Why Does Gay Billionaire Peter Thiel Fund Crazy Ron Paul’s Presidential Dream?
This image is from: Why Does Gay Billionaire Peter Thiel Fund Crazy Ron Paul’s Presidential Dream? · «Back to article
This image is from: Why Does Gay Billionaire Peter Thiel Fund Crazy Ron Paul’s Presidential Dream? · «Back to article
First, Dr.Paul is not a senator. Maybe you should do your homework…
Second, why are you so uncomfortable with libertarianism? Funny how you spout off and try to make it seem like a bunch of crazy people. Ironic how you obviously see homophobia as bad, yet you are a libertarianphobe…
Third, you should do your homework! It has already be proven that Dr.Paul did not wrote the newsletters. A real journalist, unlike yourself, investigated and reported the truth. See Ben Swan..
Get a life
·
You’re also missing the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t believe in group rights, he believes in Individual rights, which would benefit the gay community equal to the way it benefits the straight, black, hispanic white, asian, and every other group of individuals out there… I makes us all equal in the eyes of the government which, last time I checked, is a good thing..
·
Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former employee who was fired. after being fired he ran against Paul in his district and lost bad. he has been trashing Ron Paul ever since.
how about some real news from someone that has not been fired.
·
Thiel is a freak. The New Yorker article about him was disturbing.
·
I like the anti-war stuff, but I think gay men should be against libertarianism because all those gold coins will be so bulgy and wear out the linings in your pockets.
·
” “there are a lot of people who have crazy emotional issues, and politics is a way to channel that.”
Enough Said!
·
Hmmm…A white German who thinks he’s better than everyone else. Where have we seen this before?
·
There are soooo many things wrong with this article that I don’t know where to begin.. Ok, first – Ron Paul’s newsletters with the racist/homophobic comments in them have already been proven to be false. Why that doesn’t get brought up in the media more? Not sure. But why do you think the establishment television doesn’t bring this up to attack him, because they know it’s not true and could be easily proven false by the RP camp. Think about it, that would be the first thing they would have done.
Ok, second – Ron Paul’s positions on the issues do not favor gay people. But, they don’t favor straight people either. They focus on the individual. Ron Paul’s message can basically be boiled down to this: the government is around to help you, not tell you how to live your life. That’s it. THAT’S IT FOLKS!! If you are gay and want to brag it up, go for it. If you’re straight and want to brag it up, go for it. It doesn’t matter. Live your life the way you want. The government shouldn’t tell you what to eat, who to marry, and what you can and can’t smoke.
Now onto the discussion of idealism. Did you know that a major pharma company created a drug that is much better at fighting cancer about a decade ago? They shelved it because it was too expensive for people to buy and thus ate away at profits. How bogus is that? You could save peoples lives but choose not to because your losing some money? So, yes, idealism is good and necessary for true change. Idealistic thought creates change; necessary change which challenges the status quo. No idealistic thought is the mindset of a destroyer – one who will strike down other people’s ideas calling them loony or crazy without giving them a fair shake. Much like you do in this entire article.
Moral of the story – we need to bring back debate without writing it off as crazy or loony. Because, as many have learned, these ideas are not loony, but rather revolutionary. They are necessary for the idealistic views many of us hope for and can see as a possibility. Too many are focused on winning and losing (Dems and Reps). How about we focus on progress instead?
·
I’m glad the other commenters aren’t as ignorant about Libertarianism than the author of the article.
I don’t like Ron Paul’s beliefs, but I respect him because he doesn’t inject those personal beliefs into his politics, which I belief is the right thing to do.
·
If I was gay, I’m pretty sure I’d be somewhat offended to be thrown into a bin called “The Gay Cause” without my consent. The fact that I prefer one sex over the other does not reconfigure my entire brain to agree with, or even like, everyone else who also has the same preferences. To me, that’s like saying that if you like twinkies, you should agree with everyone else who likes twinkies.
Of course, there is the fact that homosexuals are persecuted and that veers into politics, but that doesn’t mean there exists only one monolithic answer to the problem. As incredible as this seems, some people view the world differently, and some people think that a system that allows for greater freedom to all individuals would benefit homosexuals much more than any “group rights” would.
