In the midst of the newly re-animated newsletters issued under Ron Paul’s name, an aide to the Texas Congressman has come forward with two stories about personal interactions with gay supporters. They don’t support the live-and-let-live image of the previous carrier of the Libertarian Party’s presidential banner.
Eric Dondero, an aide to Ron Paul from 1987 to 2003
insists Congressman Paul is not anti-gay, but details two shocking anti-gay incidents, including Dr. Paul’s refusal to use a restroom owned by a gay man, and even refusing to shake hands with a top gay campaign donor.
Do tell.
In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”
Got it?
Not homophobic; simply won’t use the bathroom in the home of a gay supporter. Right.
Long-time Ron Paul aide Eric Dondero’s other example:
The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.
“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.
Of course, not having the faintest understanding of the word ‘homophobic’ this former aide attempts to excuse Ron Paul’s behavior:
Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.
Not “homo-phobic”? Right. Would take gay money, allow a gay to set up a campaign fundraising swing, would stay in a gay home and accept the support of gays at an event. But wouldn’t use the bathroom in a gay home or shake hands with a gay man? Oh, that’s not homophobic at all.
Definition: irrational fear or dislike of or prejudice against homosexuality or homosexuals .
You be the judge. Do these examples illustrate an irrational fear or dislike? They are leavened, of course, with the hypocrisy of accepting money, organization, lodging, and support from gays. Somehow, to me, that doesn’t make it less worse.



111 Comments

In comments at The New Civil Rights Movement, Jim Peron has this:
http://intensedebate.com/people/JimPeron
HIV/AIDSaphobic
Homophobic or not, it’s pretty compelling evidence that he’s a fucking idiot. I guess it never occurred to him that gay men use public restrooms too. No doubt if that’s pointed out to President Paul, he’d try to put a stop to it because nothing says “small government” like draconian potty laws.
recommended, (though it won’t make any difference to the delusional Ron Paul brigade).
I’m sure all the Bay Area gay men go to that supporter’s home to use his restroom when they eat at McD’s. Good catch, M.
These are pretty neanderthal views, even for 1988, but from a doctor of medicine? Shocking.
Right? We had a doc at my last job who was every bit as bad as Paul. I used to ask him how he could hold such viewpoints when he knows biological evolution to be factual. His smirk told me that he didn’t believe that shit he used to spout any more than I did but he does it just to have tea party cred. This was 2007-2009.
Oh, and I’ll bet that poor guy’s bathroom was in use 24/7 and that’s if he banned hooking up in there.
Good thing we haven’t had an openly gay man occupy the Oval Office bathroom yet. Poor Ron would get awfully tetchy having to hold it in for four to eight years.
Despite all the slanders, smears and half truths uttered about Ron Paul.
STILL better than Oily Bomber, oops I mean Obama.
How is any of this a “smear”, a “slander” or a “half truth”? Is there something specific in this post you’d like to refute or rebut? I look forward to reading your defense of him, along with the linked supporting material.
Nothing slanderous, not a smear, not a single half-truth in this post.
You’re welcome to refute it if you have personal knowledge of the events, or witnesses to them, as the narrator is and has. But until then, crying “Help, help, we’re oppressed!” doesn’t cut it.
What she said, Michael RN
Meant as a reply to Margaret, above.
Paul must really scare the hell out of you, Teddy, because this is pretty lame. Eric Dondero (real name Eric Rittberg) is a disgruntled ex-employee and former political opponent (he ran against Paul in Texas Congressional District 14). You understand why I’d like a bit more than his unsupported word before accepting the first story?
The second story? I’ll be happy to take it into consideration when someone who was actually there speaks up. Quoting hearsay from a questionable source and treating it as fact does nothing to enhance your credibility.
Agreed Michael. The public is being manipulated with these stories to end up with wall street approved candidates. Ideally for them, Obama and Romney. They win regardless and we eat shit no matter the outcome.
All you Paul supporters have is “NUH-UH!”, and then when that fails, you begin calling people names. Tell me why this report is wrong. Let me see the documentation. Teddy has eyewitnesses and documentation. You have….outrage? Show us the defense. Put up or shut up.
And none of you have yet addressed the fact that Ron Paul couldn’t go to the bathroom in a gay man’s apartment but thought a public restroom in The Bay Area would be free of them homosexshuble cooties. That’s not a visionary, that’s a moron.
Ron Paul is homophobic, misogynist and racist.
What part of that don’t any of your doubters get
It has NOTHING to do with Obama, lesser evilism, Wall Street.
