Letter Signed by Ron Paul Talks of ‘Federal-Homosexual Cover-Up on AIDS

Newsletter_paul

Reuters reports on what's surfacing in the Ron Paul campaign right now:

A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul's political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul's signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government's redesign of currency to include different colors – a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters – actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the "new money."

The letter urges readers to subscribe to Paul's newsletters so that he could "tell you how you can save yourself and your family" from an overbearing government.

Here's the letter (PDF), which was written around 1983.

Comments

  1. Alan says

    Anyone remember when George Bush signed legislation that tripled American funding to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis around the world?

    I didn’t think so.

    I’m sure Andy and Joemygod covered that extensively. Because when a Republican is saving millions dying from AIDS related illnesses, it’s just not news. Right, Andy?

    Meanwhile, people are dying in Africa from starvation while the Occupy Wall Street fools are moaning because they’re too broke to buy a new Macbook Pro.

    What an effed up world.

  2. Artie says

    Andy’s post makes reference to the subscription letter that Ron Paul signed, urging people to subscribe and contribute. Huffington Post also links to the nastiest articles in the Ron Paul Newsletter:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

    Scroll to the subheading for “Gays” for some really loathsome pieces from 1989 through the early 90s. It really doesn’t matter much that Ron Paul is denying that he personally wrote these newsletter articles. What really matters, when judging presidential candidates, is that he is responsible for them because they were published in his personal newsletter.

  3. says

    @ Alan

    You’re right. It is an “effed up world” when Ronald Reagan failed to even say the word “AIDS” as millions of people became infected and died.

    It’s an “effed world” when GOP candidates vowed to support anti-gay constitutional amendments making gays second class citizens.

    It’s an “effed up world” when the GOP frontrunner tells a gay married Vietnam War vet that he and his husband do not deserve to be treated equally.

    It’s an “effed up world” when GOP candidates traffic in racism, sexism, homophobia, and unmitigated class warfare to appeal to the most base instincts of an aging and angry majority that makes up the base of the GOP.

    And, it’s an “effed up world” when gay men make excuses for the GOP that has fought tooth and nail against every advance the LGBT community has made.

  4. THOM says

    @Alan, I remember that plan perfectly. The money went into the hands of religious groups building churches in northern Africa instead of the doctors and professionals there.

    I also remember that a sizeable chunk had to be dedicated to abstinence only education in Africa, what a joke, which actually increases transmission rates.

    Simply put, he did more to hurt than help. He created a bigger problem and help spread Christianist doctrine which is responsible for the horrifying anti-gay ideology that now exists in Northern Africa.

    So yes, they did cover it, and they covered how awful it was.

  5. Grover Underwood says

    it’s also an effed up world when you have thousands of Americans who are denied HIV drugs because of underfunding of ADAP and states are dropping people who are currently covered because of lack of funds.

    We need to provide for our own first and then for the rest of the world.

  6. HadenoughBS says

    These Paul boys – father the Representative and son the Senator – are “effed up” beyond belief. And, BTW, so are the nutjobs who support them and vote for them! Mary ffing Christmas!

  7. Dback says

    And then…there was one. Mitt Romney, by default.

    (Who’d better be hitting his knees and praying that all these scandals and skeletons that have been derailing the other potential Republican candidates don’t start hitting him in January, lest Obama sail to re-election just by looking sane, normal, and having more than a couple principles.)

  8. Artie says

    Member of GOProud: “Mommy and Daddy, look! I’m campaigning for homophobic politicians. Do you like me now?”

    Parents of said GOProud member: “No, we still can’t stand you. Go away before you embarrass us in front of our friends.”

    Epic. Fail.

  9. Jose S. says

    *yawn*

    The banksters are looting all of our money, and wanting WW3 with Iran and this is the best you can come up with Andy?

    Look, I think all the Ron Paul bashing gets me more motivated to support him.

    You all do realize that you are speaking to yourselves in a void where nobody else is listening. Ron Paul is gaining a lot of support, especially from LGBTs.

    Again, Paul voted for DADT repeal, doesn’t care about gay marriage, and really wants to reform our monetary system.