The function of the state is to keep people divided because as long as everyone is fighting with everyone else, no one pays attention to what the government is doing. That’s why they love so much to separate people into groups and make each group think that they have different “rights” because of some similarity they share with other people.
The state is like this big Sugar Daddy and we are his whores. If we keep fighting for his attention and his gifts, we won’t complain about the beatings.
·
Also, I don’t understand this calling Ayn Rand a libertarian. She’s made very clear that she HATED libertarians, even more so than Marxists. Her political/moral/aesthetical philosophy was Objectivism. It wasn’t much different to some brands of minarchist libertarianism, but apparently it was different enough to warrant her hatred.
·
@Daniel T.: Awesome! Thanks for your salient points and clear-headed perspective.
·
Heterosexuals are a group@Daren Ferreira: Heterosexuals are also a group and Paul is one of them. How do you explain Paul’s statement that DOMA should be determined by the states and if legislated for become the law, whereas he also defends a state’s right to legislate for marriage equality. How can he support both? Doesn’t add up. If that is his belief, then we will NEVER see DOMA repealed or marriage equality in all states because Paul and his party don’t like big government. The SCOTUS is one of the 3 branches of big government. We would never have full equality under that kind of government, ever.
·
@Daniel T.: Sure. Freedom for everyone, equally. Except that in the real world some folks always end up being a little freer than others. I also question the conspiracy theory that the function of the state is social division. The functions of the state are those things that can be better, or only, achieved collectively than they can privately. I suppose we could regress and give over foreign affairs and diplomacy to a latter-day version of the East India Company and make every highway a privately owned toll road, or make people subscribe to fire departments again, which departments would only put out the fires of paid members. Of course, most reasonable people wouldn’t see the obliteration of government agency as sensible.
·
The whole 2party system is a joke.
Alternative parties such as the Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party, Justice Party or libertarian Party are far more progressive than the Democrats and of course the Republicans.
Half of the nation is in poverty while politicians give themselves raises, tax us more, and cut social services. Corporations own the political leaders of the world as well as most of the major nonprofits. Meanwhile congress has the lowest approval rating and more and more people are registering as independents (not an option in some states) or decline to state. What’s more, the Occupy and Tea Party movements show most people are fed up with the government.
And yet American voters are still stuck on the same 2party system that perpetuates the ruin of America by causing economic peril and erosion of liberties.
Obama is not pro-marriage equality and the Democrats are just now getting around to considering marriage equality in their platform. Voting for Democrats instead of progressive alternative parties is settling for domestic partnerships instead of full marriage equality.
Typical reactions to the idea of voting for an alternative party are:
-Nader cost Gore the election
-It throws the election to the greater of 2 evils
Nonsense.
First, the idea that Nader cost Gore the election has been studied and refuted. Second, and more importantly, there is no such thing as costing anyone the election. We are supposed to live in a democratic republic with multiple options – not a 2 party tyranny.
Second, the Democrats and Republicans rotate in cycles and both sides act like the other party being in power will be the end times. They play groups off one another though fear. It’s a phony WWE like show in which the 2 sides present themselves as enemies but are really both owned and run by the corporations.
What keeps alternative parties from becoming viable is the corporately controlled media blackout and bias (such as referring to alternative parties as spoilers and underdogs), unfair election laws favoring the 2party system, like CA’s Prop 14/top 2 primary (see Ballot Access News for many examples of unfair election laws), and the failure of alternative parties to unite to combat the media blackout and unfair election laws.
Speaking of media blackout, most LGBT media, even independent LGBT media, ignores the 100% pro-equality alternative parties and instead dwells on fear of Republicans.
Alternative parties need to unite and have regional based chapters (similar to Tea Party organizational structure) dedicated to advancing the visibility and viability of political parties in their communities.
At least the Green Party does not accept corporate donations.
As far as the 2party system goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
·
This article reveals two things: gays are woefully, indeed embarrassingly uninformed;
Queerty is just as willing to promote internationalist propaganda and to subserviate gays as most any mainstream media organization.
