Your opinions and facts aren’t addressed at all, oh no. You’re called a hideous retarded man-hating bitchy cunt who can’t understand politics because you’re a chick with a vagina, and you need to have a hysterectomy/get raped/kill yourself. Oh, and you’re a Jew.
Kay.
What lovely, misogynistic supporters Ron Paul has. Not shocking, giving his anti-choice (aka anti-women) platforms. If you want to learn more about that and his other despicable traits, you really must read Ashley F. Miller’s post “Why does anyone like Ron Paul?” You know it has to be good if it inspired such bile.
My favorite piece of vitriol Ashley has received was the following comment on Vox Day, a renowned repository of conservative trash:
“This is why it’s nearly impossible to have a conversation about politics with or give any real consideration to the political sentiment of, generously, unmarried women, probably more accurately – any women who aren’t all the way through menopause yet. It’s a shame they are allowed to vote, but that’s part of the death-spiral of the republic.”
Yeah, that whole women being allowed to vote thing is such a nuisance.
It would be hilarious if it weren’t so scary how many misogynist are out there in the world. If you need to remind yourself, go read all the nasty comments Ashley has received. Some are quite…inspired. Especially the one about Dobby the House Elf.
There’s a reason Ron Paul supporters tend to be primarily young, white, straight men. Because with a libertarian like Ron Paul in office, minorities, GLBT individuals, and women (and atheists) get utterly fucked over. He’s anti-war, you say? Even a broken clock is right twice a day – that’s not enough for me to ignore his other stances. He wants to get rid of the waste involved with federal bureaucracy? It’s politically impossible that he’ll accomplish his economic libertarian goals with our Senate and House. But what he would easily accomplish is allying with the religious right to strip rights from minorities, which they’re already on the verge of doing.
If you’re young white straight man who doesn’t support Ron Paul, thank you for not being utterly selfish.
Guys only get called sheeple for not recognizing the shepherd. In Kentucky, women that criticize Paul’s son Rand are at risk of getting kicked in the head.
What passes for “libertarian” in the US is an excuse to remove funding from anything that helps minorities and has nothing to do with increasing liberty.
This totally fits with a FB interaction I just had with my old neighbor who posted ~
Ron Paul
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
: I replied with, Point 1. Ignore Ron Paul [check]
Point 2. Laugh at Ron Paul [check]
The first two points is where you shoulda stopped.
Him: Do you collect government assistance money or something?
: I responded with, No, like you, I’m a middle-class white male. I’m not female or part of the under privileged minority. I was afforded a good education and now I’m able to support myself and my loved ones. Nor do I mind helping the less fortunate when able. Among the many reasons why I can’t support Ron Paul here are the ones that stick out. He’s anti-science, anti-education, and he’s on the wrong side of history.
He then unfriended me.
I am a young white straight man who used to support Ron Paul. He is attractive because when you look at extremely narrow and mostly out of context slices of his views they just seem perfect. Against the war, against prohibition, something vague about freedom. Oh, sure he had some issues that I kind of disagreed with, but I didn’t think they were that big a deal since they weren’t really the focus of his campaign. But the more I learned about them the more I saw the harm. Usually it wasn’t even things about Paul specifically, just reading more about “pro-life” and how it was more accurately anti-woman made me question Paul’s stance on abortion. Eventually I realized that he was basically just a few good ideas or stances surrounded by a huge number of astoundingly wrong (often both morally and factually) views. My privilege was hiding my privilege so it took some time to realize all this.
I like what you said about how “It’s politically impossible that he’ll accomplish his economic libertarian goals with our Senate and House. But what he would easily accomplish is allying with the religious right to strip rights from minorities, which they’re already on the verge of doing.” I’m definitely going to use that argument when I come across Paul supporters that seem to admit that he’s wrong about minorities but feel his economic libertarian goals are somehow more important than that.
I am confused, Ashley. Can we meet? I am down the road from Lafayette. Shoot me a note on google +
Gah – your name is Jen… Sorry
You’ve hit it on the head, really. Paul supporters are the type of people who disappeared up their own asses at an early age. Usually they have some justification for being bitter at the world, but their insularity and stubbornness means any reason for feeling sympathetic vanishes out the tailpipe.
Why do I assert this so confidently? Because, personalitywise, I’m a lot like them. I was lucky, though, to be exposed to other cultures and facets of the world at a relatively early age (I.e. middle school) so the liberal indoctrination got to me before I became a raging hate bomb. (I’m still incredibly bitter, but mostly at my own failings rather than others’.)
Part of Ron Paul’s schtick, and I think part of what gives his message its appeal, is playing into this wild west “take the government out of everything so we can run the town” sentiment that appeals to white men who never have to deal with the consequences of a lack of economic or social parity. I think this recent ad sums it up well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA. It’s a fight-everyone, take-no-prisoners, ideological purity with easy answers solution to governmentality that’s incredibly dangerous but strangely seductive.
There’s a surprising number of Paulites in Utah and it depresses me every time I talk to them. There are a few that manage to be fairly reasonable with their arguments and we can manage to have an intelligent conversation, but most are so jaw-droppingly deluded and ignorant that I want to scream. Just yesterday I got into an argument with one who claimed that pretty much all the troops stand behind Ron Paul (I guess there was some fundraiser with the armed forces that was very successful). It freaks me out that there is a non-trivial amount of people who view this man as some sort of political messiah (and that they give so much money).