    Maybe for those of us who actually can do our homework and know what is going on in this country and the many rights that are being taken away, he seems to be nailing all these issues right on the head. I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, and that is a first for me to actually agree with a GOP candidate, as many other liberals (true civil libertarian liberals) are now supporting him.

    Like I said earlier, I met him already. We talked about the gay issue, he has no problem with homosexuality, and as a doctor he says is not a choice, etc…

    Lets see what other attacks Andy Towle is planning to use on behalf of his pals at GOProud and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

  10. says

    Good for you, Jose. Ron Paul respects you about as much as your parents do. Which is to say, not very much at all. too bad.

    You know you’re living in the Twilight Zone when Ron Paul gets talked about for his progressivism, LOL!

    And hey, wassup Gay Conservatives? Nice to see that as usual your comments all come from a transparently insecure and defensive place of online anonymous cowardice. *sigh* so typical.

  11. Chris says

    Wow, RP is consistent. He already saw through corrupted politician & bankers back then.
    The gold was 300/ounce in 1991. Today it is 1800/ounce.
    Fed prints money to artificially inflate your dollar and artificially control the interest rate. Thus, if you kept stash of dollars, you would have lost about 80% of its value today.

    AIDS was once called “gay disease.” Back then a lot of people were saying AIDS was caused by Gay people and Ron Paul foresaw this.

    Remember? the gas price was only 70C/gallon?

    Also,

    John Kerry & George Bush are from the same club.

    Gee, i hope i saw this sooner

  12. says

    Living in Texas, there are no contested Dim-ocrat races for me to vote on in the primary, so I plan on voting in the Repugnant primary for Ron Paul (in Texas we don’t have to pre-register as a partisan, just show-up and vote). I mainly want to vote against Perry so he’ll retire; he’s already collecting retirement pay as a former legislator, plus he’ll get ex-governor pay, and Mrs. Perry is getting hush money (to not tell the world the gov is a homo) from a no-show state government job, so maybe poor primary results might convince him it’s time to cash his chips. But if Obama somehow self-destructs or something “happens” to him (and nobody seriously wants Biden to be president), we could do much worse than Ron Paul. Like anti-gay corporations-are-people Romney. Or anti-gay holier-than-thou neo-papist serial-adulterer Gingrich. Or anti-gay crazy eyes. Or anti-gay frothy.

    Most importantly, Ron Paul is unique among Repug candidates polling above 1% in that he still believes in the Constitution. Without that we have nothing.

  13. anon says

    This is a PR nightmare for the Paul campaign, but I suspect that the press knew about these newsletters for some time. Paul’s handling of press issues is amateurish at best and a bit contemptuous all the time.

  14. Steve says

    Ron Paul is an extremely naive anarcho capitalist. He doesn’t believe in equality and freedom. He favors an extreme and unrealistic version of the “state’s rights” argument. He may think that the federal government shouldn’t restrict gay people’s rights. But he has absolutely no problem with states doing it. In the same vain he’d be against abortion, against women’s rights and against a lot of other things as long as it’s the state doing the restriction

  15. says

    There was a coverup of AIDS. It’s called history people, look into it. Does anyone remember how many people in our community were up in arms about Reagan’s shameless silence about AIDS? I guess not. That is what RP was talking about here. These statements, like everything else, should be taken in their context instead of in today’s, which is far different than it was then. The fact that many of you think this is some conspiracy theory, or a negative thing, doesn’t make sense to me. Reagan and his administration, through their silence, did coverup AIDS. Many, many people were saying that then. Historical fact, plain and simple.

    And, for all of you who think I’m nuts for being a gay man who supports Ron Paul, I think you’re all nuts for supporting Obama. He is a violent president, who wages war, orders assassinations, and continues to bury our nation in insurmountable debt. Supporting that is by far more nuts than supporting a man who believes that government should get out of our lives, that we should be a nation of peace, and that we should start living within our means. Obama believes government is the answer to everything, and he, like our government at large, is not a supporter of gay marriage. Ron Paul, however, thinks the government should get out of marriage all together, and that if people want to enter into same-sex marriages that should be their call! Why? Because he believes personal liberties are the most important and basic rights we have. Obama could care less about personal liberties.