·
One of the many things, I do not understand is why gays have to be liberals. Granted gays get a better deal with the Democrats than the GOP, but most gays come from that side of the tracks. 40 years ago I moved from Toledo, Ohio to San Francisco to teach Industrial Safety Engineering at a local college. Meeting all kind of lesbian & gays you can not describe them as all the same. Met many gay who were rich and had more in common with the GOP, they worried about there investments than civil right for anyone. Two older Mormons, and very rich had no problem with the Church. They we welcomed as long as they paid 10% of there income. Also met a lot of middle and poor gay. They had the same problems as everyone else, mortgage, rent payments, finding a date, and at the time AIDS was hitting hard.
Went to Log Cabin Republican Club meeting and the conversation revolved around investment, taxes and if there nightly tricks had correct social up bringing. The meeting was held in a up-class piano bar where everyone looked clean and smelled nice.
On the other hand when I went to the Stonewall Gay Democratic Club, it was held in the Women’s building which was run down and in the worst part of the Mission District. People were concerned about Aids, Harvey Milk being shot and what clubs & bars free Food or discount drinks. Stonewall was more fun.
I am now reaching, the end of this long gay adventure, have a lover of 25 years 1/2 my age and the important thing in my life is to make sure he can live his live style without working. Sounds bazaar, but why should he start working because I got old and died.
As for Mr. Thiel and his billions, he has a right to spend it anyway he wants. I agree with some of Congressman Paul’s ideas. Why should we have troops all over the world, when Americans gay and straight are unemployed. Remember, Mr Thiel is rich, very rich that is how rich people think, gay, straight or from the moon. It would be nice to see some of his money go back into the community, but that is his right.
After moving to Seattle, I ran into a lot of very rich gay who worked for Bill Gates at the start of Microsoft and now are my age retired and doing just great. the most criticism I hear about Mr Gates is from my straight business friends. They still live in the world of DOS, and lost a lot of money the industry evolved. But because of MR Gates and his wife, a lot of people in the world have a better life.
So to end, this diatribe, remember Bill Clinton, passed the military “don’t ask don”t tell law. Mr. Obama does not know if he can support gay marriage. Voted for them both, more interested in helping poor people gay and straight than the GOP.
I can remember 60 years ago when the gay bars in Toledo, Ohio were owned by the Detroit Mob (Purple Gang)who owned the police & city officials . Any one of any age could get in as long as they had the money for a drink. We have come a long way since them and most for the better.
HARVEY BILLMIER
The Ocean Shores Group Inc
Ocean Shores, WA USA
http://www.gnintl.info
·
Articles like this just attract straight homophobic no-nothing Paulites.
Guess what, you suck at promulgating your philosophies and positions. Go do your political circle jerking in your own bloody spaces.
·
Nice little biography.
And a general comment to the entire audience;
You cannot judge someone’s generosity and compassion based only upon public information.
He could be paying the mortgage and health insurance premiums for unemployed gay people as
far as we know.
We have no idea what else this man does with his money.
We only know about the Super-PAC because it is public knowledge.
·
Libertarianism = “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
The more equal animals are usually the white, straight, christian type, like “Dr” Paul.
The version of libertarianism spouted by Paul is dangerous. Most people have no idea of politics, so they think what he says sounds good.
The term for these people is “the masses”.
They can always be depended on to be stupid, senseless little lambs looking for a wolf to guide them.
·
@Daniel T.: Ummm… As for the first part of your comment, congrats! Despite living the heterosexual lifestyle, you have successfully approximated what it’s like to be an individual in a diverse and often beleaguered minority group! Gold stars! But then you squander that empathy (and any further persuasive push) by harping on identity politics and ending on a particularly ugly metaphor with all the appeal of a Hitler-mustached Obama on a LaRouche poster.
Oh, and you know who Ayn Rand hated even more than libertarians? Gay people! Check out this gem circa ’71: “[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians… is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print.” Of course, you seem to be trying to rhetorically distance Paul from her, but the platform opposition to ‘special rights’ seems preeeetty familiar.
But given his astonishing 51 delegates in the Republican Primary, I’m sure he appreciates each and every one of you coming to tell teh gays how deluded they are for seeking those oh so very ‘special’ rights.
·
Just shows that even we gays have our nutcases.
·
I don’t support Ron Paul, but the anti-libertarianism coming from queer Democrats is a bit over the top.
They campaigned and voted for Bill Clinton (who signed DOMA), John Kerry (who opposed marriage equality), Al Gore (who didn’t even know how to properly pronounce “civil union”), and the current president of the United States (who claims to be “evolving on the issue” of marriage equality, but still opposes equality under the law).
