Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul's Oscar Winning Performance The unintentional star of "Bruno" reveals his true bias against gaysby Raven West, J.D.
(libertarian)
Friday, July 10, 2009
It is almost ironic that of all the Republicans who ran in the 2008 presidential primary, Ron Paul would be the one tagged to appear in an outrageous motion picture whose leading character is gay. Bruno, the newest movie from Sacha Baron Cohen of Borat fame, features a 5 minute scene where Bruno, an openly gay character, tries, unsuccessfully to seduce the Congressman.
Away from the pre-arranged media interviews, unrehearsed and unscripted, Ron Paul shows his true colors. He could have taken the opportunity to simply walk out of the room, or laugh at the joke, or even make a humorous comment like "nothing you can do will change my mind about gays in the military", but instead we see the true response by the real man confronted by a gay man. His reaction was of anger and disgust as he's shown fleeing from the scene, exclaiming "This is ended!"
In a much more rehearsed radio interview, Paul is heard chuckling when he says that he would "probably have to apologize to my supporters because I think most are going to (wonder) why in the world didn't I sock this guy in the nose."
Yes, we're all certain that your supporters would agree that violence against a gay man would have been a great response.
Ron Paul, first a Republican, then a Libertarian, then a Republican once again, whose message of fiscal responsibility resounded so loudly that it created a "revolution". Ron Paul, who then endorsed the Constitutional Party candidate, joined forces with the John Birch Society and abandoned a large segment of libertarians when it came to issues of basic human rights.
Ron Paul introduced The Marriage Protection Act of 2007, supports the Defense Of Marriage Act, and thinks the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is just fine the way it is. These are very ultra-conservative views and have little to do with true Libertarian philosophy.
Real Libertarians take individual rights seriously - seriously enough to consistently uphold them against the initiation of the use of force by anyone, especially government, for any reason. This means that government has no business coercively interfering with the lives of peaceful citizens in their private affairs and voluntary relationships.
This is the core of Libertarian principles especially when it comes to an individual's right to marry, and to serve in the military, gay or straight.
Then again, if we were to take this Libertarain policy one step further, government shouldn't be in the business of marriage in the first place. The only reason for legalized co-habitation contracts is to grant individuals certain legal rights of property and care of minor children. In the event the contract is breached, it can be dissolved and the property dispersed through legal action.
Ron Paul proclaims he is a Constitutionalist. If that is to be the case, he would be on the front lines of the battle for "equal protection under the law".
The 14th Amendment states, without any ambiguities, that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This is plain, simple text. All men and women, Republicans and Democrats, of every race, color or sexual preference, who are citizens of the United States, are to be given equal protection as citizens of the United States of America. Even individuals who chose to love someone of the same sex.
If those who wish to follow the leader of this "revolution", they need to be very clear after seeing this movie clip, exactly which direction he's leading.
The Pledge of Allegiance ends with "Liberty and Justice for ALL". Isn't it about time our elected officials start to live up to those words?
This is the link on youtube of Ron Paul's scene in the movie. Yes, it was embarrassing and obviously very uncomfortable for Ron. There is laughter in the audio, but I didn't find it at all funny in the context. Then again, I was never a big fan of "punked" type shows.
Yes, it was embarrassing and obviously very uncomfortable for Ron. There is laughter in the audio, but I didn't find it at all funny in the context. Then again, I was never a big fan of "punked" type shows.
Should this have been cut from the movie? That's open for debate.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Raven West, J.D. only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Raven West, J.D. is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Ron Paul was absolutely restrained in his response to a predator asking for an interview then dropping his pants and gyrating with no indication at all he'd be welcome. As the show makes clear, the actor knew he would NOT be welcome, and that was supposed to be the joke. Forcing unwanted sexual advances on someone is a joke?
I don't think so.
I haven't seen the movie and have no need to see it, since I understand it simply isn't funny. But to suggest the victim of this nasty ploy was at fault is ludicrous.
Gay or straight isn't the issue. If a straight man had come onto a woman that way it would be equally unfunny. The difference is, we wouldn't be expected by anyone to excuse the behaviour.
To make my prior comment more clear, while I did not see the movie, I did see a trailer preview when at the theatre for a different show. No one laughed at the scene.
As a matter of fact, no one laughed at any part of the trailer.
I personally didn't care for Borat and wont be watching Bruno. in a free country, you can say, "i shoulda socked him one" and if he was pretending to be gay or was gay you should be able to use a derogatory term to describe him. Ron Paul showed that he's free to think and feel the way he wants as long as he doesn't infringe on someone else's liberty. that said, if someone like Sacha Cohen ever invited me for in an interview, acted like an ass and/or pulled his pants down in front of me, I'LL GIVE YA'LL SOMETHIN' TO TALK ABOUT... and no, im not anti-gay :o)
I disagree with some of your characterizations, but agree that your comments highlight an important distinction between federalism and libertarianism.