It has only to do with Ron Paul being homophobic, misogynist and racist.
He’s a shill for a whitey only crowd that shuns gays and wants their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Anyone defending him with thoughts of better n Obama, well, that’s a dog whistle for Ron Paul’s beliefs, so I’ll assume defenders of Paul are also homophobic, misogynist and racist.
I know these dog whistles, seen them all my life. You can put lipstick on them and call them a pig whistle, but it’s still a dog whistle.
End of story.
Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally
Yep Ron now has more problems besides race. The great thing is if the media sinks Ron which it does seem they are trying to do then who ever wins the GOP nomination will have to avoid being tarred with the same stuff Gay and racial that is bringing Ron down now.
I am not saying the GOP Presidential nominee won’t attack people based on race or being gay but they will get called on it more than they otherwise would have.
Without hate and scapegoats the GOP has to run on their ideas…
All you Paul supporters have is “NUH-UH!”, and then when that fails, you begin calling people names.
Its like arguing with 3 year olds:)
So, your argument, as I see it, is: Ron Paul, despite being a racist, wanting to control women’s bodies, opposed to the MLK holiday, a homophobe, who permitted racist writings to be published under his name, will be a better president than 0. Good to know your standards, Michael.
Hey Margaret. I’m not a Paul defender in the sense that I agree with him. As a liberal I’m polar opposite of him. That said though, it’s apparent to me that the media and powers that be are giving the party leaders, BO and Romney, clear sailing. I’m sure these guys have plenty of dirt on ‘em. Many of us here are aware of some their shortcomings. However for the PTB, the potential threats like Cain and now Paul need to be taken down.
I’m just opposed to being steered like cattle into the slaughter house.
Painting with a mighty broad brush there, but considering the alternative, I’d vote for Paul any day.
Let me know when Obama gives the least of a shit about civil rights, endless war, an imperialistic foreign policy. Oh that’s right, he talks a lot of compelling crap when it is convenient, but when push comes to shove, he only cares about big business.
The left had their chance to propose an alternative to Obama and we all sat on our hands for over a year now waiting for someone to stand up and challenge Obama. No one did. So, I’m sorry if so many people are willing to overlook some of his faults, but big money politics has to be challenged. Is he perfect? Hell no. Do I think he might actually do something? You bet. Whether or not he can pass anything other than executive orders is an other question.
You are right about one thing, -meter: Ron Paul does scare the hell out of me. And I’ll take first-person and second-person accounts over your ad hominem attacks any day.
And, by the way, what does “real name” mean, anyway? Trying to make the insinuation that his “real name” sounds more Jew-y?
Because it’s never happened before? Of COURSE the powers-that-be have favorites. When hasn’t that happened? That doesn’t mean Paul isn’t a homophobe and a racist.
If Libertarian views are so wonderful, why don’t Ron Paul supporters pay attention to Gary Johnson? He’s everything that they say they love about Ron Paul, minus the racism and homophobia. But he couldn’t get any traction at all in the GOP this year.
Makes me wonder what it is, exactly, that the Paulites find attractive about their man Doctor Ron.
Then don’t allow yourself to be steered. And certainly stop assuming I AM being steered because I loath Ron Paul and think that’s he’s an elitist, segregationist, misogynist, homophobic, angry little man. I have evidence to support my misgivings about Ron Paul. Your assumption that I must be being led down the path of deception by the toady media is insulting. Please give me a little more credit than that.
It’s people like BO and many of his political minions that concern me the most. Ya see the people like Paul and many republicans telegraph their sociopathic policies. As a result, we are more apt to outright challenge their policies.
Obama and some of these dems however smooth talk ya, out right lie to ya as they implement the same policies. All the while the people who would normally oppose the same rethug policies are lulled into submission!
Heh
Yeah because we’d all be so much better off under a Ron Paul presidency. Not.
Well, my approach is not to get worked up about Paul. My energies are more focused on getting the positive done. That for me is getting Greens in.
No hard feelings, k.
I’m not so sure we’d be worse off. Really! Think about it a little. We are at the point where we have a government engaging in all kinds of war, blatatnly blows off constiturional rights, entrenched Wall Street greed while the masses suffer, and on and on!
Lemme put it this way, if it got dramatically worse perhaps we will see that revolution that wont be televised. Now that is real hope and change!
Are Obomber and Bain Vulture Capital any less homophobic? Any less willfully ignorant about critically important and fundamental issues of life and death?
We have witnessed the destruction they have caused. We are their victims. They are more horrific than Ron Paul (also a disgusting individual, himself).