Meanwhile, the likely Libertarian nominee for president (big-L Libertarian being as “libertarian” as one can get) supports marriage equality without reservation.
So while Thiel’s support of Ron Paul certainly has some questions it raises, any LGBT person enthusiastically supporting the Democratic party nominee for president in this election isn’t exactly in the position to be pointing fingers at others for supporting candidates who aren’t unabashedly pro-gay.
·
@Harvey Billmaier: You teach? At a college level? I’m not posting about your opinion because I could not read enough of it to grasp your point. My post is to ask if you ever proof read your writing? Sorry Teach, you get an F.
·
I’m for Ron Paul. I’m gay. Libertarians are compatible with the GLBT rights because, although they are Financially conservative, they are more socially progressive than Clinton or Obama as a group. Individual rights, above all, is their mantra. It is mine too.
·
Way Stupid. It’s not worth talking to the selfish rube crowd.
·
@J Stratford: Libertarians are a fraud, an a historical fantasy. Learn rubes.
·
Ron Paul supports DOMA I believe.
·
Libertarians are for their own liberty only. They reject liberty and justice for gays.
And they need to travel the world a little to see that paying a little extra in taxes can bring about far more liberty and justice than creating an impotent government can.
·
Ignoring the generally uninformed hatred of libertarians on here…
As far as I know, Queerty has yet to cover Gary Johnson at all. He’s running for the Libertarian Party nomination (after being shut out by the GOP — no access to debates, essentially blacklisted by the media) and he’s pretty much the only “major” presidential candidate (polling 7% in a projected race against Obama and Romney, big deal for a third party) who OPENLY and CONSISTENTLY supports marriage equality. Unlike Republicans, who default to either a constitutional amendment or “It’s an abomination but, uh, states rights!” or Democrats, who are taken for granted as being friends to the gays, yet have yet to really act like it on a national scale, Johnson is a true proponent of individual rights — because, sorry, libertarianism does make sense if you understand it, and it’s the only ideology that currently really supports equality.
PS Obviously, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter. Was in 2007/2008, but he’s pretty clearly not presidential material right now.
·
@GBro: Kind of difficult to distance Ron Paul from Ayn Rand considering the old fart named his son Rand, after Rand.
·
@J Stratford: A fair question: How can someone support of “leader” of libertarianism and the free market, yet, promotes the re-adoption of the centuries’ old gold standard drastically limiting the free market valuation of gold?
·
Libertarians are confused. Their views can lead to practically anything. Their dream world, if put into practice, would collapse in two days because all the “individual freedoms” would collide. Also – how can you actually be a rich libertarian? To get rich in our society means inevitably using other people that are being ushered into controlled groups – that is, the guys who are actually doing the work providing you with money.
·
Libertarianism has its charms – albeit on the surface only. It might sound good to have very limited government, but who steps in when a large number of people are injured or die from a business’ malfeasance? How soon does the libertarian society develop a “law of the jungle” mentality? To have a functional libertarian society, there would need to be a nearly uniform level of maturity and self-discipline in that population. Based on real-world experience, that level of uniformity is found almost exclusively in fiction.
Economics, which is the exchange of goods and services between people, is hardly rational and often is self-serving. A strong authority is needed to maintain a sense of balance between participants in an economy and nation to have a civil society.
·
Libertaritards just love them some snake oil. What’s it like learning that there has been one crisis after another in governing ourselves from the beginning of time, and you’ve fallen for every vain folly of a future trip, time and time again? It’s as if Platos’ choice of the best of a bad lot never happened, yet they’ll spew feel good utopian dorm room philosophy all day. Until you pull their covers, then they’ve suddenly mastered Machiavelli, of course. If it gets us paid, well it must be a hustle. What a way to live, if you can call that living.
·
The thing you’re overlooking is that every political ideology is far different in practice than in theory. Take what any “liberal” Democrat or “conservative” Republican. I personally am ideologically a deontological libertarian, which OBVIOUSLY is not a completely achievable philosophy in practice, but I’m also a Libertarian, as in a member of the party, which OBVIOUSLY adjusts ideology for practice in the actual nation.