First, the disagreements:
Most people I know (including myself) would not respond well to being ambushed by humor at their expense, gay or not. If you'd be amused, then so be it. Some people don't mind being "punked". I do.
Initiating violence against any person would be a bad response. Gay folks have no additional rights here, but do have the same as anyone else. I wouldn't have lauded Congressman Paul if he had punched the guy, but I can't see that happening. And of course, it didn't.
Paul explained his support for the Marriage Protection Act of 2007 here:
Other readers can decide for themselves if he makes his case, but let's use the actual sources and facts when we decide.
I'd need a link for the Don't Ask Don't tell stance.
Now, for the agreements:
Philosophically, I completely agree with your stance that the government should not be involved in marriage. Marriage is a declaration and agreement between consenting adult citizens that has no need for government sanction, prohibition, or other involvement. At most, government should honor and enforce voluntary contracts between citizens. That's it.
I also agree that individual rights are paramount and securing these rights is the actual reason "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." I would further define all marriage contracts as one of these rights which should be protected by government, rather than infringed.
Constitutionally, isn't this a conflict between the 10th and 14th Amendments? In the above link, Congressman Paul makes the argument that favoring the 10th Amendment leaves the control of a controversial issue at a more local level. This would be the federalist approach. Favoring the 14th Amendment would allow overriding federal control over the subject.
The J.D. behind your name suggests you might have studied this type of conflict much more than I have. I'd welcome informed counterpoint on the constitutional interaction.
Personally, I'd support a new Constitutional Amendment clarifying that Congress shall have no role in any marriage other than normal contractual recognition, much the way the first ten Amendments explicitly reiterated rights that should have been self-evident given the enumerated powers in the original articles. Adding such an Amendment would be the more libertarian approach.
While I would support a Constitutional Amendment, I have more difficulty supporting such a change via the edicts of less-accountable federal judges. What happens when the next judge decides to overturn the decision? This is the same liability as the resolving the abortion issue via the Supreme Court. What happens when a future court rules against your beliefs? Judges are not nearly accountable enough for those powers. Those powers should be "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Of course, I'd pick "the people". I'd assert that judges should be judging cases against existing law, not championing social philosophy.
In any event, I continue to respect and very much support Congressman Paul. Take a quick look at his fellow Congresspeople and let me know who you'd credit as equally or more libertarian, and I'll be open to supporting them as well.
Yet another wild claim of inferred homophobia/racism/sexism/whatever. That array of isms is turning into the new 'Commie', as it would be so hard to actually debate an issue that we must simply throw a label on someone to instantly reject all of their arguments.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-07-11 06:50:16
Hi Raven,
Thanks for showing your true colors with this ridiculous article. That you think the only relevant consideration is that Bruno is gay says alot about what you don't or can't or won't comprehend.
Bruno is not gay. Bruno is a character. The actor Cohen is not gay, he is a low-life sleeze bag a'la Michale Moore who has found an audience to whom he can relate....closet gay liberal men.
Ron Paul is one of the most prolific writers of any Congress critter. You can (but probably never have and never will) read his views on just about everything under the sun at the Ron Paul library.org. Instead, you think that his reaction to an immoral, disrespectful and fradulent ambush reveals his "true colors" about gays.
You make it sound as if Dr. Paul's only acceptable response would have been "You got me, be gentle, this is my first time." Your reaction and opinion imply that you expect your liberal male friends would have reacted this way to such an ambush because they are so sensitive to being perceived as homophobic.
Try to imagine Mike Huckabee luring you into a private setting with false pretenses then trying to impose his morals and religion on you against your will. Would you just bend over and take it with a smile? Would you treat such an attack as a friendly joke and go have a glass of jesus juice with him afterwards to laugh about your spontaneous reaction? After all, you believe ones 'true colors' can only be displayed in a contrived ambush situation. What do you fake the rest of the time?
I know I'm wasting my time here. If you understood the despicable nature of such a set-up you would know Dr. Paul's reaction had little to do with Bruno's fake gayness. It had to do with being lured into an obvious fraud for financial benefit and immoral trickery. Doing so as a fake gay man is Cohen's shield against retribution for his despicable actions.
He sure fooled you...but you have shown that really isn't much of a challenge.
How do you think Obama or McCain or anyone else might have reacted under similar circumstances?
Ron Paul was by far the best candidate in the 2008 presidential campaign. He was the only candidate who understood that we have a constitution, and that it is vitally important for securing our rights and that as president or representative he is sworn to uphold it.
Here are the links to Paul's comments regarding his "DADT" comment.
"I don't have any problem with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Because I don't think that, for the practicality of running a military, I'd just as soon not know every serious thing that any heterosexual or homosexual did ..."
Sasha Baron Cohen is so unbelievably obnoxious that I really and truly fear for America and the world. Some people consider his antics "funny," and this truly reflects a dying culture.