    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1YLC24UCyrOm-FcgktjiuxuWlv3BpqvYljJMSilcsSZk

  16. says

    Steve, you don’t speak truth. Ron Paul has said countless times that he believes the government (state and federal) should be out of marriage all together. He does support states’ rights, and think that if government is involved in marriage it should be at the state level, but he has made it clear, over and over and over again, that he thinks government should be out of marriage. Both state and federal government.

    At least try to be a little honest with your comments.

    Regarding abortion, his position has nothing to do with women’s rights or freedom. He believes that life begins at conception and because of that personal belief he holds, he doesn’t think killing a fetus should be allowed (believing a fetus is allowed, means abortion is murder, and therefore no one, man or woman, should have the right to commit murder). If you don’t think that life starts at conception, that’s fine cause many don’t, but saying his position on abortion means he doesn’t support equality or women’s rights is completely off base.

  17. Ron Paul Is a Phony says

    “…a personal belief…believing a fetus is alive…”

    But if some people do and some people don’t, why does “libertarian” Ron Paul SUDDENLY think that the government should be involved at all in legislating this issue?

    This seems to be exactly the kind of thing that those in favor of “smaller government” would stay far away from–as far as possible, as a matter of fact.

    The only reason Ron Paul agrees to turn this particular “personal belief” into anti-abortion legislation is a craven attempt to curry favor with religious right-wingers.

    Principled, my ass!

  18. says

    Except, if a fetus is in fact alive, the most important role of government is to protect life and liberty. That is the basic foundation of our country.

    So, if a live human is being killed through abortion, there must be legislation to end that murder. That is why it matters when you believe life starts. If you believe it starts at conception, government has no choice but to protect that life.

    Yes, government should get out of our lives and should be limited, except when it comes to protecting life and liberty which, again, is the main role of government.

    So, that is entirely in line with his libertarian principles. Good try though.

  19. fedorajoe says

    Ron Paul believes in getting government out of marriage altogether?

    Really?

    Then where is his plan for the disestablishment of all rights and privileges currently offered to hetereosexual married couples?

  20. Ron Paul Is a Phony says

    “If you believe it starts at conception, government has no choice but to protect that life.”

    Not if you are truly a libertarian.

    Believing that the government should enforce your belief ovewr my belief is the ANTITHESIS of libertarianism.

    The absolute antithesis!

    Not only is Ron Paul a phony. You are too.

  21. Sickofthis says

    I find it hilarious that there was an banner for the movie “Shame”, since that is all you should be feeling for posting this on your fake news site.

  22. says

    what are you talking about? libertarians believe that government’s only roles are the protection of life, liberty, and property. that is the libertarian foundation.

    you don’t seem to get that.

    so, again, if the president believes that life starts at conception, the libertarian position is that he/she must protect that life and abolish abortion. that is completely inline with libertarianism.

    maybe you should read a little bit more about what libertarianism actually is because you clearly don’t understand it.

    a president that believes life starts at conception, but also supports the right to abortion, is not a libertarian president. libertarianism requires protecting life, which is why a libertarian president must also stand against the death penalty as Ron Paul does.

  23. says

    protecting life trumps beliefs in libertarianism. so while your belief might not be the same, a libertarian president that believes life starts at conception must do away with abortion. a libertarian president that doesn’t believe life starts at conception, has no moral obligation to abolish it because there is no duty to protect life in that situation.

    a libertarian president that believes in life at conception = no abortion

    a libertarian president that believes life starts at birth = abortion

    both of those are in line with libertarianism.

  24. Chris says

    Yes, if you accidentally bump in to a pregnant person and kill the fetus, you are in big trouble. You can get charged with a murder. The fetus also has inheritance right from both mother and father. If you kill a women whether she is one day pregnant or 9 month pregnant that is 2 kill counts. Thus, fetus has equal rights. If you are pro choice, you are being a hypocrite. If you want to be prochoice, then there should be constitutional amendment. Thus, if a doctor accidentally kills a baby, the doctor isn’t responsible for any thing.

    In 80’s the most American blamed gay people for AIDS and thought AIDS was a gay disease. Dr Paul saw through that and took as a serious matter.

    Gold price was 300 in 91 but today, it is 1800. There is no arguing government is inflating the dollar and wiping out the middle class.

    Furthermore, there will be no SS & medicare left for you in the future. RP wants to fix that. No other candidate including Barrack Obama has answer except Ron Paul.

    Strict constitutionalist can’t be a racist. If california wants pro drug law, gay marriage and pro chioce, health care mandate then that is californian’s problem as those are states’ right. however, if Texas wants anti abortion law, anti gay, anti drug law, than those are texans’ chioce.

    if you do not like your state then, move. that is our law. If you do not like this make the constitutional amendment. but this is a land of free and the law. Unlike you liberals, we are law abiding citizen

    How can a liberitarian who views everyone equally be a racist?

  25. say what says

    Brianilla

    Life begins at conception?

    sperm and ova on their own are technically “alive” they are “living cells”

    It is not a question of “life” it is a question of it being

    1- HUMAN

    2- having the basis of sentience

    1- conception = when living sperm hits living ova is a 46 chromosome cell with no nervous system. On par with a bacterium cell

    are we to defend all living bacterium?

    2- sentience…….well till their is even a rudimentary nervous system there is no sentience. at 2 months there is the basics of a nervous system and brain so the basics of sentience are there and 1 can start making a logical argument from that point

    prior to the 2 month mark there is no sane , logical, and or scientific basis for saying the fetus has any rights what so ever outside of the rights amoebas have

    Judaism makes it the easiest…..the moment of 1st breath = human prior to that NADA

  26. starring nell carter says

    Is Ron Paul actually claiming he was framed or set up here — that the newsletter wasn’t his (his enterprise)? If not, his not taking responsibility for something with his flippin’ SIGNATURE on it would be deeply unprincipled.

  27. say what says

    PS

    should have stressed

    prior to 2 month mark = YOU are a fool to defend such deserves any kind of protections.

    After the 2 month mark……fetuses can not survive outside of the womb prior to the 6 month mark and at 6 months only 27ish% survive with extreme medical intervention

  28. Nat says

    “what are you talking about? libertarians believe that government’s only roles are the protection of life, liberty, and property. that is the libertarian foundation.”

    I don’t think any actual libertarian I’ve talked to actually believes that the sole role of government can be broken down into those three categories. Most of them are rational enough to realize that life can’t fully accommodate their ideal society.

    Which is one of the reasons Paul is a disaster of a candidate: there’s no room for a utopian dreamer in a leadership role.

    The other reason can be seen in Chris’s post: Paul’s libertarianism is framed in terms of states rights. That’s not really producing a libertarian society, that’s producing 50 state-incubators, a few of which might favour the libertarian model.

    Personally, I could not support a libertarian candidate who favours states rights over individual liberty. Individual liberty is the greatest principle that Western civilization has ever produced, the notion that our existence should not be reflexively subverted to the collective good. A candidate favouring states rights is making the argument that it is acceptable to greatly infringe on my personal liberty, because I happen to live in a particular state.

    “Yes, if you accidentally bump in to a pregnant person and kill the fetus, you are in big trouble. You can get charged with a murder.”

    No you can’t.

    “The fetus also has inheritance right from both mother and father.”

    No it doesn’t.

    “If you kill a women whether she is one day pregnant or 9 month pregnant that is 2 kill counts. Thus, fetus has equal rights. If you are pro choice, you are being a hypocrite.”

    The fetus doesn’t have equal rights. In any event, I doubt that many pro-choice supporters also support legislative attempts to give the fetus rights. Those measures are universally implemented by pro-life politicians as wedge attempts in a wider push for a comprehensive abortion ban.

