Good As You

At least with someone like this we know what we're getting, as opposed to so many politicians who give lip service to gay rights (or anti-war sentiments, or campaigning on a platform of sweeping change a la the most recent congressional elections) and then do nothing at all, or worse yet, put in place things like DADT and DOMA.

Oy. Hopefully those aren't our only two choices, Dave!

Amusing that this hits the day of the NH primaries...after Paul did not suffer the 0% Iowa for which most of his opponents had hoped.

Because, as we all know, it's quite all right for Obama to openly declare that he doesn't have much use for whites - after all, he's Black, and in America, Blacks walk on water.

I'm sure, if an openly gay candidate were linked to anti-hetero comments, websites like this one would either go silent or be supportive.

Such is the world. But all that means is that the world is wrong.

Ron Paul is personally against the use of recreational drugs - and firmly against the government criminalizing such use. So even if he is a raging gay-hater (which I absolutely do not believe him to be), he also isn't interested in using governmental power to enforce such views on the public.

Enjoy your gay-friendly $20 loaf of bread. Gays (in general) are as bad as evangelicals (in general) when it comes to blinkered political proclivities.

"I'm sure, if an openly gay candidate were linked to anti-hetero comments, websites like this one would either go silent or be supportive."

Then you know nothing about this website, John.

It’s very possible that his response is accurate and he had noting to do with such statements, but it does little to change my feelings about him as a politician. His own statements in this election race are enough; the quotes only seemed to clarify his political double talk. As you pointed out, the lack of response around the supposed anti-gay comments is just as telling to me.

I particularly like the Martin Luther King, Jr response, I guess I he forgot what king wrote about just and unjust laws.

Look at the hetero trying to tell us what we think. Isn't that cute?

I hope poor baby doesn't ever have to take responsibility for his homophobia or racism. Poor little white het's have it so tough these days.

"Hush little baby, don't say a word. Mama's gonna buy you a Mocking Bird...that shouts down those uppity mo's and promotes a candidate that supports the dissolution of every government program designed to help people who are not rich, white, male, and heterosexual while telling everyone it's good for them"

"I hope poor baby doesn't ever have to take responsibility for his homophobia or racism."

And this—the untrue and unfounded slinging of 'racist/bigot/homophobe' any time you are criticized—is ultimately why you will not gain true equality in our lifetime.

Just as Jesse, Al and Louie are why Blacks will be third-class citizens for the forseeable future.

In neither case is such a fate deserved. In both cases you have brought it upon yourselves—and others like you who do nothing to deserve it—because your shrill accusations convince those, like myself, who might otherwise support your right to equality to turn their backs and leave you to your fate at the hands of the ignorant masses. We do not actively support your oppression, because we do not believe in it. But neither we will raise our voices in your defense, because you're a lot of sorry, selfish little assholes.

Calling ME anti-gay merely makes me less inclined to bother arguing with gay-bashers. Why should I? You're not worth the effort, and certainly not worth the unpleasantness in my personal life that comes from arguing with those who unthinkingly hate you for who you are. Petulant little children. Grow the f*ck up.

PS: I found this elsewhere, seems to hit the spot: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124288.html#874445

John: Not to respond for Brandon H or to butt in, but isn't it completely childish to paint all gays as "sorry, selfish assholes" whose equality isn't worth your time simply because one person on a web forum lashed out against you?

G-A-Y,

You just made my point: you're NOT all sorry, selfish assholes. BUT, those of you who aren't do not do much to openly castigate and disavow those who are.

Same with Blacks, same with Evangelicals, same with practically every other self-interest group out there.

The key to getting support from those who have no skin in the game but are against bigotry is to self-police your movement, and that doesn't mean the leadership offering carefully crafted statements of disapproval-but-understanding; rather, it requires the grassroots members to turn to the "-card" players in their midst and say, "Uh, NO. You're an idiot. Don't speak for us, you're doing more harm than good."

As self-interest groups begin to figure this out, they will garner the broadbased cultural support needed to finally tear down the walls for good.

Sorry; to me this is pretty simple stuff.

John: You are making suppositions that are simply not true. We have on many occasions on this site disavowed comments from gay activists with which we did not agree. And we will speak out against strategies that we think are counterproductive. In terms of one person's beef with you in an online forum -- no, we're not going to "disavow" or even stick our neck into one's personal comment directed towards you. Unless the comments cross an extreme line, we 're not in the habit of policing the exchanges.

All I'm saying is that if you truly support and see why the for gays, African-Americans, or any group is a righteous and necessary one, it's bizarre that you would forfeit all that b/c you have beef with the ways and operations of some of the community's individual members. Personally, my outlooks on these subjects are shaped by genuine feelings, culled by the heart and the mind, not anyone else's strategies or rhetoric.

