mass destruction”, after “Hussein worked with Al Qaeda”, after “the housing market miracle”, after “the soft landing”, you never will.

New is propaganda.

Incidentally, I am not gay, but I have a business partner who is, who is taking care of his dying husband who is HIV positive, and I have a cousin who is gay who is an expatriot because his lover is Argentinian and they cannot marry. They both support Paul, not because they are stupid, it’s because they aren’t.

Paul is the greatest advocate for personal freedom I’ve ever seen running for president. He doesn’t allow his personal views to interfere with his constitutional duty.

If you haven’t realized it by yet, let me point out who the “nuts” are, so labelled by the media:

Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel

Every one of them is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and has been before the war started.

Every one of them doesn’t support attacking Iran, a nation that does not threaten us.

Every one of them believes in personal liberty, at least at the social level, they differ on the economic level.

Those are the THREE candidates running, everybody else is merely a meat puppet of whatever powers that be that run this country. The people who run this country, don’t care if you have anal sex or get married, they don’t care if abortion is illegal, these are divisive minor issues. The real issues are personal freedom, economics of this country, and war.

Hitler was putting homosexuals into concentration camps, that’s where the pink triangle comes from. I want you guys to realize that we have concentration camps here, they are called detention camps.

http://tinyurl.com/yuu5zv

No doubt you think these are nothing more than a conspiracy theory, VISIT ONE. They do exist.

I know gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are important, but they are only important when we have a FUNCTIONING country, and we may not have one for long. Get your priorities straight and stop being a tool to the media which isn’t a free media at all.

Go fly to France, and watch CNN THERE and marvel as to why it’s so radically different in content to CNN here. I am 1/2 Polish, I can tell you that I know, NOBODY ever believes the people warning of approaching police states, but it’s in my genes because my “paranoid conspiracy theorist” ancestors left, before Auschwitz was built.

Directive 51 exists. We hang together, or we’re going to hang seperately folks. Hillary Clinton and Obama are not on your side. Kucinich and Gravel are but Paul has the best chance, and I know it’s not the biggest chance, but it may be our lest hope to get him elected.

One of the things supposedly slamming gays was that there are gays trying to get infected with HIV.
As a Gay man with HIV I can state that that is something that is happening. The gay community knows this. It’s called bug chasing. I have had numerous gay men wanting me to infect them. I have not gone along with their crazy request because I would never want to pass this on to anyone. Ron Paul is the only candidate running from either party other than Kucinich that think gays should be allowed to get married and that it’s none of the governments business, so Ron Paul support gays being able to marry more than Clinton, Obama or Edwards.He also understand that Don’t ask Don’t tell is absurd and should be changed. He sounds more like what you would or should be hearing from the Dems. Ron Paul never takes money from lobbyist or special interest. Ron Paul wants to give the country back to the people.

Gay issues are not why I’m voting for Ron Paul, but it is because Ron Paul is the only honest candidate who will follow the Constitution, bring our Troops home, and stop the out of control spending that has this country on the brink of the abyss. If the country crumbles then your rights and something someone else wrote won’t matter one damn bit.

Here is how they keep Hillary on her toes:

Youtube:

watch?v=rlN3LMvyWwo

And this is how they keep George Bush doing as he is being told:

watch?v=nj6uyDDnx50

“It sure does. It means there are a lot of folks on here who really don’t belong.”

Interesting comment. It says even more. It says to me that elitism is alive and well in every social group. It says that there are many who want equality, but that desire always seems to end up being, in practice, for the right to be as equally exclusionary as the racists and the homophobes and the sexists. I guess oppression is only bad if you’re being oppressed.

It’s sad to me that Ron Paul is being dismissed, but not at all surprising, with any level of casual knowledge of how humans actually behave.

No, these things happened because politicians voted to implement and fund these things. Of the leading candidates (to use the media term), all of them would basically continue these crimes; in fact, McCain, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have all explicitly aided and abetted these atrocities as U.S. Senators.

I’m no longer a Paul supporter. But those who are condemning his supporters need to keep this in mind: even if he personally wrote every word in those newsletters, and much worse, this wouldn’t even come close to the moral repugnancy of the leading candidates’ complicity in the actions of the U.S. government. I can see a person of good conscience supporting Ron Paul, despite his very disturbing flaws, because he wants to end the butchery; I’m not so sure how anyone could support the leading candidates who will continue most of it.

By the way everyone… today is the Money bomb, go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com to donate!

It sure does. It means there are a lot of folks on here who really don’t belong.

“An interesting analysis given that I am an anarchist who has not voted in years, and mostly voted third party back when I did.”

Anarchy as a viable political system? Okay, I’m officially done, y’all. See you back on Venus.

He already has. He has stated that those words aren’t his, but that he claims “moral responsibility” for them for exactly the reasons you state.

So in short, he made a mistake in managerial judgment and oversight, nothing more, and has corrected it. Next?

