Question about Ron Paul
hippiemom
Posts: 3,326
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.
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.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh yeah thats Ron JEREMY
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.
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/
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.
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/
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
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.
Lemme go dig. Can't remember off the top of my head where I saw it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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."
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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/
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
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.
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know what to believe after reading some of that John Birch Society stuff.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not a problem.
Yes, it is still interesting. I mean what kind of people does Paul have working for his newsletter, then?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Just because there was one apple in the bunch doesn't mean that the whole bushel is rotten. It wasn't even a staff member who wrote it but a freelance ghost writter. If anyone is wrong here it is the editor of the newsletter for allowing this article to be included.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
He didn't lie he simply took responsibility for what was written, because it was in his newsletter, rather than trying to explain that it wasn't him.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that ** his** written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." stars added to make a point.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That to me shows a lot of integrity. He took responsibility for what was said in his newsletter. Most politicians would have had their spin doctors hard at work trying to point fingers in every which direction. I also think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. This happened over 10 years ago and the issues has since been clarified and put to bed. If people are going to critcize Ron paul, or any candidate, they should stick to the person's policies and/or beliefs and not a misunderstanding that occured a decade earlier which had been cleared up and done with.
Like I said he decided to take responsibility for what was written. He wasn't going to try to spin the incident. It was in his newsletter so he decided to take the blame.
this quote is from 1996 when he was seemingly still pretending he actually said these words. The way it looks is that in the 2001 interview (as quoted in your post) that he explained it was because of his aids, that he said they were his words, rather than admitting they were not, back in '96 when he took credit for the words as if they were his own.
So it looks like he pretended they were his words in '96, because of what the aids told him At least according to what you posted: "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 was later that he fessed up.
If I am missing out on something, I'd love for someone to point it out.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No your not missing anything but I still fail to see the problem. So the man fessed up for something that he didn't write, but was in his newsletter because his aids said that it would be the easiest thing to do. Years later when asked about this he explains the situation, but still states that he is morally responsible for what was written because it was in his newsletter.