http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss and http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_mostpopular+%28RSS%3A+Most+Popular%29 .
Saying that blacks don’t suffer the “deleterious effects” of slavery certainly raises my eyebrow. Does it not raise yours?
Former Aide to Ron Paul says Paul is not a homophobe, racist or anti-semite but is out of touch with black culture, feels uncomfortable around gays, and wishes that israel ceases to exist.
Eric Dondero writes on Right Wing News that his former boss "is not all bigoted towards homosexuals" and supports their rights to do whatever they want in private. He is, however, "personally uncomfortable around homosexuals
Personally uncomfortable around homosexuals is about as bigoted as an an arachnophobe being personally uncomfortable around spiders. Most elderly people i know definitely feel uncomfortable around gays. It’s nothing more than a product of the times.
I also found this. A collection of stories that I could only describe as cute…
Basically just anecdotes of Paul around gay people. Nothing there strikes me as bigoted behaviour, just a man who is out of touch with the times a littler. Now who isn’t a bit out of touch and over 70 years old? Let’s be honest here.
Overall Paul comes off looking great.
@Josh, this is the crux of the whole issue, isn’t it? People would rather look at a person’s personal beliefs and attitudes rather than their policy implementations. If Person A gives to charity, loves his family, is a productive member of society, and has never committed a crime and happens to be uncomfortable around gays or minorities but Person B is a nasty, mean-spirited, non-productive member of society who has no problem with minorities, the Left will frown upon Person A and criticize them more visciously than they would Person B, especially if they happen to be a poltical opponent.
This approach is completely silly. You would rather vote for non-racist Obama who will destroy families and blow up people to smithereens over “racist” Ron Paul who would prevent that? Makes no sense.
It does raise mine. Sorry if I implied otherwise - I didn’t mean to. I certainly don’t agree that blacks don’t suffer any “deleterious effects” of slavery. It seems obvious to me that they have and unfortunately still do. However, I can’t be certain whether Fred Reed made that statement out of a racist attitude toward blacks. Some people would probably assume that he did, based on the statement itself.
Thanks! Yes, I also see freedom as both a means and an end in itself. However, I think that desiring something as an end in itself necessarily takes priority over desiring something as a means to an end. So the things we believe that freedom can produce - greater wealth, equality, and overall quality of life - are not as important to us as freedom per se.
Agreed. What I try to do is find out where people are hypocritical in their beliefs. Groupthink and other double standards, self-serving bias and other forms of special pleading, and confusion of correlation with causation stand out here. And all too often, people employ multiple logical fallacies simultaneously. That only compounds the problem, because now one has to untangle the various fallacies from one another.
The problem, as I see it, with only desiring freedom as a means is that one can conclude later that the end(s) in question can’t be achieved by freedom after all. Presumably, he would abandon his desire for freedom and desire one or more other things instead. It seems to me that this happens, as a rule, to those who adopt statist positions after holding libertarian or even anarchist positions.
I agree here also. My criticism was against those who (apparently) desire freedom only as a means to one or more ends. In retrospect, I don’t think I made that sufficiently clear before.
Some of the disagreement between the Beltway libertarians and the Rothbardian libertarians concerns what I call “cultural aesthetics”. Some of it concerns strategy and tactics. It seems to me that the Beltway libertarians don’t value freedom as an end in itself, but only as a means. I could be wrong though.
Many people today consider a person who feels personally uncomfortable around homosexuals to be a homophobe. That is to say, such people consider “homophobia” to constitute, at the very least, feeling personally uncomfortable around homosexuals.
As Eric put it, actions have no meaning to them - only attitudes.
The RevolutionPAC is combating quite well.
Consider making a donation to help get this ad on the air…
What do you think about this statement of Paul’s ex “close” personal assistent Eric Dondero. At first it sounds as if he defends Ron Paul. But the more you get to the end it appears to be a clear attack.
Dondero certainly wasn’t defending Paul across the board. That doesn’t even seem to be the point of his article. Rather, the point seems to be for him to clarify his stance on Paul and the newsletters. Since he’s adamantly opposed to Paul, there’s a possibility that he embellished some of the anecdotes he related in his article. However, it seems clear to me that Paul is not entirely tolerant of homosexuals, at the very least. Leftists and self-styled “liberals” will consider this to be “homophobia”, because they define it as consisting minimally of personal discomfort around homosexuals. Given that definition, Paul certainly fits the bill of being a “homophobe”.
Dondero’s main point of contention with Paul, as he states, is foreign policy. I believe him here, because he’s brought it up many times in the past. As he relates, he apparently left Paul’s staff after the 9/11 attacks, presumably because of Paul’s stance on them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the anecdote he relates about Paul wanting to vote “No” on the 2001 AUMF is entirely accurate. Assuming so, it’s a shame to me that Paul sacrificed principles for politics there.
Sounds like a reasonable interpretation, Autolykos. (I always want to write “Autokylos”. Don’t ask me why, I wonder if anyone else has this problem as well or if I am the only retarded in at least this respect…)
I really think whoever wrote that stuff should have the guts to show up. Even or especially if it was Rockwell. That’s the only right thing. I understand though that Paul may not be in the position to reveal that, the ghostwriter has to do it himself. Anyway we have to get used to that kind of stuff for the whole next year.
Honestly I can’t imagine how many people were probably writing for those half dozen different newsletters over the course of a decade(?).
Playing the devil’s advocate (white devil perhaps?):
Ron Paul’s White Supremacist Radio Connections
Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends and Supporters
Not surprised Lew Rockwell and Thomas DiLorenzo are on that list. Hell, at this point I’m surprised they didn’t put the whole LvMI on the list.
They did actually:
The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is listed by the SPLC as a neo-Confederate organization.
Well, damn, skipped my eye. I’m pretty sure I have some LvMI pamplets (the ones you get when you order books) and I’m sure in the description there was a paragraph about how they’ve been labeled various things, including neo-Confed.
Because the Confederates simply loved uncoerced labor!
Ron Paul reacts to the “Compassion” ad from the RevolutionPAC:
Those fucking simpletons can’t understand that just because we are against Lincoln and the Union, that does not follow that we love Jefferson Davis and slavery.
Same goes with the US in WWII. Just because we think FDR and Truman were awful, doesn’t make us Nazis.
Incredible ad on so many levels. Perfect timing, too. Anyone watching this has to conclude that not only is he not a racist by any stretch, he’s a hero.
As an added bonus, it refutes the whole “libertarians want to let poor people fend for themselves” nonsense. The man lives his principles.