    “Furthermore, there will be no SS & medicare left for you in the future. RP wants to fix that. No other candidate including Barrack Obama has answer except Ron Paul. ”

    Ron Paul won’t be able to fix that any more than any other candidate, because the greater hurdle is achieving necessary results in Congress. There is no getting around the inefficiencies and the inherent self-destructiveness of the democratic process. In other words, there is no long-term fix to Social Security and Medicare. The United States – and Western societies in general – will in all likelihood not ‘fix’ the inherent issues with healthcare until the system is actually collapsing.

    Also, Social Security doesn’t really require it.

  29. says

    Say What, you can define life as when it is viable outside of the womb, or however you’d like to. That is your call. I don’t hate on you, insult you, or tell you that you are a fool for your belief. You, on the other hand, attack people who don’t agree with your beliefs. Thankfully you aren’t in control of this country.

    I don’t believe that at conception, a fetus, or an egg, or whatever you want to call it can survive on it’s own. That is obvious. But, I think life BEGINS at that moment. It is the trigger of when a human being start to form. Without conception, there is no life. Conception is the beginning point of life, and that, in my opinion and those who agree with me, is when protection should start.

    There are thousands of adult humans around the world who are alive simply because they are on life support machines providing them with breath, a heartbeat, etc. Without those machines, they would die. They cannot survive without them, they are not viable on their own. Should people be able to kill them? The ability to survive does not equal “life”.

    The moment that a human being begins to form, which is conception, is the moment that life begins. In my definition of it.

    Hate all you want. Spew your rude comments as much as you’d like. But, in the end, I will still hold the belief (which millions of doctors believe also btw, but obviously you believe they are fools and that you are the decider of what is fact) that life BEGINS at conception.

    Your belief and choices are up to you, I support your ability to live your life as you see fit.

    And hey, vote for Obama. Not only will you keep supporting the ability to abort unborn babies, you’ll also keep supporting his illegal wars, his assassinations, and the THOUSANDS of innocent women and children his orders have killed around the world. You don’t seem to care about those living beings either.

  30. says

    Nat, I’m curious, who do you support? It must not be for Obama, since you claim to hold individual liberties as so important. He does not at all (assassinating American citizens with no trial, indefinitely detaining American citizens who have never been charged with a crime, dropping bombs on sovereign countries and therefore killing innocent people… just to name a few).

    You also mischaracterize Ron Paul’s position on states’ rights. He follows the Constitution. Seriously, have you ever read it? It lists specifically, verbatim, the roles of the federal government. Everything else is left to the states and to the people. It says that verbatim too. Thus, if it’s not listed specifically to the federal government, Ron Paul says it should be a states’ right issue. Simple. That being said, there are many, many things that Ron Paul says government shouldn’t be involved in at all, whether state of federal (education, marriage, etc.). If you think that he supports states’ rights over individual rights, you are misinformed and you have never listened to him at length. There is not one position of Ron Paul’s where states’ rights trump individual rights, not one. Again, he simply prefers states have more control than the federal government, which is perfectly in line with our Constitution and the founders’ desires.

    You are also wrong about what Libertarianism stands for. Are you even a Libertarian? I have been for a very long time and have studied the principles of it at great length. Despite whatever these self-proclaimed “Libertarians” you mention say, Libertarianism’s foundation, when it comes to government, is the protection of life, liberty, and property. That is the starting point and its most important role (and yes, many Libertarians argue it is its ONLY role). I don’t know how anyone can argue that, as it is written in classic Libertarian books, has been discussed thoroughly by countless Libertarian icons, and has long been held as the main purpose of government by practically every politician who has run as a Libertarian. Liberty is the key to Libertarianism, and key to liberty is the ability to live one’s life however they see fit. Including those who do not have the voice to speak for themselves. And key to the ability to live one’s life how they see fit, is allowing them to in fact LIVE.

    I also noticed how you included many quotes from the post before yours except the one about if you murder a pregnant woman you get charged with two counts of murder. You don’t really like that one do you? Criminal law holds an unborn fetus to be a living human being and therefore ending its life is murder. Fetuses may not have equal rights across the board, but criminal law holds them as equal to any other living being. So, in that sense, they do have equal rights.

    Regarding SS and Medicare/Medicaid, I agree with you that Ron Paul could not fix those things on his own. But, what he can fix, as Commander-in-Chief, is our military occupation of the globe. He, like Obama promised he would but then showed us all he was full of it, will bring the troops home. From all over the world. Period. And, you know what the result of that will be? A reduction of our spending in the TRILLIONS. Literally. And, do you know what the result of that will be? More money for SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. So, in essence, RP through his role as Commander-in-Chief can do a lot for SS, and Medicare/Medicaid.

    At the very least, we won’t be killing innocent people all over the planet and continuing to fuel hatred against us. Obama, the biggest military spending president in our history, has no desire to do that.

  31. Chris says

    Brian well written and thank you. but you are wrong on RP can’t fix the SS & Medicare.

    But Ron Paul can fix SS & medicare. RP wants to cease the all militarism spending over the sea and only concentrate on the US defense.

    As a president who is commander in chief, he will bring all the troops home. this will cut about 700 billion dollars in military spending. He will also abolish 5 department and balance the budget. This will fix the problem.

  32. gjdagis says

    There was definitely a coverup or whatever you want to call it. I recall how hard they tried to make heterosexuals think that it would affect their community as easily as it did the homosexual community. They figured that if they could make them (the heterosexuals) nervous, they would get their support to spend an inordinate amount of taxpayer money on the disease. If this is what Ron Paul was referring to he was right on the mark!

  33. gjdagis says

    There was definitely a coverup or whatever you want to call it. I recall how hard they tried to make heterosexuals think that it would affect their community as easily as it did the homosexual community. They figured that if they could make them (the heterosexuals) nervous, they would get their support to spend an inordinate amount of taxpayer money on the disease. If this is what Ron Paul was referring to he was right on the mark!

  34. Dave says

    “He follows the Constitution. Seriously, have you ever read it? It lists specifically, verbatim, the roles of the federal government. Everything else is left to the states and to the people.”
    So where does regulation of interstate commerce end? What about incentives to states for passing regulations the government wishes, as happened with highway speed limits?

    And how does Congress balance the 10th and 14th amendments? It’s obvious we need explicit legislative protections in housing and employment for minority classes, because we see abuses in the real world to this day.

    The Supreme Court declared itself capable of invalidating Congress’ legislation; it’s not explicitly written in the Constitution, which is why we had Marbury v Madison.

    Guiding texts, be they Constitutions or Bibles, must be interpreted to be understood in a relevant manner.

    “But Ron Paul can fix SS & medicare. RP wants to cease the all militarism spending over the sea and only concentrate on the US defense.”
    Out of the $700 billion, we spent about $100 billion a year on overseas wars, on average, in the last decade. The Department of Defense already spends the majority of its money on US defense.

    Now, back to the topic at hand. This certainly does create an awkward position for him, since he kept saying that he was unaware of such language at the time. Now he’s signing letters with such language driving people to the offensive newsletters.

    He’s fortunate that this was nearly 2 decades ago and and that the news broke on Friday and that the news broke on the Friday before Christmas. He might be able to squelch this for those reasons alone.

  35. says

    More amazing to me is the mindless gay sheep that follow Obama, who does not support us. And, one who promotes violence around the world. We seem OK with violence though, as long as it’s not directed against LGBT. Such a hypocritical joke.

    Regarding protection of minorities in housing and employment, Dave, Ron Paul certainly expects the federal government to protect them. Again, Libertarianism is based on the protection of life, liberty, and property. Protecting minorities in both housing (property) and employment (liberty: living life as one sees fit, which includes jobs) clearly falls within Ron Paul’s view of the federal government.