I hope that Ron Paul wins the Rethug nomination (Touch Screen Voting will likely prevent it) BUT if he does – we can talk about the MIC, the money pit and the death and destruction it causes worldwide.
Wow, okay, one step at a time:
Margaret:
You accused me of name calling, please quote where I did that.
You asked, “why this report is wrong”? Refer to my original comment: the first story is one man’s unsupported word, the second is hearsay: true or false?
You say “Teddy has eyewitnesses”? What is the name (or names: Dondero doesn’t even know how many people supposedly saw it) of the eyewitness to the second incident?
Teddy:
You accuse me of making “ad hominem attacks” 6 minutes after you compare me to a 3 year old (ironymeter rating: 7.5). Why don’t you quite my “ad hominem attacks” right next to Margaret’s forthcoming quote of me “calling people names”?
“Jew-y”? I actually hadn’t thought about it, but now that you bring the matter to my attention I’d guess the name is of German origin. Does this mean that you — who never slanders, smears, nor tells a half-truth — will switch from implying I’m trying to degrade him as being “Jew-y” to accusing me of hinting that he’s a Nazi?
Good point. I agree. Supports my argument.
I’m looking at supporting the Greens too. No votes for Republicans, (of which Paul is one, like it or not), and no more votes for Vichy Democrats. Ever. No more lesser of two evils. If I can’t support any named candidate, I’ll write one in but I will never, ever vote for Ron Paul any more than I would vote for Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Pat Buchanan or Ben Fucking Nelson. I just don’t get this fantasy that somehow the ultra right wing, nationalist, corporate whore, Randian, supply side Ron Paul is somehow none of those things. I mean, even if we are to stipulate that he’s not homophobic or racist, just his economic theories alone disqualify him.
yes.
Agreed.
I didn’t accuse you of name calling. I accused you of saying “NUH-UH” and for the record, I’ll stipulate that you never actually SAID “NUH-UH”, cool? I refer you back to what I did say: Teddy has EVIDENCE and WITNESSES to support his post, you have outrage to support your reply. No witnesses willing to put their name on a story refuting Mr, Dondera/Rittberg, no sworn accounts, no ability to follow up. It’s apparently true just because. That’s like comparing evolution to creationism. Evolution, like Teddy’s piece, is based on observable evidence while creationism, like your reply to his post, is based on “cause I said so”. See the difference?
“I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally.”
I would not say the sky is blue, but rather just that it is often a hue between light blue and dark blue.
While I believe he was dragged kicking and screaming to the signing table — and never would have got there without Dan Choi being chained to his fence — the fact remains that Obama did sign DADT repeal. Ron Paul would not have. Romney and the rest of the GOP will work to undo that repeal.
I’m not here to defend Obama’s non-homophobia. I’ve heard stories about his interactions with lesbian and gay families that make be think he’s not homophobic. And the activist transgender Americans I know, for whom their specific issues are THE primary issue, are over the moon about Obama. They’ve never had a president even close to as good as Obama. I don’t think another president would do what he has for the T-component of our alphabet. I also think he’s good for the young people; he made a video for the “It Gets Better” project.
So, no, I have no first-person stories to cite regarding Obama’s non-homophobia. But these stories about Ron Paul are first- and second-person. I believe them; they convince me Ron Paul is a homophobe.
Let’s go directly to evidence-by-policy:
Someone explain to me why Ron Paul no-federal-regs-only-the-states-should-have-power supports DOMA? Isn’t DOMA intrusive on States Rights?
So on that and women’s rights there needs to be Fed regs, but everything else the Market should decide. Ooookaayyy…
There could be no better tool for fascism if companies are unregulated and get to do anything they want – that’s the conundrum for Ron Paul; how does he not regulate gun and war machine making companies and still claim to be anti-war?
Ron Paul’s positions are completely incoherent with actual implementation of them, and are primarily designed to soak the libertarian-rubes for donations.
Far be it from me to defend Ron Paul…but back in the 80′s there WAS a lot of hysteria about catching AIDS from Teh Gheys, and it was not that uncommon unfortunately to run into people afraid to use a toilet that a gay person had recently used. Hell I worked as a waiter in college, and we had customers ask for different waiters when they thought their waiter was gay, out of fear of getting AIDS from the food being carried by the gay guy.
So while I wouldn’t vote for the guy, I think we should keep a little perspective here. As homophobic as the country is today, it was WAY worse back in the day.
I think that speaks more to O’s standards, actually.
You mean constitutional rights for white men…..because from what I can see Ron Paul doesn’t appear to be for the progress of any constituency other than that group.
African Americans should be forced to return to the days of yore when they were forced to use separate restrooms. Women would be forced to risk their lives in “states” that determined that D&Cs were deemed illegal. Disabled children would lose their right to be educated. That’s Ron Paul’s America. I’ll take a pass on him and his version of what our country should look like.
“I didn’t accuse you of name calling”
Huh?
“All you Paul supporters have is “NUH-UH!”, and then when that fails, you begin calling people names.”
Here, maybe this will help:
“All you Paul supporters have is “NUH-UH!”, and then when that fails, you begin calling people names.”
As for this: “Teddy has EVIDENCE and WITNESSES to support his post, you have outrage to support your reply” I refer you (for the second time) to my original comment: the first story is one man’s unsupported word, the second is hearsay: true or false?
True or false?
You had me at Vichy Democrats
He’s a DOCTOR and it’s no longer the 80′s. There is absolutely no excuse for his ignorance on the issue other than willful determination to remain ignorant. Then again, I get the impression he prefers willful ignorance on any issue that he figures ain’t ever going to affect him or the able bodied white male demographic that he seeks to attract.
Ron Paul is an idiot. I’ve thought some of his ideas were idiotic, but not I realize the man himself is an idiot.
So he won’t use the bathroom in the house of a Gay man. So he decides to go use the bathroom in a fast food place. What? He assumes that no Gay man has ever used that bathroom? Also he assumes no one with Hepatitis has ever used it? For all he knew the fellow in there before was a meth head and left a staff infection on the facility.
What an idiot. Even if his values were not despicable on this, which they are, he still shows himself to be an idiot. And he’s supposed to be a medical doctor?
I’m sorry, I really didn’t want to get dragged into a Ron Paul debate this evening. There have been many, many times that I have asked for a reasoned, cogent defense of Ron Paul and I can condense all of the responses into a few lines.
1) Ron Paul is being smeared, slandered, etc.
2) I am being manipulated and am really foolish and small minded for allowing it to happen.
3) I’m letting other people make up my mind for me, which apparently means that the only way I can demonstrate the ability to make up my own mind is to let Ron Paul supporters make it up for me? (sorry guys, I just don’t get this one)
4) The only reason I don’t support Ron Paul is because I am a (insert pejorative here).
5) Ron Paul is better than (opponent here) and is the “lesser of two evils”.
6) Ron Paul is going to ____________ when he gets elected. (there’s a new one)
No documentation like when Ron Paul defended those racist newsletters and then lied about it, no witnesses to cross examine, nothing but outrage is all the defense boils down to.
I’m just as disgusted with the state of things as all of you, perhaps more so but talking down to me because I don’t agree with your point of view and suggesting I’m somehow foolish or complicit or even an Obamabot for failing to agree with you is NOT the way to go about changing my mind. If that’s all you have and you can’t defend him from these legitimate concerns without getting defensive yourselves, maybe you need to look for another candidate.
Sorry, that was meant as a general response to all Ron Paul supporters, not you specifically. I made the mistake of hitting the reply button. Mea culpa, cool?
Hi, Teddy Partridge. Let me introduce myself. I post under the name LibWingofLibWing, but my name is Miranda Keefe. I am a Transsexual Woman. I am an activist in Transgender issues. Glad to meet you. ::smile::
I am far from over the moon about Obama. The man is a sociopathic, constitution burning, Neo-Liberal, lying shill for the 1% and the Empire. If he was really an advocate for TG issues he’d have included our medical needs in his Affordable Care Act.
Now, you can no longer say, “And the activist transgender Americans I know, for whom their specific issues are THE primary issue, are over the moon about Obama.” ::big smile::
Are you male? Then you might be better off, even if you are gay. But us non-males, not so much. RP Libertarianism only seems to extend to males? At any rate, not to pregnant females http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
Considering I watched the movie The Help last night where the ‘colored’ maids were fired if they used their employers toilet, Ron Paul not wanting to use a gay man’s bathroom, if true, is bogus
Can you say “Somalia”? Just read what Ron Paul has said. You can even limit yourself to those materials to which he claims authorship, I have no problem with that. Educate yourself before shrugging and saying “How could it be worse”.
I think the ol’ Ron Paul soft shoe routine is mighty fun.
I don’t dislike black people. I just believe they should all be forced to sit at the back of the bus in states that treated them as property for a century.
The guy has rationalization down to an art form.
