"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care," Paul wrote.First of all this statement has nothing wrong with it except the fact that he doesn't support universal health care. Ron Paul has the ideology that people are in charge of their lives and any issue they create for themselves like if you smoke and you get cancer it's your fault so you have to pay for the hospital bills, and if you can't pay for them it's your problem not the government. I disagree with that, but no major issue besides not supporting universal health care.
"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
Ron Paul is trying to say that if you have a harassment issue at work then it's your problem not the government. I don't believe he is saying that people who are being harassed are responsible for being harassed, but rather the solution to the problem should be from the person not the government. Now I don't agree with him at all that the government has no responsibility in this issue, but I think it is important to explain the other side of the argument.
So in conclusion these statements only prove that Paul trust his belief all the time, and proves Paul thinks that the government never has a good place in many aspects of day day life. I don't agree with him, but personally the Tea Party should love this guy even more, and there is really no controversy, so the title should be "Ron Paul Criticized governments role in day to day life"
It looks like you don't recognize "blame the victim" when it's looking at you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in terms of not having seen the statements in his newsletter, if you pay enough attention you'll notice that his answers changed over time. Besides, they bear his name, personally, and reflect changes in attitudes over long periods of time.
That said, pretty much everybody is already aware that Ron Paul is a reasonably pure libertarian. That consistency is not in question and it not overlooked.
C2 we have no evidence to the contrary that he actually supports (which he doesn't) the racist statements so I go with the idea of innocent till proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe premise that "the media" is trying to destroy Ron Paul is flawed and your defense of a couple of questionable extracts (there are many far worse and more inflammatory) from his infamous newsletters is weak. You appear to be attempting to defend the indefensible for no apparent reason.
ReplyDeleteAs for being "innocent until proven guilty" the objectionable content in his newsletters went out under his name. Assuming he didn't write them, that's almost beside the point -- he allowed them to be disseminated without any oversight on his part. That's a serious lapse of executive responsibility and therefore fair game for criticism.
Ugh. A "moderator"...
ReplyDeleteRed Tory there is no proof that he knew at the time anything about those newsletters, so I think he is innocent until proven guilty, because we don't know if he knew or not.
ReplyDeleteYes this blog does moderate our comments usually most comments go right throw some selective few are being automatically blocked by blogger, but I check these comments regularly, and only block those that swear or are inappropriate.