But I think what depresses me more is that in more than one case it was Ron Paul, crazy Ron Paul who I want no where near the Oval Office, that was the voice of reason at times in some of the Republican debates.
Ron Paul is bad.
They like Ron Paul because by legitimizing him, they can then use him to legitimize their moronitude.
Sad world this is where one can get thanks for not being completely selfish, Jen.
I would be a libertarian if it didn’t mean that all the underclasses would be used as a pool of slaves/collective toilet by the privileged. (It’s generally not a good idea to shit on your labor force, but the fact that the wealthy like doing that anyway kind of undermines the whole “humans are rational” assumption of libertarianism.)
From one straight white man, you’re welcome!
Vox Day is an excellent spokesperson for libertarianism.
+++++
Good point. Good response by Ryan, too.
+++++
Next time you need scientific evidence that libertarians feel less love for their own romantic partners, family, friends and other people, than liberals or even conservatives feel, remember the Pharyngula Wiki: http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarians
I’m an old white straight male who passionately dislikes Ron Paul. He’s a a conspiracy nut, an economic illiterate and a racist. He wants to get government off peoples’ backs, except in regard to those things he doesn’t like, such as same sex marriage and abortion. He’s an exemplar of the libertarian creed: “I got mine, fuck you.”
@3. Ryan : December 23, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Yeah, it’ll do that alright.
I can relate to that.
Ron Paul getting the US Presidency would be a disaster sure – perhaps a bit better than Bachmann or Perry and Gingrich but a huge disaster nonetheless. Fortunately though, it ain’t goanna happen. I expect and sure hope that this will be Ron Paul’s final failed attempt at it.
I’m pretty sure it’ll end up being Mitt Romney Vs Barack Obama in 2012 and whilst neither man is great neither as all *that* nightmarish either.
love moderately, the wiki academic link has 404’d. Just thought I’d let ya know.
I’m shocked that no one mentioned the obvious reason he has so much appeal with this particular demographic…
He’s for legalizing marijuana!!!
I lived in Utah most of my life, so I’ve known a good many Ron Paul advocates – and frankly, for a long time I gave him far more benefit of the doubt than he ever deserved.
And I’d have to say this is entirely typical of most of them; they’ll go on and on about ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’,but when they want to insult or demean someone, it’s sexist or homophobic insults they reach for first.
For a long time I thought, hm, the libertarians have some good ideas, and it might be a good thing if they had more influence in politics.
But I have learned that even when they reach good conclusions, they often do so by intrinsically awful means; they oppose the war on drugs, but for many, especially Paul and his ilk, they do not oppose the war on drugs because it is racist, or because it is wasteful, or because it enables huge degradations of human rights, but because it is an action of the federal government. Paul is careful to state he is not opposed to individual states having their own particular laws about drugs. The same is true of his stance on the military; he is opposed to the federal government having a military … but not opposed to individual states having militias. Paul is also virulently opposed to federal civil rights legislation. He is, in fact, opposed to the 14th amendment in its entirety, and all its implications.
He is not alone or unusual among libertarians in this; for decades he worked arm in arm with Lew Rockwell, the man who worked to bind the neo confederates and the libertarians together into one whole. (Speaking of Lew Rockwell, it is , ah, interesting to find a bit from Immanuel Velikovsky linked from his front page.)
This is something that should be of some concern to skeptics as well; many big name skeptics were for many years, or are still, libertarians of one sort or another. No, they’re not of the same sort of libertarian as Ron Paul – but more closely connected than you might think.
I want to smash the haters in the face with a brick.
Lets break up the union and let the scum float to the atlantic.
I never supported Ron Paul and never supported libertarianism. I might be a white male, but from the age of 12 I was raised by a single mother. I might not have had the words for it then, but I was pretty clear on what privilege was and who did and didn’t have it.
The libertarian free-for-all might be appealing if you can discount that, but it’s rather horrifying if you can’t.
@llewelly: It doesn’t surprise me that he hates the 14th (arguably my favorite amendment). If there was anything that fully turned me off Paul, it was this ridiculous anti-“activist-judges” screed he wrote in ’03:
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
It’s originalist nonsense from start to finish, and even then it’s astoundingly ill-informed (“The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state” – then what about the founder who coined the phrase?) People talk about Paul as though he’s something different from the rest of the Republican crowd, but the differences look like window-dressing to me. As the poster Ryan said above, the dramatic and appealing policies would be pretty much impossible to enact, but the standard-conservative ones would be all too easy.
Sometimes I’m just so happy that I don’t live in the US.
I do support Ron Paul, I even donated to his campaign. Now, I will not admit to be hyper educated on the matter, I can barely keep up studying for my classes, and they really aren’t that advanced. I am a bi young while male veteran, not the brightest, but I do try.
I support Ron Paul because of his consistency, and his desire to cut spending and make the federal government as small as possible. I understand and recognize that I do not agree with all of his points, and honestly on some of his points that I agree with him on I disagree with his methods.
Another reason I support Ron Paul is because I do not like any of the other republican Candidates, and honestly if I can do anything to prevent some of them from having the slight chance at the presidency, I will. Out of all of them I would prefer Ron Paul, because I find the others to just be that shitty.