John's attitude is that the fight for equality for blacks and gays is a righteous one, but I won't stand up for it because I don't like some of them. Like your pathetic "committment" to goodness John.

And I thought this was a free country. I'm sorry I upset you john, but if you lived your life being harassed and/or just treated as though you were different and separate on a daily basis only to be told that "Blacks walk on water" and people who stand up against stereotyping or god forbid get angry about it and "hurting the cause". And then you tried to pass off an admitted homophobe as good for us when he would do nothing to help the community nor help any other human being because he's "hates government". And then you get on the administrator for allowing me to express my anger at that!?

Thats where the anger comes from! It's legitimate.

I'm sorry for starting shit G-A-Y.

Brandon: You haven't started shit, as far as I'm concerned. Again -- I'm not here to police anyone (except in the rarest of extreme cases), only to add my two cents.

Hi. My name is Daniel and I live in Iowa. I've been combing the internet for this Ron Paul controversy because all of it deeply disturbs me of course. I'm personally heterosexual and I have never been to this website before, but I am as ardent a fighter for liberty as anyone could ever claim to be. I never heard of Ron Paul before November (2007) and as soon as I did (through the MSM - go figure) I was enamored and pledged to the campaign to do what I could to support the cause. I was not aware at the time of these old controversial newsletters that have been so damaging to the campaign recently. I walked all over Davenport in the freezing cold and a blizzard handing out Ron Paul flyers and talking to potential supporters and preaching the message of freedom I believe Ron Paul believes in. I want to make it clear that I support Ron Paul with a grain of salt; that is, I believe him to be a means to an end. Whatever one's stance on homosexuality/race/etc., it cannot be more patent that limited government would be advantageous to any minority group, PERIOD. One can never hope to abolish bigotry altogether, but the way to approach solving the problem is most decidedly NOT through legislation. I think what the majority of bigots respond most negatively to is the (perceived) enforced political correctness imposed on them by the Federal government (affirmative action, quotas, etc.) Because the Ron Paul "revolution" is ad-hoc and spontaneous and not organized from the top-down, I was working with people with a wide diversity of political perspectives, some of whom were downright kooky - granted. I found myself fighting alongside the likes of neo-Nazis and Secessionists and dope-smokers and Anarchists and everything in between. Not two of us could agree with one another on almost anything, except for that not one of us had any right to impose our beliefs on another. Therein is the magic that has me believing, if only for a little while. I was reminded in a vague way of the Allied Armies in WWII; diverse and loosely organized, but nonetheless fighting together against the greater evil that threatens all: THE STRONG FASCIST STATE. I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, but I cannot prove that. I don't think he's anti-homosexual, but I cannot prove that either. And why should I bother? How do we know any politician isn't a closet this-or-that, really? All are politicians saying what will get them elected and just because their beliefs aren't out on the table doesn't mean they don't think thoughts just - if not more - dangerous.

But for argument's sake, let's assume Ron Paul IS a racist and a homophobe. Let's pretend he HATES gays and blacks and the like. What would a Ron Paul administration possibly be able to do to PROMOTE any agenda? His is the way of anti-activism. The impression I get is that he doesn't want to decide ANYTHING. He just wants to render IMPOTENT the power of the Federal Government to decide things for us. What's wrong with that? Would that hurt minorities? I'm a white male living in the suburbs and it is entirely possible that for all my idealism and education, I am simply out of touch. But I'm also quite intelligent and my eyes are wide open, if a little bloodshot. But ending slavery and ending segregation and all of the other things the government has had a hand in has done little to curb racism on the ground level. Racism is becoming (too slowly if you ask me, but still...) a thing of the past because ordinary people say it is, not because the government passes a law and makes it so. Living amongst minorities and coming to see them as decent people is how bigotry is overcome; not by passing laws. So if you want to pass laws that FORCE people to accept you, you make them hate you more.

To sum up, I wish someone other than Ron Paul were leading this fight (someone cleaner and less-tainted) but no one comes to mind who has the means to pull this off. As I heard one smart person say: "Who else are we supposed to put our chips with?" Good point. Other politicians might be more openly Gay-friendly, but what will they do to end the war on drugs and end the Federal Reserve and Bring ALL OUR TROOPS HOME immediately? What will they do to take police off our street-corners and stop illegal searches and surveillance and wire-tapping and such? I believe if something sounds too good to be true it probably is. But in Ron Paul's case, he's at least better than all the rest running for president. So this year, like every other presidential election year, I'll be voting for the lesser of the evils - but this time, for once, it will be the least of all evils.