People have posted here that Ron Paul is a racist, a sexist and a homophobe.

[howard112211]

Can anyone provide me with some examples? I am trying to get a better picture of the person Ron Paul. Currently, all I know about him is that he is anti war and anti public health care. Search engine searches on the subject were not very fruitful.

[cali]

1. here:

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

and by the way, search engines are quite fruitful indeed. I could go on, but I think you can do it yourself.

Oh, and yep, he is a racist. and homophobe and a sexist.

[howard112211]

2. Thanks.

That will give me something to read for tonight.

[johnroshan]

3. He is a libertarian.

I don't think he is a Racist. Just because he advocates removing anti discrimination laws doesn't mean that he is a Racist. Libertarian views include removing legal restrictions on whether people should be allowed to discriminate. He believes that society and social norms will do the trick.

Even though I don't agree with some of his views, he is one of the few politicians who stand for what they believe in and not after the millions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. The same was true of most of the great villains of histoty.

"Standing for what you believe in" when what you believe in is as wicked, foolish and harmful as Paul's views is *not* a virtue.

[zinnisking]

12. A wise man once said

"If you don't stand for something, you don't stand for anything!" - George W. Bush

:sarcasm:

(He really did say that.)

[TheBigotBasher]

13. That was indeed wise for him.

Did David Frum write it?

[zinnisking]

27. I'm convinced he came up with that one all by himself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I'd say it's better to stand for nothing than to stand for something bad, though. N.T.

[zinnisking]

26. +1

I agree with your OP too.

I text my conservative brother Bushisms from time to time. I thought this one was fitting here. ;-)

[johnroshan]

28. While I do understand the dangers of having a leader who is completely convinced by his ideals,

I think its infinitely better than having someone who is out there to fill his pockets. It is indeed more difficult to persuade someone like that to change his opinions, however that is the only way out in a diverse world with so many different viewpoints. Demonizing all opponents have become commonplace here in DU and that doesn't reflect well on our society.


Many in DU here are socialists who believe that government intervention and control is necessary to maintain a civil society. Socialists are often portrayed as extremely power hungry with an intention and urge to control other people.


Libertarians believe that government collusion with industry is what fuels malpractices and a perfectly free market will create a much more civil society. Libertarians are often portrayed (as evident in this thread) as selfish and greedy people who don't give a damn about the other person.

Can we please rise above silly dispositional statements about the opponent's character and look into structural and procedural flaws in each other's idea of a society?

[blondeatlast]

14. +1. somebody had to point out the obvious and you did it much better than I could have. nt

[LeftishBrit]

21. +1000

In fact the person who genuinely believes in harmful policies is usually more dangerous than the one who is unprincipled and therefore may yield to pressure against, as well as for, pursuing bad policies.

[hobbit709]

10. Taking support from Stormfront doesn't make him a racist

but it sure doesn't look good.

[guitar man]

24. That in itself may not make him a racist

But it does make him incredibly naive. We've been trough this decades ago and the issue has been settled. If you're in a business that serves the public, then serve the public. If you can't do that, then get the hell out of business and do something else.

Imagine this scenario. There are still places out west in the deserts where there are great distances between service stations. Now imagine you and your family are out there trying to travel and you can't buy gasoline because some racist asshole won't sell it to you because you're the "wrong color". There's no reason anybody should have to deal with shit like this in our country. None whatsoever.

[Myrina]

4. Ron or Rand?

I think Rand is a bit more out-there with his asshattery than his ol' man ...

[M155Y_A1CH]

7. Don't I know it

You'll know where I live by my avatar.


BTW, the JPEG must be online
and you then post the URL.
I use photobucket, it's free.

[Myrina]

8. thanks!

:hi:

[FSogol]

5. Fuck Ron Paul and all the idiot libertarians.

Want a good picture of Paul? Go look in your toilet. That's his vision for our society.

The Onion describes libertarians the best:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/libertarian-reluctantly-calls-fire-department,4651/

[blondeatlast]

15. LOL! Perfect. nt

[krabigirl]

17. As opposed to the world envisioned by the corporatists?

[LeftishBrit]

22. They have a lot in common.

Both are prepared to crush the poor and 'weak'; to give big business a completely free hand; and dismantle, prevent or at best weaken any social safety net.

We should oppose both!

[Dawgs]

9. He's a libertarian; which is worse than a republican, IMO.

Every thing they are for or against is based on them BEING SELFISH. They don't give a shit about anyone or anything.

[Codeine]

11. All libertarians are.

In theory there is no reason for them to be so, but in practice it's a universal set of traits.

[blondeatlast]

16. I know several (I have this unfortunate tendency to attract them) and that's been

my experience. They disagree on a LOT, actually--but they ALL have been racist. :puke:

[krabigirl]

19. And you know this how?

[gratuitous]

18. Ron Paul isn't racist, sexist or homophobic

He's just in favor of policies and practices that have enshrined straight, white, male privilege as the default setting for our society. You can hardly blame him for making the shrewd choice to be born a straight white man, and why didn't you make the same choice? Any government "interference" in the primacy of straight white men is strictly forbidden; the fact that it continues racist, sexist, homophobic policies is merely coincidental. At least in his own mind.

[LeftishBrit]

23. Whether he is or isn't personally any of these things...

he certainly supports a society where people have the right to practice racism, sexism and homophobia.

He also opposes ANY welfare state, even of the most minimalist nature, and considers taxation to be 'theft'. He proudly keeps an endorsement from Milton Friedman on his congressional website.

Here is a link to his speech 'A Republic If You Can Keep It' - from 2000, but he still keeps it on his website so presumably it reflects his current views:

http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/republic.html

Note that with regard to sexism, he is extremely anti-abortion and in favour of the repeal of Roe vs Wade, and states:

'The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to protect life-not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers funds to pay for abortions domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue to plague us well into the 21st Century.

A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with government sanctioning and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe vs. Wade justified abortion using a privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible'

And a lot more in this vein. Note that he does not just consider abortion as wrong in itself but as an important cause of social problems more broadly.


He also seems to be hostile to anyone who does not conform to a conventional old-fashioned conception of family values, including though not restricted to gays:

'we find many authoritarians arguing that the definition of marriage should change in order to allow non-husband and wife couples to qualify for welfare handouts. The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.'

And he gets a lot of support from racist organizations such as Stormfront. This doesn't mean that he's racist, but it does mean that he's perceived as likely to allow people to get away with racist actions and policies.

Yes, he is against the war, and against abuses of civil liberties *by the federal government* (he seems to care less if these abuses occur at the hands of states or private organizatons); and that is a very good thing. But the BNP, LePen and David Duke also oppose the war - this single issue should not be sufficient to make one sympathetic to people who are hard-right in almost every other way.

[Dappleganger]

25. Libertarians are republicans on weed.

A dangerous combination, IMHO.

[Turborama]

29. Google is your friend

Ron Paul Racist Quotes: http://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+Racist+Quotes&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8