Some people are uncomfortable around people in wheelchairs because they don’t know how to act around them or whatever. That doesn’t mean they want to deprive paraplegics of their rights or have any animosity towards them. Besides, Ron Paul’s discomfort around gay men is understandable because what gay man wouldn’t want a piece of that Ron Paul ass?
Ippon!
“So he won’t use the bathroom in the house of a Gay man. So he decides to go use the bathroom in a fast food place.”
It isn’t a rational decision in terms of sanitation, is it?
That has *got* to be snark, right?
“these stories about Ron Paul are first- and second-person”
There’s no point in even discussing why you’d believe a “second-person story” (the correct term is hearsay, btw). That attitude puts you squarely in with those who believe when somebody says that somebody told them that Obama was born in Kenya.
First person, though: that’s a different story. The credibility of unsupported eyewitness testimony is weighed primarily by the character of the witness, so if you want us to take Dondero’s word for it maybe you should explain why he’s so credible?
Seriously, Teddy: you would never accept such unsupported statements against a candidate you favored, especially coming from a former political rival. So why the double standard?
Look, Ron Paul has good views on foreign policy and civil liberties. Those make him far better than any typical politician. It’s his simplistic, naive views on economics and the role of government that are problems.
Thank you, Margaret, for laying out the problems so simply.
It is fine to admire the Emperor, but his nakedness should be noted.
No one can claim to be without fault. To deny every fault just shows the Rovian syndrome of whining when confronted with facts.
“How DARE they tell the truth about me?”
Supporting DOMA is contrary to his professed support for civil liberties. That is a fair criticism.
Oh, a nice generic catch-all stereotyping condemnation that I shouldn’t take personally? Sure: that’s “cool.”
But only if you will finally answer the question I’ve asked you (specially) twice before:
“the first story is one man’s unsupported word, the second is hearsay: true or false?”
True or false, Margaret?
`Scuze me, most of us actually voting happen to be `domestic`. And although I understand and totally agree that we really, really need to stop going to foreign countries and killing the people there, I have a personal interest in his *domestic* policy. And it sucks.
Actually if you’d undo the ADA(Ron Paul is on the record on this) it goes a little beyond being uncomfortable and more towards depriving people of their rights.
Then again Ron Paul seems to feel that “rights” is such a strong term when it comes to issues like discrimination.
I agree. That’s why I called it a problem.
You can’t prove a negative ironymeter and I’m not going to let you maneuver me into trying to do so. If you want to act all hurt and abused, be my guest. I’ve offered a mea culpa and that’s as far as I’m going with that. You’re trying to turn the tables on me and I’m not going to let you. Defend. Ron. Paul. With. Evidence. Or. Don’t.
Or just admit that you can’t defend the indefensible.
“but talking down to me because I don’t agree with your point of view and suggesting I’m somehow foolish or complicit or even an Obamabot for failing to agree with you is NOT the way to go about changing my mind.”
Well said, so much so that I’m going to steal it, in fact (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery):
Talking down to me because I don’t agree with your point of view and suggesting I’m somehow foolish or complicit or even
an Obamabota Paul-bot for failing to agree with you is NOT the way to go about changing my mind.That’s the problem with democracy: people will vote their personal interest and to hell with the folks dieing on the far side of the world.
Let me make it better for all of you. It doesn’t matter who gets elected president. Republican, Democrat, Bush, Obama: what’s the difference? They are all (with the possible lone exception of the flawed Mr. Paul) auditioning to be the next salesman-in-chief for the corporate plutocracy.
That’s why I don’t vote for politicians. I only vote for ballot propositions and bond measures. But if you must vote, then why not vote for Michelle Bachmann? At least she’s pretty and also pretty funny (unintentionally). However, Sarah Palin is prettier, so keep your fingers crossed and hope that she decides to run after all–though I doubt she will.
The Democrats need to get Angelina Jolie to “primary” Obama.
I’d disagree on civil liberties.
Then I again I consider education a right. I consider the right to not be discriminated against a right. I’d consider making your own determination on your medical treatment a right.
While on the surface these things may not look like civil liberties, I’d argue if you are female, gay, disabled or a minority then they very much are civil liberty issues.
As for foreign policy, I’m not certain. I agree with him that the DoD needs to be reigned in. Other than that I really don’t see how getting rid of the UN is intelligent policy. I tend to believe being part of a global community means working together.
What negative am I asking you to prove, Margaret?
“Defend. Ron. Paul. With. Evidence. Or. Don’t.”
Attack. Ron. Paul. With. Evidence. Or. Don’t.
For the (what?) fourth time: is or is not the first story one man’s unsupported word? Is or is not the second story hearsay?
For crying out loud, Margaret: if homophobia was a criminal offense and you were on the jury would send a man to prison based on this “evidence”?
Would you, really?
The problem with the UN is that the Security Council renders it useless.
Direct first person testimony IS evidence. Look that fact up if you like.
If it can be impeached, impeach it.
Hearsay is circumstantial, not direct evidence, and may be dismissed by a jury – but it’s still circumstantial evidence.
It makes a much sense as the theory that he was afraid to shake a gay man’s hand so he slapped it instead…
Hey, wouldn’t it be hilarious if the reason he didn’t want to use his host’s restroom was because he’d had a super double bean burrito for lunch and didn’t want to stink the place up?
How sure are we that this friggin’ idiot has a license to practice some kind of medicine?
LibwingofLibWing
Thank you. I had not answered this until now because I was busy. I am with you 100% in this. Just to put my “creds” down. Every year in Minneapolis at the Pride Parades, I proudly march as a Street Medic with our Trans March. I am a solid and public supporter of CeCe McDonald, a Trans woman who killed a neo-nazi who had stabbed her. She is now being prosecuted for defending herself. Oh yes and I am a proud married “breeder” ally, as said Street Medic.
Now that this has been said. What is blatantly missed in the whole hullabaloo is my central thesis.
I will state it again. With even stronger emphasis to make my point. Even if Ron Paul was surrounded by baseball bat wielding neo-nazi skinheads (I am an old Sharpie skin) it does not change one central fact.
The fact that Ron Paul would STILL be a better president than Barack Obama. That is not lauding “what a great guy Paul is” but instead a damning indictment of president Obama.
“I tend to believe being part of a global community means working together.”
Sure, but is the UN doing that?
Well, OK, you have a point.
Well, I have to admit I have not verified that, but after decades of scrutiny I’m fairly confident that it would have come out if he’d been practicing medicine without a license.
Do you actually have some reason to doubt it, Bro Tom? Because people who throw crap just to make a stink are impediments to rational discussion.
“Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. He served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968. He worked as an obstetrician and gynecologist during the 1960s and 1970s, delivering more than 4,000 babies”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Just for curiosity, I timed it: took me 1 minute and 32 seconds, including the copy/pasting. I probably could have done it faster, but I stopped to light a cigarette…
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/eric-donder-is-leftist-and-leftist.html
Hello, Kelly.
Yes, direct first person testimony is evidence and its value is dependent on the credibility of the witness. We’ve dug the replies as deep as they’ll go on this comment, so if you’d like to respond maybe you should do it on my 5:51 pm where I made exactly that point.
“Hearsay is circumstantial, not direct evidence, and may be dismissed by a jury – but it’s still circumstantial evidence”
No. I’ll provide definitions if you want to waste everyone’s time, but the second story is hearsay — not circumstantial evidence — and would not be admitted.
A foreign policy of perpetual war inevitably becomes a war against civil liberties and it erodes economic prosperity. We’ve seen plenty evidence of that over the last 11 years.
Is Obama corrupt?
Certainly they are. Just because wehen the US says jump, they don’t ask “how high” does not mean that they aren’t working together.
Unilateral was how we addressed Iraq. As opposed to, I don’t know, using “supposed” ironclad intel to make the case or verify our intel with weapons inspectors that were on the ground.
Our foreign policy IS stupid but not for the reasons Ron Paul suggests.
And they’d still be using the outside restrooms in Ron Paul’s America since Ron Paul is on the record as opposed to the civil rights act. MAGICAL free market fairy dust was going to end segragation in the south.
Oh, yeah: the Oil-for-Food Program is a shining example of how wonderful the UN is.
Heh yeah because oil for food is the only incidence of fraud…..and it’s all the UNs fault. Oh wait……
If we’re going to dismantle things due to fraud perhaps we ought to start with our OWN contractors.
http://www.stripes.com/news/report-u-s-wasted-60-billion-in-contracting-fraud-abuse-1.153787
Oh wait, I forgot. The markets are supposed to be free when it comes to American business and we only point fingers at international fraud.
I would be very surprised indeed if Ron Paul thought that his shit might stink.
This site is a joke. There is no honest discussion of anything here. It is just a bullshit gate keeper site. So many many many many stories that are not covered. So many many posters that have been banned and vanished. So many mainstream lies are repeated here. Just define the left limits for the mainstream. Fuck firedoglake. It is irrelevant. Just like the mainstream media it has studiously ignored Ron Paul in its coverage of the Republican primaries. If you go back and look at all the articles that have been front paged, you will find that Romney and Gingrich articles outnumber Paul articles 10 to fucking 1. That’s a fact. Go add them up. Despite the fact that Paul is now looking like he will win the first primary. And, now that the MSM is going into attack mode and dirty tricks mode, lo and behold, FDL is frontpaging this shit at the same time. It is a gate keeper site of the most obvious kind. It is no coincidence that it marches in lockstep with the MSM, just a couple steps over to the left. Whoopdie fucking doo. Firedogshit is what it is. Shilled up to the max. Afraid of the truth. Crappy shills who are here 24-7 putting on a pathetic display like they are have reached “the” progressive consensus. But look around shills, half of the commenters don’t buy your bullshit anymore and can see it for what it is. Even Cenk is close to coming out for Paul. How about FDL just come out and admit the fucking truth. FDL LOVES FUCKING OBAMA. Firedogbullshit.com
Please, please, PLEASE. The sky will not fall, the sun will keep shining, and we will persevere.
Look, I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. I know we’ve got some son of a bitches for politicians. Heck I remember the Ronnie Raygun “day after tomorrow” fears. We’re still here. I am tired of these fear arguments as we continue to slide further into the abyss with the safer politicians.
I have overcome my fears and if by hook or by crook Paul gets in and tries to wipe out gays, enslave blacks, and gas jews, while leaving women barefoot and pregnant, and you sit idly by and allow it to happen then perhaps we deserve it.
It’s time to grow a pair!
LOL! Given what we know of the bathroom habits of politicians (I’m thinking Mr. Wide Stance, here) maybe I don’t want to know what the real reason was, after all.
Of course, I would be very surprised indeed if Ron Paul thought that slapping a hand offered less chance of contagion than shaking it (I assume that’s what everyone is thinking, that he was afraid of catching AIDs from touching the guy?).
“we only point fingers at international fraud”
We who? I mentioned a case of UN fraud because (follow the logic here) we were talking about the fucking UN.
Let’s not jack the Ron Paul thread, cwaltz. If one of us wants to write a diary for or against the UN, we can.
Here is a little something about your “source.” Maybe if you would read some comments elsewhere you might be a little better informed about the sources you consider for your
“positions.” But that isn’t what you really want is it? You just want what eblair pointed out, you just want the corporate media model of sources reinforcing your already held beliefs, regardless of whether the source is credible or not. (I think MSNBC already has that covered).. http://wredlich.com/ny/2011/01/eric-dondero-and-the-myth-of-the-pro-defense-libertarian/
You make me laugh.
The only thing laughable is your “source.” Hilarious indeed.
Jack the thread?
I’m not the moron extolling the virtues of a free market and insisting what American companies need is less regulation. That would be Ron Paul.
Somehow it’s reprehensible when fraud occurs on an international level but free market fairy dust means that American companies get a pass?
What was that word I used earlier to describe Paul?
Oh yeah……hypocrite.
I have this post and the replies and I can say is WOW.
Teddy if I told you something about Y, I guy I used to work for, and then told you what X told me about him that would be enough for you to believe what I say about Y?
What a sad place we have reached if this kind of crap is now enough to jump all over someone. RP has really frightened a lot of the media including those here at FDL. For sometime now I have noticed FDL reposts media biases and hollow soundbites, dressed up as actual facts and stories. Shame, as I used to enjoy coming here, but it is starting to sound like an echo chamber for MSM
Yes, I know you cover O and all his BS, but that does not mean you do not also act as an echo chamber. For me when everyone is piling on and saying the same things it makes me question, and look harder
Teddy, this piece does not show you in a good light. It was filled with venom and based on the little evidence. Also, even if true, you can no space to how RP may have evolved since then. As humans we all make mistakes, and have bias, but some over time learn and grow. The fact you did not even allow for this possibility in your piece, speaks volumes.
Not everyone who has a driver’s license is qualified to drive.
Excuse me, but a licensed gynecologist who is afraid to touch a queer and thinks you can catch queer germs on a toilet seat is very very scary and I stand by a question on his qualifying license to be a human, never mind a fucking doctor.
Lets stick with the devil we know. We don’t need no steenking civil liberties.
Which standards are wars, killing, torturing, and disappearing for ALL people. He’s not racist or a homophobe, Obama is an equal-opportunity fascist war monger.
And we all know that is SO MUCH BETTER than Ron Paul’s “so called” exclusionary standards.
Yup.
Ron Paul 2012
Why does the OP make you laugh?
