Tuesday, January 8, 2008

ron paul = lame



why you should question ron paul



ron's response

23 comments:

Matthew Smith said...

Official Ron Paul response

shawn avery said...

ron paul is certainly somewhat aloof... and his performance at the recent debates probably won't hurt him, but won't help him either.

in the case of prior alleged statements... or former positions held on an issue, i.e. senator byrd's prior allegiances... i think people should be allowed to be human, and be allowed to change and improve. nobody is perfect.

MLKjr. messed around on his wife, just like many presidents did. he was still fundamentally a decent guy.

nearly all of our presidents can be directly tied to racist statements or organizations. and our current congress and house has members who take donations from major corporations who profit from illegal factory outsourcing and porn trafficking.

everybody is guilty of something. my big problem is the fact that poor ron isn't electable, and that is the worst crime of all.

Brian T. Murphy said...

msmith - I figure you are probably a ron paul fan - thought I might hear from you on this one. as the article says at the end though - ron paul "is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate."

shawn - I hear you. my thing is that so many people see to really dig ron paul - and there is evidence that the guy endorsed some pretty gross ideas for DECADES. not small moments or slip-ups - but decades of bigotry, hate, secession endorsement, and racism. to me, there's a difference.

Patrick Sewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Smith said...

I hear you have been involved with a PCA church. In the name of the PCA some people have said racist things. Therefore you are a racist and said those things. Sure, you've stated publicly that you oppose racism and don't align yourself with those people, but I don't care. You're a racist, Brian, just admit it. And a gay-hater.

Brian T. Murphy said...

patrick - I think I'm pretty clear on the differences between secession and racism. no doubt the two ideas have been married in many arguments, but they are certainly distinct issues. if you read the article, you will find many racist (not secessionist) statements.

matthew - your sarcastic analogy would be much better if, say, instead of merely being involved in the PCA, I was the founder of the Brian T. Murphy church, where people supposedly wrote things in my name, without my knowledge or approval, for decades. (yeah right)

kristen said...

I'm with you on Ron Paul, Brian.

His creepiness overshadows all the other candidates and that's a real accomplishment.

David C said...

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Maybe you should read this interview from the author of the article that you posted. The guy is a douche and I agree with matthew, patrick and shawn. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, but take his response and explanation at face value.

This sounds like a true conspiracy theorist to me:
" Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate."

bruce said...

ron paul is terrible and should end his campaign. his foreign policy is naive beyond measure. his domestic and economic policy somehow has managed to determine all the right question to ask and provide all of the wrong answers. unfortunately he has probably doomed libertarianism for the next decade to irrelevancy.

Patrick Sewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick Sewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian T. Murphy said...

kristen - yes, definitely creepy.

david - I will, but mostly, I don't really care that much. I think all the presidential politicians are lame. this was just an article to piss off my annoying libertarian friends. it didn't take too long for the RP lovers to crawl out of the woodwork. this post has gotten a way higher than average number of hits.

bruce - yes, agreed.

patrick - that's cool that you read the article. apparently, we found different things to focus on, which is cool. we'd probably do the same thing with the bible. so I'm definitely not following you on how I do what kirchick does in my response to shawn. hey and if you are down with ideas like the confederacy - totally cool.

and like I said to david - I really actually don't care that much. mostly tonight, I'm happy that obama lost in NH because that increases my chances of getting to vote for hillary.

Patrick Sewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick Sewell said...

Just to be clear, I'm not down with the confederacy.

shawn avery said...

gosh. i'm a libertarian. and so are clint and liz. are we really annoying?

unfortunately, a lot of us people who are for social change and responsible, small government.. often get behind libertarian candidates.

its like the GOP base in 2004. they all knew dubya was a lunatic, but he embodied their standards, interests and was possibly electable (barely)... so they went with it.

ron paul isn't electable. it sucks that so far, during this wild-card election... nobody seems like a good fit. obama has the charisma, but i'm not sold yet.

as of today, mccain looks strong again. i had considered him a while back...

george said...

I'm going to vote for Ross Perot again.

Brian T. Murphy said...

patrick - I know you aren't a confederate...I'm just trying to keep the discussion off me an on ron paul - specifically, how questionable his past is.

shawn - no. you, clint, and liz are not annoying. we can talk more about libertarians some time if you want. for some reason, when people start going all libertarian on me, I get really annoyed.

george - nice call.

Clint Wells said...

it is my small, humble belief that anyone who makes it this far in a presidential race...let alone the presidency itself...is going to have a questionable and corrupt past.

its all a joke anyway. like any of this...our votes included...mean anything in a world where britney spears' neurosis is america's drug of choice.

just remember: jesus was a fetus.

BB said...

wow hot post! I agree with you Bruce - the way I heard Ron Paul explain his economic plan was something like, "but this one goes to eleven".

anyways electing presidents is such a 18th century idea. we should just have a monarchy and we'd save all kinds of time/money.

Jeff Irwin said...

angry white man vs angry white woman?

god i hate the executive branch.. gw has shown it to be a relic of the old world power structure

Jon Black said...

WOOHOO! A political internet fight on BTM's blog! I'm getting some popcorn.

Isn't The New Republic the name of a series of Star Wars novels? Actually, it's Tales from the New Republic... Maybe there's a surge on the Forest Moons of Endor!

I'll save you the typing:
Jon - You're a nerd.

Go Team America!

bruce said...

what's also incredible is that you have had to delete more posts from criticism of ron paul than from the infamous prayer=fuck post.

what does this say about us and you?!?

Patrick Sewell said...

No, sorry, those deletions were from me. I found typos after I posted.