 Originally Posted by Sekhmet
It is misogynistic to strip women of their rights to make decisions regarding their own bodies - in favour of a clump of cells no less. Funny how Ron Paul's claims of an individual's rights to personal privacy ends at a women's right to choose (which is a private, personal decision). He's a woman hating hypocrite.
It is anti-gay to deny homosexuals the same rights to legal union. Ron Paul is very crafty and purposely avoids saying things like "I think gays are dirty and evil" but his actions in office and the fridge organizations in which he participates support that very idea.
I am pro-choice for the first two trimesters because it is not possible to murder something that has never had consciousness. However, I do not think a person is automatically a hater of women for being pro-life. People are pro-life generally because they think abortion is murder, not automatically because they hate women.
Ron Paul did not say he is against same sex marriages. He said it should be up to the states to decide on the matter. That is because he believes in states' rights and a small federal government, not merely because he dislikes homosexuals. Personally, I think there should be a federal law that allows same sex marriages. Ron Paul disagrees, but it is because of his beliefs on where government power should be concentrated. He might be a homophobe too, but I know he is big on states' rights.
 Originally Posted by Sekhmet
Red the links again. Not only did he make these racist comments on his own political newsletter, but he openly accepts support from Stormfront, a white supremicist website.
Please explain in detail how the following comments, made by Ron Paul himself, are not racist.
Ron Paul said:
"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Here's another link, just for good measure.
Of course those statements are racist. I was just saying that according to your link's commenters, there is a certain degree of question over whether Paul actually said those things or if one of his workers got things screwed up somehow. It would be strange if that happened, but it would also be strange if a man with the political ability to become a Congressman and the intelligence to become a medical doctor would be stupid enough to publish comments like that. My bet is that he actually did say those things, so he probably is a racist. I was just pointing out something to consider.
 Originally Posted by Sekhmet
It is a scientific fact that HIV causes AIDS. Conversely, there is no scientific validity to the idea that who you choose to have sex with shortens your life.
By going against the proven scientific facts of medical science, while supporting unvalidated theories, his credibility as a doctor is seriously threatened and it is my personal belief that he should not be practicing medical science because his mere "opinion" becomes dangerous and misleading when dealing with patient's lives.
If Ron Paul does think certain things are bad, that is fine as long as it stays his personal opinion. When he tries to bring about legislation that supports his fringe opinion and oppress the freedoms of the majority, then it is a problem.
It is definitely a fringe and bizarre conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS. I would bet a thousand dollars against one dollar that it does. I was just saying I can't get into the biomolecular details of the argument I would have to have with Ron Paul over it. All I can say is that he is way out of the bounds of medical opinion normality on that stuff. I have heard a few right wing fanatics say gay people have much shorter life spans than heterosexuals. It sounds crazy to me, and I have never seen proof of it. However, if it is true, then it is true. People are not hateful for noticing the fact if it is a fact, which I would strongly guess it is not.
 Originally Posted by Sekhmet
Amen to that! Ah, sorry for the tl;dr but I think it is important that people consider the values that Ron Paul operates under, other than the fact that he is against the war in Iraq.
I'm glad you brought this stuff to our attention. Nobody had mentioned it yet, and there are some very dedicated Ron Paul supporters who post here. I might have come across as one, but I am not. I don't agree with his views on terrorism, and I don't think he has a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming the president. And now I think he might be a total nut case. I was just saying I am not completely convinced yet, but I am not as far from it as I might have seemed. I just always challenge new ideas before I accept them. But I would say Ron Paul apparently probably is a racist with cuckoo land medical views and is most likely a homophobe.
|
|
Bookmarks