    And, Dave, regarding your figures on how much is spent on our wars, you are gravely mistaken. Even by the government’s figures (which are so low ball it’s laughable), the wars since 2001 have cost us $1.285 trillion, $800 billion of which has been spent in Iraq, a domestically and internationally illegal war. Many, however, put the figure well into the multiple trillions. But, even if it is the government’s figure of $1.285 trillion, you do realize that literally every single penny of that was borrowed? Which means that not only do we owe foreign countries that amount as the principle, we also owe interest on the $1.285, adding billions more to that total. We’re going deeper into debt by the hour for these wars, whether billions or trillions (money that could be spent on domestic programs like SS, Medicare/Medicaid). Plus, worse than all, we spend vastly more money than any other country (almost more than every country on the planet combined!) in military spending. We are a war-based, military-first society, and Obama has expanded that more than any other president in history, which is shocking considering he followed war-obsessed Bush.

    Obama is pro-war, violent, and disregards the Constitution, whether in today’s context of it or in its original context. He believes his decisions are above the law, and he has proven to be an unprincipled liar who has failed to meet so many of his campaign promises.

    Voting for Obama means more debt (a trillion a year), more war, and a destruction of individual liberties, as he has no concern for the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

  36. RyanInSacto says

    BRIANINLA, it is too bad that Ron Paul doesn’t support same-sex marriage because if he did, you could maybe marry him and get it over with.

    You only come to this site to extol the virtues of Ron Paul. With all the important issues that get discussed here, from the bullying of gay kids to the murders of trans people, you have nothing to contribute except when the name “Ron Paul” appears in a post. I can’t be the only person that has noticed this. How many other sites do you grace with this sales pitch? You’re like an AmWay salesman. Do you do anything else with your life?

  37. says

    Ryaninsacto, you’re wrong about Ron Paul and same-sex marriage. Completely wrong. He personally defines marriage as between a man and woman (just like Obama does. you know that, right?), but he is absolutely, undeniably, in favor of gay men and women having the right to marry. He has said that so many times it’s shocking that you and other uniformed people like you try to claim otherwise. He has said, verbatim, that any consenting adults should be able to enter into any agreement or relationship they want to, and that the government should not be involved in marriage and should not be able to limit it to heterosexual couples only. You are wrong. Google it. Watch a speech. Do something besides spread lies, which you are doing.

    And regarding other topics, especially the bullying of LGBT kids, I have written extensively on this topic. I have been published on several news websites, blogs, and in countless forums by others on it specifically. I have been contacted from LGBT individuals from Georgia to Japan because of my writings, and I have never received one negative response. So I challenge you, if you care to expand your inaccurate depiction of me, read this letter I wrote which was published in the West Hollywood News website (among others) here (http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=6761). Obama continues to perpetuate violence against LGBT because he continues to make this nation a violent, intolerant nation to people all over the world. His example is not peace or acceptance, it is violence, and children always follow the example that our leaders set. Obama is a bully to people in foreign nations, and his orders torture and kill them. Ron Paul wants to end violence, end war, and respect the national and individual sovereignty of everyone. Talk about a great example!

    I have also commented on many, many threads on this website and others like it that have nothing to do with Ron Paul. So, again, you’re wrong.

    You think you know what you’re talking about, but you simply do not.

  38. says

    Additionally, the reason I almost always comment on Ron Paul posts on this website is because the comment sections are full of people spreading non-truths and inaccurate statements. You, like many here, are guilty of just that.

    But, I am very happy to see that you’ve noticed my continued posts. I stand out with my opinions, you just simply blend in with the rest of the uninformed individuals who like to spew misinformation and lies on here.

    There is a consistent group of people who comment on Ron Paul posts on this website who actually speak the truth. And I am very thankful for them. Keep up the good work truth-speakers! It’s time the lies in the gay community end, specifically the one that Obama is somehow the best president for us.

  39. RyanInSacto says

    BrianInLA: I am so glad that you are here to spread the truth as only Ron Paul and his supporters know the truth about anything. Also, they are very good at recruiting new supporters by incessantly posting lengthy, glowing comments about Ron Paul and NOTHING ELSE EVER.

  40. says

    More lies, ryaninsacto. Even when I tell you the truth, that I have posted on many threads that have nothing to do with Ron Paul, you still say “…glowing comments about Ron Paul and NOTHING ELSE EVER”. Continue being uniformed and spreading non-truths. It’s your choice to live life like that, but it’s definitely not mine.