In addition, as a veteran, I love his desire to withdraw all foreign troops (excluding embassies I would assume). We beat Germany over 65 years ago, lets bring the troops home.
I am not here for a debate, it is not my intent to change your mind, I like you Jen, and I respect who you are and what you do. I just wanted to speak up and speak out as a Ron Paul supporter who was not a misogynist or racist.
Thank you for your time.
Shorter Vox Day:
Bitches be crazy.
@23 Thomas
I can certainly agree that the positions that you have highlighted are good ones. Unfortunately, in the unlikely event of a Ron Paul presidency, I think the policies you like would be politically unsustainable. I can also appreciate that the rest of the republican field looks deranged (I would include Ron Paul there) or and/or self-serving (buy my book, i.e. Herman Cain).
As a white, straight man, let me say… I’m sorry. I’m sorry about those ignorant, nasty S.O.B.s who hate women because they’re afraid of them. Who rant and rave because they can’t make a reasonable case for what they believe. Who call names and curse because they somehow think they’re entitled to a place at the top of society that they haven’t earned and don’t deserve.
Most of all, I’m sorry that when you look at me… you see them.
Objection! I am utterly selfish.
I resent your implications.
My ex-wife is a huge Ron Paul supporter. When I compared Ron Paul’s apparent messiah status to that of Obama during the 2008 election, she said, and I’m being totally honest here, “Yeah, but Obama didn’t keep any of his promises. Ron Paul WILL!” It was a jaw-dropping, face-palming moment.
I had to explain that Obama kept most of his promises, and the ones he didn’t were usually because he was blocked at every turn by a GOP-controlled House, among other things, but has kept not only most of his promises, but has done a lot more good (like repealing DADT, for starters).
She also claimed that Ron Paul was consistent in his voting record. I said that a person can be consistent, and consistently wrong, and that (as you said) even a broken clock is right twice a day. She focuses on his anti-war and anti-drug-war stances, and I had to keep pointing out that he had other, more harmful points of view. Of course, she retorted with the fact that most of the things were outside of his power to control.
The funny thing is, she’s in favor of marriage equality (having a gay brother herself), but still supports Ron Paul’s idiotic “states’ rights” mentality, where (as it is now with DOMA) states have the right to refuse to recognize your marriage from another state. I told her about this and about how it is ANTI-marriage-equality for this to persist. She rebutted with some claim that Ron Paul wants to do away with marriage altogether (somehow). Again I reminded her that that would be impossible to do and that he would encounter enormous roadblocks in his efforts to do that.
So, in the meantime, why not stick with Obama, who at least no longer defends DOMA and thinks it is unconstitutional? Guess which viewpoint will get marriage equality on the table more quickly? But tell THAT to a supposedly liberal Ron Paul supporter.
On a sidenote, it’s hilarious that the main problem I have with my ex-wife is our political points of view.
It seems to me that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are White men of a libertarian bent that project their idea of an ideal candidate on the good doctor. Ron Paul is anything but a champion of personal liberties as his voting record and public statements have shown over and over again. He says he doesn’t want the Federal Government restricting rights but is perfectly content if the States do so, except in the case of marriage. As for marriage, he has repeatedly said “the church” should decide that.
It’s no wonder that a woman criticizing Dr. Paul would be subject to a nasty response from his fan boys. Men criticizing him usually get a pretty nasty irrational response too.
“He’s anti-war, you say? Even a broken clock is right twice a day – that’s not enough for me to ignore his other stances.”
I’ve said this exact thing.
Heh.
Good ol’ Ron Paul. He’s crazy. See, he’s consistently crazy (except for those pesky newsletters, when he’s not consistent). His idea of freedom is the same idea of freedom we had in the 1920s: states choose who can vote and who can’t. He’s pretty sure the 14th Amendment never happened, even though it did, and he definitely doesn’t care much for brown/black/blue/green/red people. He’s a leader (but he doesn’t vet the things sent out in his name) and he’s responsible (except that he’s incapable of it). He loves the Constitution but has difficulty comprehending it.
He’s…a nutjob.
Two rage-filled posts in a row? It makes me sad when there are things that we need to fight against. With the other pitiful GOP candidates though, Ron Paul is gaining some relative traction that he really shouldn’t be having. I think he’s one of those cases of lots of good ideas surrounded by lots of bad ones.
I like to think that if he ever had office he’d just keep national government out of the way, but when he’s a creationist it’s hard to take him seriously.
No kidding on the racist stuff. It’s no small coincidence he’s receiving support from several neo-nazi and white supremacist groups. The guy has red flags dotting every inch of skin. No idea why some can’t see it.
Protip, when trying to seem smart while attacking others who’s positions you don’t fully understand, make sure to at least properly form the first word of the first sentence. Let me explain, “you’re” is a contraction for “you are”, while “your” is a possessive adjective, indicating ownership of something.
What do the responses to Miller have to do with Ron Paul? His politics aside, I thought people wishing death upon you was par for the course for posting an opinion on the internet particularly when a) posting a political opinion on the internet, or b) being a woman posting an opinion on the internet.
Or do female bloggers who say critical things about Obama not get the same response?
Protip, when responding to a blog post that addresses the dismissive attitudes received by a population you associate with, a complaint about erroneous grammar comes off as both ironic and pitiful, and suggests that you either lack the capacity to respond to the criticisms raised in the initial post (not necessarily due to intelligence, mind you, there are many ways in which one can be incompetent), or the attention span to read past the first word.
That aside: A “your”/”you’re” mistake? … (Would make some joke here about scientists and grammar, but I can’t think of any that wouldn’t be dismissive due to context).
I’ve been trying to tell my Libertarian friends for years that Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is an John Bircher. He’s a nativist/nationalist anti-government conspiracy theory kook.
Although I disagree with Libertarians, I have a lot of respect for many of them. I have no respect for Ron Paul.
(On other note, the first word of this blog post is misspelled. Might want to correct that.)
Cheers,
-j
Protip, “who’s” always means “who is” or “who has”, and only “who is” or “who has”. “Whose” is the possessive form of “who” and is the form you should have used here. Please turn in your fake badge, and stop masquerading as a member of the Grammar Police.
Lucky you.
It certainly doesn’t never happen, but there’s a pretty blatant difference of degree….
…small enough to fit in a woman’s uterus.
Don’t.
Most of the comments here seem to be about whether there is actually anything to criticize about Ron Paul, which to me is entirely beside the point of this post. Even if Ron Paul was Jesus (wait, that’s a bad example), it wouldn’t make it okay to say disgusting ugly misogynistic things about a woman who criticizes him.
That said, I’m female and criticize Ron Paul all of the time without such a reaction. This is relevant because a) Ashley’s experience may say more about the kind of people who have come across her blog than about fans of Ron Paul, and b) she might have seen the same sort of reaction from rabid fans of any politician.
I would also have pointed out that, right or wrong, lousy criticism of any kind might have been greeted with misogynistic attacks. But I read her post, and Ashley’s criticism isn’t lousy. It is still simply not true that it had to be good in order to receive bile. Crap is met with bile all of the time. We don’t want to perpetuate the illusion that misogynistic attacks are really predicated in any way on the quality (or lack thereof) of the remarks or the person they are directed toward. Misogynists aren’t generally very rational…that’s why they’re misogynists in the first place.
One further thing to note is that Ron Paul’s fans tend to have a bigger internet presence than….really anyone. They overwhelm news site polls to the point that the sites themselves throw out the results as useless in terms of reflecting real-world support (which is mistaken, IMO– internet people are real people). So it isn’t surprising to me at all that they would also have a greater presence in terms of douchebaggery like this. That doesn’t mean that supporting Ron Paul makes a person a douchebag, or that he necessarily has more douchebag fans than anyone else.
Ron Paul’s internet bully squad is easy to understand. They’re Randroids who are willing to overlook the fact that Paul is a christianist theocrat because hating women and the poor is more important to them.
No it isn’t but society seems to largely disagree. Sexism and misogyny is largely ok so long as it’s aimed at a ‘bad’ or mean woman. (I’m reminded of comments calling Ann Coulter ‘one ugly fucking tranny.’)
It’s why so much attention is paid to defending the woman as having a real point. The default really is if she’s wrong she deserves it. And of course people will deny that but their actions suggest otherwise and point to a very different attitude.
For fuck’s sake, it’s a typo. Funny how you couldn’t find anything to critique about the actual substance of my post.
Oh, one more thing: The word “protip” is idiotic.
They can’t address opinions. and facts.
Whenever they have to deviate from their script, Ron Paul cultists are lost.
Ron Paul is a flaming a**hole and so is anyone who supports him.
whether you are a man or a woman, you have got to critize Paul, who is a complete laughing stock, as a candidate for President
But… when I’m teaching lab I write Pro Tips on the chalkboard!
:(
oops forgot to include the [OT] tag.
[OT]!!
What’s always irritated me is that as a civil libertarian I have to explain far too often that I do not in fact want to get rid of the department of education. And I am very disturbed by the prospect that Paul’s prominence will cause a number of important civil libertarian issues to be packaged together with the rest of his crazy platform in the public discourse. I’m just afraid that in 15 years I’ll be trying to argue that isn’t a good idea for police to be able to bug my house without warrant and people will just respond “oh like those racist nutjobs who want to abolish the government?”
Wow – the Paulbot Collective must be celebratin’ X-mas, spinning cold-weather pods for themselves or be otherwise engaged. Our esteemed hostess posted this nearly 24 hrs ago and of 50 posts, there’re only a coupla pro-Paul comments. Usually, any post even remotely questioning if Ron Paul is in fact “the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life” triggers a near-instantaneous response of ‘Paulbot Twins: activate! Copypasta on comment thread!”
I’ve been using the example of every other Republican who’s been slightly moderate and gotten in office to tell people why Ron Paul is a pipe dream. McCain had some good ideas, but he swung violently to the right when he became his party’s candidate. I’ve pointed out how every single politician in the Republican party has had to swing drastically to the right to get elected. The only thing the Republicans can get concessions on, and the only thing they think will get passed and fire up their base is conservative social issues. Ron Paul isn’t going to be any different. He’ll get in, and he’ll pass social conservative legislation because it’s the only thing he can realistically pass.
Is that just a gut feeling, or do you have some statistics?
Hahaha… I just escaped being in that overvalued demographic of 18-34 year old white males last July due to the inexorable march of time. So sadly, the “young” part of your description no longer applies (recently coming out bisexual too), so I cannot accept your thanks.
Ron Paul can go rot with his fellow twinkly-eyed cult leader Marshall Applewhite. Suck it, Paultards.
–
Because they don’t want to see it. It would threaten their comfortable fiction of him being some kind of new breed, outsider anti-government crusader, when he actually fits the mould of southern conservative fairly well.
How about this: It’s not excusable, and you’re sounding DAMN close to excusing the behavior being complained about.
Do you? You’re the one disingenuously disguising an assertion as a question, after all.
What.
The fact that the best thing the anti-Paul lobby can come up with is that in a nation of three million people a couple of misogynists who supported him were found is strong evidence in his favor. For a community that prides itself on rationality, as opposed to appeals to emotion…. extremely weak guys.
Must… resist… commenting… YARGH!
Ron Paul is the only anti-war, pro-marriage-equality, anti-prohibition candidate. Not just the only Republican — the only candidate. (Obama is pro-war, anti-marriage-equality, and pro-prohibition). I certainly don’t agree with Paul on abortion or on religious matters (and probably on a lot of other things too)… but if I had to wait for a pro-abortion, pro-science, anti-war, anti-religious, pro-marriage-equality, anti-government-expansion, pro-civil-liberties, anti-software-patents, anti-torture, pro-nuclear-power, anti-nuclear-weapons, anti-drug-prohibition candidate, I wouldn’t be able to cast a vote for anybody. There is no perfect candidate. People have their issues (war, government spending, marriage equality, and prohibition happen to be high on my list), and they pick their candidates. Picking a candidate should never be seen as an endorsement of all of their positions.
Keep that in mind when you vote for your favorite pro-war, anti-marriage-equality, pro-prohibition candidate. And you can trust that I won’t use your support of said candidate to impugn your motives or negatively stereotype your sexuality, your sex, your race, or your age. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and trust that you’ve weighed everything and made the choice you think is best. I would be delighted if you’d extend me the same courtesy.
Happy Isaac Newton’s birthday, Jen. :-)
Didn’t notice I was a lobby. Didn’t know dozens of misogynists using violent language could be described as “a couple.” Thanks for the info, Beren.
Too bad you have that 4 second attention span or you might notice all the other criticism of Paul’s stances.
I feel for you. It’s possible the brand name of “Libertarian” is simply too tainted at this point to be used productively, but we’ve had moderate success in reclaiming “feminist” after Stanton and Anthony’s post-15th Amendment racist temper tantrum, that stupidity with prohibition, and all the damage that was done and, in some corners, is still being done by the anti-sex “feminists” who tried to steal the label for their exclusive use…
Yeah, probably anything intelligent I was going to say has already been done in the last 60 comments, so:
Fuck this man, Ron Paul:
An absolute imbecile
Do not elect him
Where do I make an excuse for the behavior? I’m pointing out that Jen makes it sound like this is because Miller wrote a piece about Ron Paul, and that there’s something unique about Ron Paul supporters that results in this behavior. But in case you need me to say it explicitly, it is wrong to threaten to rape or kill someone, on the internet and off the internet.
There are internet trolls with all sorts of political viewpoints. I don’t actually know of any studies, but here are a few examples. Plenty of people on Twitter, presumably liberals, called for Sarah Palin to be killed in the wake of the Giffords shooting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y Carolyn Farrow here ( http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/11/comments-rape-abuse-women ) says she’s a conservative Catholic blogger who gets rape threats when she writes about gay rights or birth control (although there are certainly more examples in that blog of women with liberal viewpoints).
Misogyny isn’t restricted to particular political views. I would think the memory of Elevatorgate would be more than enough evidence of that.
Uhhh, Ron Paul is NOT pro-marriage equality. He’s pro states rights, which means he’s against protecting the rights of minorities (aka anti marriage equality).
Hi, I’m a white, female, veteran who is college educated, works for the government, and supports Ron Paul (which is probably against my own financial interest). I’m also a feminist so one of my big issues is keeping the government out of my uterus. I think there is a major misconception about Ron Paul’s pro-life stance. I am pro-choice (how could I call myself a feminist otherwise?)and I am ok with having the next president being pro-life (only if it’s Ron Paul) for the following three reasons: 1. He is pro-life because of his experiences as a Obstetrician, so it’s not some crazy Christianity that brought him to this place. He has a very poignant story in one of his book, “Liberty Defined,” that details his position. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it and I definitely respect it more than I would if his stance was based on religion. 2. What comes across as a desire to outlaw abortion at the federal level is really and simply a desire to only create laws at the federal level about issues that are outlined in the Constitution as being under federal control. Abortion is not in the Constitution therefore according to the tenth amendment it is to be left up to the states, respectively. 3. There is no way in hell Roe v Wade will be repealed, anyway. There are still checks and balances in the government, so with Ron Paul as the president we won’t turn into an industrial-age Libertarian nightmare with the poor dying in the streets and the corporations running the nation. We just won’t. It’s not a possibility-just like Obama didn’t turn us into the Soviet States of America.
A lot of the criticisms I read about Ron Paul are based on erroneous beliefs about his positions and I encourage you guys to read some of the things that he has authored himself before making a decision about him or before repeating something you heard someone else say…because often the things you hear others say simply aren’t correct. I’m kind of surprised to see this sort of thing (repetition sans first hand review) linked on an athiest blog.
Are these two posts Poes? ‘Cuz, kudos on the straight faces.
I think it’s a registered trademark of Trojan.