His ideas are the only ones that allow a true choice. Not just one that is acceptable to you. To allow choice by only allowing selections to be made from a pre-approved list is the tool of a dictatorship. And he is the only candidate calling the troops home. The democrats winning in congress was supposed to be bringing our troops home. Instead they voted for a surge. Republicans gave us the Patriot Act, 66 Representatives voted against that the first time (including RP). Democrats have now passed the Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act, which will lead to worse abuses than the Patriot Act and only 4 Representatives voted against that.

EMB, Facism is bandied around quite a bit. Facism is not racism. Facism is allowing the state so much power that it can do whatever it wants and no one can question it or stop it. Jim Crow was facism. Suppressing MLK was facism. But supressing white supremacists is also facism. Proposing a bill where certain words are illegal because they are hurtful is facist because it allows for the policing of ideas. To fight for the policing of other people’s ideas is irresponsible and if those in power ever don’t like your ideas, you have no one to blame except yourself if you advocate that other people’s ideas must be regulated. Facism is what government wants. If you are not voting for a libertarian candidate, another step towards facism is what you are voting in. Orwell wrote against political manipulation of people through the devaluing of words, against totalitarianism selling itself as liberty. Orwell was against what Ron Paul is against. Ron Paul speaks plainly and wants government to have less power. Orwell warned against the opposite message of what Ron Paul is speaking of.

Individual liberty means freedom for you and everyone else, not just the people who agree with you, nor just the people who don’t. I know it’s scary. It means having to be responsible for yourself. You have to be an adult to embrace individual liberty. I note with sadness a significant lack of people who should qualify as responsible adults in America.

And as far as isolationism is concerned. Trade with all, war with none, that is his message. That war is the last resort for a country and it should only be undertaken in defense. That economic trade with all nations is our best course. How’s that for working with a global economy? Compare that with our present policy of exploiting other countries economically, and manipulating their politics for our own benefit. And if all else fails, going to war for economic benefit. Does no one see what we have been doing?

I see people using racist, isolationist, fascist, but none of these words apply to him. In fact in many instances the opposite applies. But as Orwell predicted, people will accept the dialogue of political manipulation, finding cliche and sound bites easier than careful dialogue and examination. People who will not parse the words out to examine their meanings, opting to listen to other’s opinions on what they should think, will fall prey to those who seek to exploit and enslave them because if they do not trully understand the meaning of the language, they fall prey to the changing of words which changes the meaning of the argument. You want Orwellian politics, don’t vote for Ron Paul. Any of the other candidates will do.

Oh and please note Billy’s comment. That says a lot.

I want to be free of the UN. I want to be free of NATO. I want to be free to make my own economic decisions. I want to be free to make *all* of my own decisions. I want to contract with who I want, hire who I want, work where I want, live where and with whom I want, spend money on what I want, not spend money on what I don’t want, listen to who I want, support who I believe in, and not support who I don’t.

So: do you oppose my freedoms or not? If not, then I don’t think I was taking you out of context at all.

“That’s a bit of a traditional Republican tactic.”

An interesting analysis given that I am an anarchist who has not voted in years, and mostly voted third party back when I did.

“I think I pretty clearly said individual liberty isn’t going to come from the methods championed by Paul”

You are right, because individual liberty does not come from above, and certainly not from any strong central anything. “Individual liberty” is not a policy; it’s an already existent state of being. The role of institutions is not to give it or allow it or allocate it: it is to recognize it and get out of its way.

Paul is the only candidate who has stated that he is running for president because he *doesn’t* want to run our lives. There’s my litmus test for believing in freedom.

As far as the newsletters go, I think they are largely a nonissue. Two decades ago, some of the people Ron Paul was associated with may have thought it was a good idea to try to curry favor with bigoted southerners by appearing to be bigoted as well. They were wrong. If the idea behind bringing up the newsletters is to make it seem like Ron Paul was bigoted 20 years ago, then the attack is misinformed. And even if it were true, it would hardly matter as he certainly isn’t bigoted nowadays.

Kipload, are you married? Ron Paul is. I would be willing to bet that you are just as big a hypocrite as he is on this issue.

Furthermore, I bet Ron Paul never called for legal marriage to be abolished until gays started asking for it.

——————-

Sir you are obviously confused. First, I am not married. Not planning on it either. Secondly, how would Ron be a hypocrite on this issue? OMG he’s married. So what? Just because you practice your religion and get married doesn’t mean you believe the state should be involved.

Just because I support the right for “christians” to follow their religious ceremonies as they see fit doesn’t mean you should be inhibited from your own ceremony or from one that a church feels inclined to setup for you.

The state should do one of two things. One is to not recognize marriage (taxes, visitation, or inheritance) in any way, or simply recognize a private contractual agreement between two parties on a purely financial basis thus leaving sexuality out of the state’s scope of control.

You might also want to research a person’s positions, before making an ass out of yourself. (See last statement above) The man follows the school of thought set forth by Jewish Holocaust refugee Ludwig von Mises, his stance on contractual agreements, property rights, and civil liberties go back over 30 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY