Question about Ron Paul

hippiemom

I don't know if this was addressed in one of the debate threads or not, I haven't been keeping up here as well as I once did, so I apologize if it's already been covered.

I'm sure most of you have seen or heard the clip from the debate the other night, where the question was "Do any of you support gays being allowed to serve openly in the military?" and none of the republican candidates raised their hands.

This hardly came as a surprise from most of them, but it doesn't seem in keeping with what I know of Ron Paul. Does anyone have any insight as to why he takes this stance? I have a hard time thinking it's the same anti-gay nonsense that we're used to hearing from the others, there has to be some other reason.

Abookamongstthemany

There have been questions concerning Paul and some racist type remarks in the past. I haven't heard anything about homosexuals.

Specifics

Is that the guy with the huge wang? damn he's getting serious these days!!

Oh yeah thats Ron JEREMY

hippiemom

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There have been questions concerning Paul and some racist type remarks in the past. I haven't heard anything about homosexuals.

That would be truly disappointing if he turned out to be some sort of bigot :(

I disagree with many of his positions on issues, but he's been a refreshing presence on the republican side and he seemed to be a man of integrity. He certainly hasn't shied away from taking stances that are unpopular on the right, which is why I was surprised not to see his hand go up.

jeffbr

hippiemom wrote:

I don't know if this was addressed in one of the debate threads or not, I haven't been keeping up here as well as I once did, so I apologize if it's already been covered.

I'm sure most of you have seen or heard the clip from the debate the other night, where the question was "Do any of you support gays being allowed to serve openly in the military?" and none of the republican candidates raised their hands.

This hardly came as a surprise from most of them, but it doesn't seem in keeping with what I know of Ron Paul. Does anyone have any insight as to why he takes this stance? I have a hard time thinking it's the same anti-gay nonsense that we're used to hearing from the others, there has to be some other reason.

He certainly doesn't take an anti-gay stance. I would never support a candidate who did. He takes the position that people are individuals, not groups. Every individual should be treated the same way.

Here's what he said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/paul-homosexuality-is-not-the-issue/

hippiemom

jeffbr wrote:

He certainly doesn't take an anti-gay stance. I would never support a candidate who did. He takes the position that people are individuals, not groups. Every individual should be treated the same way.

Here's what he said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/paul-homosexuality-is-not-the-issue/

Thanks Jeff

I disagree with him about the decency of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but I'm pleased to see he's not aboard with the anti-gay rubbish that's so popular in his party.

norm

Should the military’s policy on gays be changed?

I think the current policy is a decent one. The real problem is that we see people as groups instead of individuals. We don’t have rights as gays or women or minorities; we receive our rights from our Creator as individuals. If homosexual behaviour in the military is disruptive it should be dealt with; but if heterosexual behaviour in the military is disruptive it should be dealt with too. Apply the same standards to everybody.

If you think gays should be able to serve openly in the military, raise your hand.

Paul didn’t. [Why doesn’t this contradict what he just said above? – RTL]

http://praxeology.net/blog/2007/06/05/ron-paul-in-the-debates-part-3/

jeffbr

hippiemom wrote:

That would be truly disappointing if he turned out to be some sort of bigot :(

Yes, it would. I've seen no evidence of any such thing., If Abook could link something, I'd be interested in reading it. Perhaps he's been considered racist because he doesn't champion affirmative action laws or other laws to combat racism. As with homosexuals, he's not into creating groups. He's focused on individuals.

Here is a recent race related piece he wrote about Government & Racism - http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

jlew24asu

is the whole dont ask dont tell policy designed to protect gays from verbal and physical abuse?

hippiemom

jlew24asu wrote:

is the whole dont ask dont tell policy designed to protect gays from verbal and physical abuse?

In my opinion, it was a half-assed attempt by the Clinton administration to please everyone, which of course pleases no one.

You can be gay and serve, but only if no one knows that you're gay. Once you're found out, you can still be dismissed, as thousands are every year, including at least 61 Arabic language specialists, which I hear are in short supply.

As Jon Stewart said last night, the only thing that terrifies the right more than a potential terrorist attack, is the idea that a gay hero might prevent one.

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

Yes, it would. I've seen no evidence of any such thing., If Abook could link something, I'd be interested in reading it. Perhaps he's been considered racist because he doesn't champion affirmative action laws or other laws to combat racism. As with homosexuals, he's not into creating groups. He's focused on individuals.

Here is a recent race related piece he wrote about Government & Racism - http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

Lemme go dig. Can't remember off the top of my head where I saw it.

Abookamongstthemany

It has something to do with remarks he has made and him belong to the John Birch Society. I'm still looking for the piece I read but I came across this:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm



'The John Birch Society has some supporters in Congress. Ron Paul of Texas recently argued:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."

mammasan

Ron Paul feels that if gays want to serve in the military they should be allowed to. He supported Clinton's don't ask don't tell policy, but feels that a person's sexuality is not the military's business. If a homosexual is found conducting inappropriate sexual behavior or advances it is to be treated no differently than if a heterosexual is caught doing the same.

mammasan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There have been questions concerning Paul and some racist type remarks in the past. I haven't heard anything about homosexuals.

A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[65] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.[66]
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:
"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"[67][7]
He further stated:
"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[7]
Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[7]
In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[68] Paul criticizes racism, saying:
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."[68]

I believe this is what you are reffering to.

Abookamongstthemany

mammasan wrote:

A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[65] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.[66]
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:
"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"[67][7]
He further stated:
"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[7]
Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[7]
In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[68] Paul criticizes racism, saying:
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."[68]

I believe this is what you are reffering to.

If that is referring to these remarks then yes....

“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.”
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who 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.”

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/04/ron-paul-racist-remakrs/

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If that is referring to these remarks then yes....

“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.”
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who 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.”

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/04/ron-paul-racist-remakrs/

Very interesting, Abook. Thanks for finding that for us.

mammasan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If that is referring to these remarks then yes....

“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.”
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who 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.”

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/04/ron-paul-racist-remakrs/

Yes that was in a Ron Paul newsletter but was not written by Paul himself nor does it reflecy his views. He has come out and stated such but also has taken responsibility for those words because they where in his newsletter.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

Very interesting, Abook. Thanks for finding that for us.

Ron Paul never stated nor wrote those words. they where written by someone else but printed in his newsletter. he has apologized and stated that those words do not reflect his views but since it was his newsletter he is moraly responsible for the statement being printed.

Abookamongstthemany

mammasan wrote:

Yes that was in a Ron Paul newsletter but was not written by Paul himself nor does it reflecy his views. He has come out and stated such but also has taken responsibility for those words because they where in his newsletter.

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know what to believe after reading some of that John Birch Society stuff.

mammasan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know what to believe after reading some of that John Birch Society stuff.

Not a problem.

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

Very interesting, Abook. Thanks for finding that for us.

Yes, it is still interesting. I mean what kind of people does Paul have working for his newsletter, then?