    Truth = I’ve posted on many threads with nothing to do with Ron Paul.

    Truth = you cannot possibly know what every RP fan has posted on this site in other threads yet you say “NOTHING ELSE EVER”.

    Truth = you lie.

  41. RyanInSacto says

    “Fan” is the correct word as it is derived from fanatic, which is what you are. No candidate could possibly live up to the billing you’ve given to yours. On the one hand, I wish that Paul would get elected so that you could experience the disappointment that would surely ensue. On the other hand, it’s hardly worth electing a garden-variety conspiracy theorist in order to prove a point to his fanatical followers. (And if you can read the linked letter, signed by Ron Paul and NOT disavowed by him, and not see any conspiracy theories, then you just MIGHT be a conspiracy theorist.)

    By the way, it’s easy enough to find out what postings you’ve commented on in this blog – there’s a keyword search in the right column. You’re not fooling anyone when you claim that you’ve been posting on non-Paul posts.

    But, thanks again for telling us what are lies and what are truths. What the heck would any of us do without a Ron Paul fanatic to drop by and show us the way?

  42. says

    That’s easy! You’ll just throw your vote to Obama, despite his violence, like most of the people who visit this site will do. You never respond to that by the way. Violence, begets violence, and as a gay man who wants violence against LGBT to stop, I cannot support a violent president like Obama. Can you?

    Besides, any new “fan” my, or others like me, bring over to the Ron Paul team, is one more person that wants peace. Everything else aside, peace is the number one thing I want, and the number one thing I think our community should want. Especially since you seem to care about the bullying, which I sincerely doubt you do since peace is not something you care about. Ron Paul is the only candidate that will bring peace by the way. Obama does not want nor care about peace. Do you?

    And, search for “brianinla” all you want. Anyone with internet-common-sense knows about keyword searches. You realize people change their “name” on these sort of sites all the time, right? Depending on the post, their mood, whatever. Notice my different name here? It’s very simple to change, and I’ve posted in many different “names” on here. I keep brianinla as my Ron Paul posts cause I like the fact that thoughtless liars like you see me consistently posting about Ron Paul and attack me for it. It’s fun.

    So, now how will you justify your lies? I’ve posted on other threads. Believe it or not. That’s up to you. But you’re still a liar for saying “NOTHING ELSE EVER” because that is simply not true.

    Oh, and what about the bullying letter? Did you take my challenge and read it? Even if you did, you probably discounted it because I argue why Ron Paul would be the best president for ending bullying (Google “Ron Paul the anti-bullying candidate” and you’ll see other sites that have posted it too). You said I, like other Ron Paul fanatics (we could use more fanatics in choosing our president btw! Otherwise we’ll keep getting liars and murderers like Bush and Obama) never comment on threads other than Ron Paul posts. You even mentioned bullying specifically, yet I absolutely have posted on threads about bullying. Even under brianinla. Sure, I might mention Ron Paul’s name in my comment, but it’s still a comment on a thread that is not about Ron Paul. Want to dispute that too? It was a clear lie, liar.

    Your last statement is off base too. I’m not telling “us” (since you seem to speak for everyone) anything. I’m telling YOU, that YOU are a liar. And some others are liars too when they say things that are in fact lies. I don’t claim to know what every lie in the world is or what every truth in the world is, but I know when people lie about my actions or the statements that Ron Paul has made that can be easily found online. Some things are facts, and no matter how hard you argue that they are lies, they are still fact.

    Have I posted on other threads? Yes. You say I haven’t. And, again, that is a lie.

    Regarding the linked letter, which you claim Ron Paul has not disavowed, that is a LIE too. You seem to know about keyword searches, but not about Google. Here’s a link to make it easy for you: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57347916-503544/paul-campaign-ron-paul-didnt-write-advertising-letter-predicting-race-war/

    So, want to continue spewing lies, or can you admit when you are wrong? He has in fact disavowed this letter, I have in fact posted on threads other than Ron Paul posts (under brianinla and others), and you are, in fact, lying by saying otherwise.

    Say what you want about me, but I am not a liar :)

Leave A Reply