Glancing at Ron Paul’s newsletter, one comes away with the impression that whoever wrote it is, at the very least, extraordinarily racist and possibly a crypto-fascist. Of course, he claims he didn’t write it, and he has never said anything nearly as inflammatory in any of his speeches.
So is he a racist?
To my mind, the whol question is rather beside the point. Whether he actively dislikes other races, or whether the policies he endorses are just done “on principle”, the fact of the matter is that his agenda, if implemented, would be tremendously deterimental to everyone who is not a white, able-bodied, middle-to-upper-class, heterosexual, cisgendered male. And that’s really all that’s necessary to know.
Well, maybe if you got the stick out of your ass it’d be clearer. :P
Hehe. You said it so I don’t have to.
Should have…resisted…commenting.
Any candidate that is a libertarian is automatically eliminated as a candidate in my mind. Economies are far too complex for something as naive as libertarian-ism. All the other problems with Ron Paul just keeps adding more negatives against his case.
There are already four justices on the Supreme Court who are on the record saying they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has already outlived most people with pancreatic cancer and will almost certainly not survive past 2016, while none of the conservative justices show any signs of going away soon (Scalia is the oldest by far at 77, but in pretty good health). Ergo, if a Republican wins in 2012, Roe v. Wade is almost guaranteed to be overturned.
The sick thing is, that might be what it takes to get people to fucking sit up and pay attention. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests even that might not be enough.
If you are a Ron Paul fan, can you explain to me why you think having such an openly conspiracy minded person as President of the United States be a good thing?
And does he very pro-Christian views really outweigh his anti-prohibition beliefs to you? Or his anti-science beliefs? FYI He claims that Global Warming is a hoax.
I find I agree with you (Jen) on a lot of things. This is not one of them. To start with, you should really check your sources; “The 10 Quotes That Make Ron Paul Sound Racist” makes zero reference to the source of the quotes, and it would appear many of the quotes were not made by Ron Paul (check out http://truthandculture.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/naacp-president-ron-paul-is-no-racist/, or just search “NAACP president Ron Paul” on Google). As to his stance regarding women’s rights, I strongly disagree with Ron Paul’s stance on this issue, but I think you have misrepresented the situation: he believes that each state should make the decisions, but when faced with the decision between “Should the federal government allow it or outlaw it” without the option of “It’s not for the federal government to decide,” he’s going with his personal stance (I’m oversimplifying, but the idea is there). He’s not a perfect candidate, but he’s a hell of a lot better than any of the alternatives (Obama included).
Having observed the comments in this community, it sounds like they’d fit right in then.
What is this creepy bullshit.
Oh! Looks like someone is having trouble distinguishing between genuine ad hominem fallacies and substantive arguments accompanied by factual insults. As per usual.
Ron Paul belongs the politically right wing nut medical organization,Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. This illustrious organization’s legal counsel is Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly (mother, Phyllis, plus his brothers have written for its journal).
They have supported HIV/AIDS denialism (publishing papers by Duesberg), that abortion causes breast cancer, immigrants were bringing in diseases and anti-vax causes. And the most egregious thing they have pushed is that shaken baby syndrome does not exist, and the results can be blamed on vaccines.
They have even published papers by Buttram, who has made a living as an “expert” witness helping people who have shaken babies (some to death) out of jail. That is just pure evil.
More here:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/
The difference between being racist/sexist and being opposed to using whatever resources are available to decrease the effects of racism/sexism is immaterial.
Thus, I don’t care what Ron Paul thinks in his heart of hearts about women or people of color. The fact that he’s willing to support policies whose predictable outcomes would increase the amount of discrimination women and people of color is enough. If he’s not a racist and a sexist, then he’s doing a damn good impression of one. He’s willing to trade MY quality of life as a woman for upholding his small government principles. I find that philosophical consistency is not enough to offset the fact that millions of women and people of color will be deprived of their rights as a result of putting his policies into action.
Paul is pro-life because he is an anti-science idiot. He thinks his personal experiences as a doctor are an adequate stand-in for statistically representative surveys.
Also, I find it hilarious (not really) that EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME I criticize Ron Paul to a Paulite, the response is, “Well, you are obviously not familiar with his actual views.”
Yeah. Keep deluding yourselves. The only possible reason anyone could disagree with Paul is that they just don’t UNDERSTAND his brilliance! It’s quite evident that his fan base is incredibly young.
Ron Paul reminds me too much of the Constitution Party which is a wannabe Libertarian Party. I mean if the Tea Party were a legitimate third party they’d be the Constitution Party and the sad thing is that this party doesn’t even read that which they take their name from.
Ron Paul has made some enemies of true Libertarians such as myself who champion civil liberties. Ron Paul is as anti-civil liberties as you could hope to be.
@Vanessa, how about he signed PersonhoodUSA’s pledge, and has obviously given thought about how to implement it?
http://www.personhoodusa.com/files/Keith%20Ashley/Ron%20Paul%20Personhood%20Statement_0.pdf
For all the excuses being made by Paul supporters, I’m guessing if you did a poll of a few hundred million people worldwide something close to 0% of them would have put out a newsletter under their name containing racist and conspiracy theory nonsense without their support and consent.
I’m almost 100% positive on this one.
Good on ya. Who needs friends like that anyway ;)
Your situation highlights the need for voter education that we do not get from the mainstream media. If you just take what a politician says during their campaign to win office without examining all of their history, speeches, actions etc..it’s easy to be wooed by the two or three issues he/she chooses to highlight that are attractive to the general public. Being right about a few issues but horrifyingly wrong on dozens of others shows a candidate/politician that is dangerous to the public good.
I’m glad you saw the light.
“but the fact that the wealthy like doing that anyway kind of undermines the whole ‘humans are rational’ assumption of libertarianism”
Rich people screwing an underclass to promote their own agenda isn’t irrational, it’s selfish. I would posit that libertarianism is a philosophy for narcissists and/or the mentally deficient. My guess is that the senator would have a completely different political outlook, had he grown up as part of an underprivileged or exploited minority. (Also, “the free market will solve it” is *never* an adequate response to a problem, though it may be politically en vogue to say it.)
In a consumer driven economy consistently diminishing the wealth of the underclasses (middle/lower) is not sustainable. Unless you’re in finance selling triple A rated turds and other such BS. Then you can just wait for the inevitable bust and bailout. Good Times.
To be fair, as I understand it, libertarians are opposed to such bailouts. I guess what I am trying to say is:If the wealthy are producing goods it is better long term to have a stable middle class that can afford to buy said goods.
I find it ironic that this post has an ad for the prolifealliance with Ron Paul’s face on it right at the top.
“I guess what I am trying to say is:If the wealthy are producing goods it is better long term to have a stable middle class that can afford to buy said goods.”
I think the wealthy in this country noticed that the rest of the world is developing, and realized that they didn’t really need *our* underclass anymore — so they decided that it was time to pull out the safety net.
That being said, the majority of the “wealthy” people here produce nothing. (I believe the majority of .1%-ers are in finance, are CEOs, or are part of the parasite “investor” class — neither of which produce anything of tangible value. Financiers have clamped down on loaning practices, when they’re not betting against the economy using CDS instruments, and CEOs profit whether or not their company produces anything, and whether or not they use domestic labor to do so.)
Better how? Better for what?
Someone tell Tony that this is Blag Hag, not Craigslist.
I freely acknowledge that the financial sector is essentially immune from the effect I described above (in short: who’s going to buy your widgets if no one has money to spend). The point is that “self interest” is complicated. Plenty of wealthy (not necessarily the top .1%) are invested in companies that do sell things. Also, rational people don’t always act in their own best interest. I don’t know that your assessment is wrong. Maybe the rich can pay half the poor to kill the other half. Maybe we will find out.
The problem with Ron Paul’s alleged libertarianism, as Jen notes, is that he’s actually just a states’ rights buff; he’s perfectly happy with tyranny, so long as it comes in 50 different flavors. This isn’t surprising, because as one of the wealthy elite, he’s able to pick and choose relatively easily where to live. Meanwhile, his supporters all just seem to think that there’s something magical about the ‘state’ level of government that causes it to be immune to the temptations of power.
So no, Paul isn’t for “small government” in the sense of “less government”. He’s for small government in the sense of “local government”.
Now, as a resident of the great state of Illinois, and as an observer of political culture, I would just like to note that giving the average state government more power at the expense of the feds is tantamount to taking whiskey, cars and guns away from a teenager, and giving them to fifty squalling kindergarteners.
“What happens if you’re a woman who criticizes Ron Paul?”
My best guess would be a woman is treated like the Founding Fathers intended by Libertarians eh?
I hate criticizing Ron Paul because when he’s right he really nails it. And he’s right about a few things that every other elected official gets dangerously wrong. Unfortunately after watching him for some time I think your busted clock analogy is true. Furthermore you’re right that it’s the points of agreement he has with other republicans which are really scary.
Small problem, equality of opportunity does not produce equality of result. We have our differences, and no law or ordinance is going to change that. Even if we set things up so each of us had as good a chance as anybody else, there would still be a difference of outcome.
Each of us has abilities others don’t. Each of us is better than others at certain things. You’re not going to get absolute equality, not without a thorough upset and one Hell of a genetic bottleneck.
Even worse, Ron Paul is careless.
Ron Paul occasionally says some very sensible and practical things. However, for each one of those, he comes out with two more that are totally freaking wingnut insane. It’s as if he’s his own evil twin. I fail to understand how someone so far on the right can be so far in left field. His son, Rand (or, as I call him, Ron Paul II) is even worse.
Reading these viewpoints about Ron Paul amazes me. I’m a white, gay man living in Alaska who owns an 80-acre dairy farm. I had a bachelor’s degree and work for the government in the environmental field. I largely support Dr. Paul as better than all the other Republian candidates and President Obama.
The problem we have today is not that we don’t have enough regulation — we have plenty — but that it is simply not feasible to enforce the regulations that we have. For example, in the environmental world, there are yards and yards of regulations detailing how to put aerosol cans in a drum and ship them to a disposal facility. When was the last time put an aerosol can in the trash at work — illegally?
The regulations we do have often hurt small business and individuals far worse than doing without them. For example, I have two dairy cows (seriously) — and am not allowed by law to sell the milk from them to my neighbors. To do so, I’ll need to spend about a half million to bring my milking parlor up to standards. Why should the government dictate the right of my neighbors to drink raw milk and eat raw cheese from my animals, especially if they are told of the risks?
In regard to women’s rights, Paul has repeatedly said that even if he want to impose pro-life standards on the nation, how could it possibly be enforced? Paul has also said that he favors minimizing oversight over the medical and pharmaceutical establishment and allowing people free choice over their medical care. Does Obama want you to have the morning after pill? No. Furthermore, cutting government funding to Planned Parenthood would cause problems initially — but eliminating all the regulations on PP would save them money. Boiling his viewpoints down to simple misogyny is — well oversimplying what he is saying.
As far as marriage equality, Congress’ only interest is to let the issue linger, ensuring it creates a wedge between good Americans – so that corporations can maintain their control. States want to resolve it. If I write a letter to Alaska’s governor — I get a response. Even Sarah Palin granted state employee benefits for gay domestic partners. I much trust my state government much more than the feds to do what is right.
I don’t know. I can totally see Paul cussing out a fig tree.
I support Ron Paul because of his consistency…
Consistency is not a virtue when you’re consistently WRONG. Nor is it a virtue when it means refusing to admit that life is complex and simple slogans don’t always work as policy in the real world.
And that’s only the beginning of the flaws in your “reasoning.”
The problem we have today is not that we don’t have enough regulation — we have plenty…
The fact that you can say that, after the catastrophic failure of our deregulated financial system (not to mention the BP oil spill), really shows how fucking stupid you are, and how worthless your “education” was.
Seriously, bragging about your shiny college education doesn’t give your stupid assertions any more authority — it only brings shame and disgrace on our education system.
Consistently wrong about what?
And please don’t put “reasoning” in quotes like that, it patronizes me and is quite rude. I am not trying to be rude, I was merely trying to identify myself as Paul supporter who is not racist or sexist. If there was another candidate who wanted to withdraw the troops we have from the many countries we have them in, establish energy independence, and generally do everything to cut government spending, Ill send them $25 too if I think anything would come of it.
Google Paul “we the people” bill, it will ban federal courts to hear any case about church/state separation, equal rights and abortion and will declare all existing decision non-binding so the states can impose a theocracy and you won’t even have the possibility of seeking help from the courts. If you live in a theocracy would it really matter to you if it was imposed by the state or federal government.
Since the only argument I ever heard Paul give as to how the country can function if he eliminate the federal income tax is that it managed to do it prior to 1913, you know that golden age when you could freely starve to death and wimeen didn’t get to vote.
Ron Paul is a scum sucking dirtbag, but Obama’s expansion and continuation of the drone war kills children in pakistan. I don’t see how I can avoid voting for the only person who opposes this.
Ron Paul supporters are easy to recognize, their signature headgear, when properly applied also keeps fat from dripping on your grill and flaring up. Also his name is Barry.
Ron Paul began thinking about the problems in America. First, he thought about our involvement in foreign wars and the loss of American lives overseas, and he cried a tear. Then, he thought about our loss of liberties at home, and he cried another tear. That’s why he’s called a second-tear candidate.
When the feces found in the U.S. Capital was determined to be Ron Paul’s, his supporters were quick to hail it the best idea, anywhere, ever and also delicious.
Why did Ron Paul go to the NRA meeting topless?To show his support for the right to bare arms.
“Because with a libertarian like Ron Paul in office, minorities, GLBT individuals, and women (and atheists) get utterly fucked over.”
I’m sorry, but this is an egregiously offensive misuse of the word Libertarian, and I disagree strongly with your applying it to Ron Paul. Your definition of Libertarian is functionally equivalent in methodology and degree with those who call Obama a Muslim.
There’s a reason Ron Paul was denied his attempt to rejoin the Libertarian party back in 1995, before Laughlin switched parties. I was living in the Texas 14th at the time. We made sure he understood that he was no longer welcome.
How is being pro states rights make you anti minority? I thought it was just a position that supported the idea that states can make their own decisions on matters not outlined in the constitution. Am I incorrect?
“How is being pro states rights make you anti minority? I thought it was just a position that supported the idea that states can make their own decisions on matters not outlined in the constitution. Am I incorrect?”
Alas yes. “Pro states rights” is a dogwhistle generally by racists who either wish the Confederacy had won or who were against the Civil Rights Act and any other such means of ending discrimiation.
The Confederate Apologists want to bend over backwards to deny that at the time it was openly claiming that “its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition” and that Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. (Those are two quotes off the top of my head – I can keep this going a long time if anyone really wants to claim that the South was pro-States Rights rather than this being a claim made after the war to attempt to conceal how vile their excuses were).
In Paul’s case his version of pro-States Rights means that he openly admits he’d have voted against the Civil Rights Act. And de facto pro-Jim Crow. Nice belief in liberty there. (I believe he is also a Confederate apologist).
When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new feedback are added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I get 4 emails with the same comment. Is there any manner you can take away me from that service? Thanks!
I am not a white male, and I support Ron Paul 100%. People who think Ron Paul is bad for minorities are cheaper pandering opportunists who don’t care that hundreds of thousands of people are being killed overseas by US foreign policy.
I like to have a break during the my day and browse via some blogs to see what others are saying. This blog appeared in my search and I couldnt help but clicking on it. I am glad I did because it was a very enjoyable read.
‘Thank you for this weblog. That’s all I can say. You most definitely get made this particular weblog into something thats eye opening and essential. You clearly know so much about the subject, youve covered so many bases. Great stuff from this part of the internet. Again, thank you for this blog.”