Again, Gary Johnson. Only proponent of small government (both fiscally and socially) who walked the walk. Cut taxes, eliminated New Mexico’s deficit, worked for serious reform in public issues (for instance, ideologically libertarians support privatization of education; Johnson supported vouchers, an actually workable alternative) and has loudly and seriously advocated an end to the war on drugs and, yes, marriage equality!
Like it or not, the LP is the major third party right now. And actually, you probably should be happy about that — we silly Libertarians will likely have more of a hand in influencing our next president’s policy than regular old Dems or GOPers (because, you know, your party couldn’t care less about what you want, since you’ll still vote for them regardless).
·
@gilly: “(because, you know, your party couldn’t care less about what you want, since you’ll still vote for them regardless).”
See, this is what I mean. The above quote comes from a post addressed to nobody specifically, and it’s burbling on about real politic shrinking the state. Then, our boy practiced in the mirror a few times, and then let us in on himself talking to himself in the mirror! This shit is hilarious if so many turds didn’t believe it. Again, Platos choice of a bad lot. Democracy and the state is the best of many far more horrific choices politically. I know it because it’s true historically, and that doesn’t make me a Platonist, get it? Thinking, even when you manage to do some, a Libertarian will never admit it, because you’re dishonest with yourself. Not everyone else is, OK?
·
“And they need to travel the world a little to see that paying a little extra in taxes can bring about far more liberty and justice than creating an impotent government can.”
Like where? How much extra? And what liberties are you referencing?
·
I don’t care for some of Paul’s issues when it comes to gay rights. Barring federal courts from hearing cases against DOMA…while being one of five republicans in the house to vote to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. And yes, he’s had openly gay staffers work for him. Eric Dondero being one of those employees that just didn’t work out. However, the man that got him inspired to run (that I believe was shortly a campaign manager) in 2008 was a gay man. He even took a swipe at Santorum on Jay Leno saying that he really doesn’t like Muslim’s or gays (which would be a smart thing for a GOP candidate for president to do right?…that would really win him some votes with the social con’s!).
Nor do I care for Paul’s stance on immigration. However, he’s against aggressive wars domestic and foreign. I can forgo my marriage license for another 4 years if that means that innocent people aren’t being killed in foreign countries or that I lose my right of a trial.
Our priorities must be really fucked up if we care more about marital benefits than the fact that you’re tax dollars are being used to probe bomb some poor village in Yemen without congressional approval.
Paul isn’t perfect, but I rather take him over the past few war criminals (including the current one in the oval office) we’ve had recently in the white house.
·
@Harvey Billmaier: Few days late, but catching up on my reading. Enjoyed your insightful and thoughtful post. Take care.
·
Harvey ~
I would be most interested in talking with you about the gay bars in Toledo,Ohio that you mention in your post from 60 years ago.
I’m trying to compile data about the history of gay bars in Toledo,Ohio.
Please get in touch with me at [email protected]
·
Very sad to see that mega rich queers are so self-loathing that they would support the same cause that is seeking to destroy their own peers. I guess it is true what they say. Money is the great equalizer. You could be a chain saw serial canniabalistic murderer but if you are a billionaire, society will accept you and even praise you! Sick!
·
Add your Comment
-
People in the NewsAlex Minsky · Ben Cohen · Chris Crocker · Colby Keller · Davey Wavey · Dustin Lance Black · James Franco · Kim Davis · Laverne Cox · Neil Patrick Harris · Nick Gruber · Nick Jonas · Noah Galvin · Steve Grand · Tim Cook · Tom Daley · Tom Hardy · Troye Sivan · Zac Efron · Zachary Quinto ·Popular TagsBarack Obama California Celebs / Celebrities Crime Discrimination Entertainment Fashion Gay Gay Marriage Gossip Health Homophobia Humor Marriage Marriage Equality Media Military Morning Goods Movies Music Music Videos News New York Photos Politics Religion Sports Television Transgender VideoContact QueertyShare a tip or link
Technical Site Bug or Suggestions
Advertise With Us -
Follow Queerty
On GayCities- GayCities - Uncover the best of what's happening
- GayCities iPhone App - Find nearby places & events
Share your take in these Popular Cities:
To the author: If you don’t know that Paul is not a “senator”, what else don’t you know?