If you wanted to know if he has a “qualifying license to be a human” maybe you should have asked that?
You asked if he had a license to practice “some kind of medicine”. I answered. If you now realize it was a dumb question perhaps you should take it up with the man in the mirror?
I think it’s very telling, the questions people shy away from answering:
“the first story is one man’s unsupported word, the second is hearsay: true or false?”
“if homophobia was a criminal offense and you were on the jury would send a man to prison based on this “evidence”?”
“you would never accept such unsupported statements against a candidate you favored, especially coming from a former political rival. So why the double standard?”
“Of 167 Republican House members voting on the repeal DADT in May 2010, Ron Paul was one of only five GOP members to break with his party and vote for DADT’s repeal. Thus, independent of 97 percent of his party’s House delegation, Ron Paul supported DADT’s repeal, even before the Pentagon survey that many GOP members demanded prior to permitting a vote on DADT. Following release of the report, which allowed DADT to receive a vote in the full Congress, of 179 Republican House members at that time, Ron Paul was one of only 15 who voted to repeal DADT last December.
“Unlike 91 percent of his party’s House delegation, unlike Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s “moderate” presidential candidate in 2008 (and unlike President Clinton, who signed DADT into law), Ron Paul’s vote helped queer advocates achieve a landmark victory for many (albeit not enough) people wishing to serve this country openly and honestly.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/ron-paul-homophobic_b_1171695.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics
Ron Paul — “Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn’t a problem. It’s only if they’re doing things they shouldn’t be, if they’re disruptive. But there’s … men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there’s a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they’re causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same.”
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-27/politics/30327505_1_ron-paul-gays-heterosexuals
“Since Iowa State has a thriving homosexual community, I asked how gays fit into Paul’s philosophy of freedom. The congressman cringed at the question and shook his head in frustration.
“‘You know I just, I don’t think of people in little groups like that. I don’t think of people as ‘gay’ here and ‘black people’ there, or ‘women’ over here…Everybody is an individual person and everybody has the same rights as anyone else. The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something so should everyone else. The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair and the federal government has no say.’”
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_79431382-ff3f-11e0-ac0c-001cc4c03286.html
Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’
“So why did Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), after supporting “don’t ask, don’t tell” since its introduction in 1993, vote to begin the process to repeal it?
“‘I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual,” Paul said Friday. “To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense.’
“Paul’s vote was the lone surprise among the five Republicans who bucked their party to vote for the amendment sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.).”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/ron_paul_constituents_changed.html
“Obama has said his position on gay marriage is “evolving,” but the most recent version still puts him to the right of Paul and Johnson.”
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/ron-paul-kind-supports-gay-marriage
I believe Paul also voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Twice, in fact.
Thanks, Evelyn, it’s a treat to find posts here that actually inform.
The diary we are responding to is part of an avalanche of disinformation on “progressive” websites that has been well-orchestrated in response to Ron Paul’s rising popularity.
I think all of us are being played, and the game is “divide and conquer.” From what little I have read on this website and others like it, I am confident that progressives want to end the wars, end the police state, save the environment, and ensure social and economic justice.
But we are unable to move toward the changes we want because we can’t ally ourselves with other people unless they agree with us about everything. That’s why it’s such a great strategy for Obama supporters, or MIC supporters, to claim, for example, despite the evidence, that Ron Paul is “homophobic,” “racist,” or whatever.
Lies and “divide and conquer:” a winning strategy that will keep the wars going, and tighten the noose of the police state here at home.
Ron Paul doesn’t really have good views on foreign policy and civil liberties. He just is against the government pursuing Empire or spying on us. He is so for absolute freedom of corporations that he wouldn’t have any problem with corporations pursuing Empire or spying on us.
He’s not for dismantling the Empire and the Security State. He’s for privatizing it.
“He is so for absolute freedom of corporations that he wouldn’t have any problem with corporations pursuing Empire or spying on us.”
Really? Got a quote to back that up? Something he actually said, if you please: I’ve had enough of the somebody said that he said bovine excrement.
Well, it seems that the haters have fled, most likely convinced they won a great victory. Henceforth they will consider this issue as “settled science” (so to speak), make reference to it as though it was proven fact, and in general continue to mislead and misinform.
What I find really ironic (about an 8.5 on the “Meter”) are the accusations of bot-ism, reflexive actions, unthinking adherence, lack of critical thinking, etc., etc. coming from people who are as programmed as my coffee maker.
Pavlov rings a bell and dogs salivate.
Someone mentions Ron Paul and (multiple names self-censored) slaver.