I did rent _Borat_. Cohen just seems to want to shock people as much as he can. Then, he calls it humor. The funniest scene in _Borat_ was a scene in which the main character enters a hotel elevator and asks the hotel host if the elevator is his room--that scene was complete G-rated. My humorless older brother saw _Borat_ and commented that he is surprised that nobody has killed Cohen.
I'm not surprised that Ron Paul lost his cool. I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to.
Ron Paul was laughing when asked about this incident.
His reaction to inappropriate and unwanted sexual advances under false pretenses: hmm he walked away, what a bigoted homophobe!
I am thankful that the late Kent Snyder, Ron Paul's openly gay presidential campaign manager, encouraged and possibly convinced Dr. Paul to run for president in 2008.
What an odd response to the clip, Raven. I can understand you disagreeing with Paul over issues like "don't ask, don't tell" but are you really accusing Paul of being a homophobe because being propositioned by a strange, semi-naked gay man in a back room made him angry?
Ron Paul is a Christian and a Libertarian; that means that he disapporves of their decision, but respects their right to make it. This is crucial as you confuse the distinct concepts of "libertarianism" and "libertinism."
In hindsight, it would have been great to make some joke, but I don't think you're taking the circumstances into acocount; this was supposed to be an interview on Austrian economics and he winds up in a bedroom with a flamboyant gay guy dropping his pants in front of him. How would you have responded?
Your claims regarding his position on gay rights are wholly unfounded. I suggest you peruse voting record and past comments at http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm. To save you the trouble, here are a few, copied and pasted directly from the page:
Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)
No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)
Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
All right; so you think that if a woman had arranged a filmed interview with him under false pretenses, behaved obnoxiously during the proceedings, and then begun stripping and making unwelcomed sexual advances towards him, he would've just taken it in stride? Now it's bigotry to be offended when someone lies to you, disrespects you, and then pulls a humiliating on-camera stunt on you to top it all off?
As for Ron Paul's political views on homosexuality, they're on the mark. He opposes any legal definition of marriage, and his position on gays in the military is simply such that no form of improper sexual behavior- whether straight or gay- should be tolerated. "We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
I thing we're getting WAY off the point of this article which was simply to point out that there might have been a REASON why, of all the Republican Presidential candidates and elected Congressmen, Ron Paul was picked to "star" in this so-called movie and appear in that scene. I believe it was because of his policy on the military's DADT, and anti-same sex marriage, and his huge following, not that he was homophobic.
His Conservative Right Wing policy on this issue is in direct contrast to the Libertarian platform. Period.
The fact that whoever on his staff sceduled this "meeting" and never checked on the credentials of those involved, or the ignorance of politicians on American entertainers, says a lot more about the members of that group who are still very out of touch with mainstream America.
As most of the far right, ultra conservative, Republicans seem to be. They just don't allow themselves to be used by Hollywood.
Is this really a comment you would stand behind or a case of temporary insanity: "His Conservative Right Wing policy on this issue is in direct contrast to the Libertarian platform. Period."
The Constitution is a small "l" libertarian document. Is your objection to the Constitution that it is also an overt Christian document? (See "5000 Year Leap" by Cleon Skousen) Perhaps you reject God and the Bible?
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and his track record over 20 years proves the point. He is a man of remarkable principle and no doubt that is why he endorsed Chuck Baldwin over the Libertarian Party offering - but only after Barr made a blunder of judgment that left most reasonable libertarians shaking their heads in disgust.
On the issue of homosexuality, Dr. Paul’s faith defines that lifestyle as sin. But so is heterosexual adultery/premarital sex. In the case of “Bruno” – Dr. Paul was assaulted and his much-restrained response of “queer” proves him to be the statesman he is and has always been.
Dr. Paul has for many years praised the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org) with comments such as this:
"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it's pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."
The mission of the John Birch Society is to “Bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.”
So what is your problem with the John Birch Society? The appeal to God?
Members of the John Birch Society are directly responsible for Dr. Paul's election to Congress in 1996 and he has publicly stated as such.
If you continue to reject God and the Bible, you will fare no better than the hard drug pushing, consensual sex with children advocating radical element of Libertarian party. If that is your definition of the "Libertarian platform" - count me out. You hit piece on Dr. Paul only serves to fracture the Party and doom it to irrelevance.
However, having many friends in the Ohio LP party - solid Christians all, pro-life all...I think you speak for a small minority that makes the majority of God loving party members cringe when they see items like this.
Re Paul's "sock him in the nose" comment. I decribe the situation to to a few of my male co-workers, and asked how they'd react; the majority said they'd punch the guy.
I also asked a few of my female co-workers how they'd react if a heterosexual male had done the same to them. The majority said they'd slap the guy.
I don't think it would be fair to interpret the latter reaction as "man-hating," and it would be similarly unfair to interpret the former as gay-hating.
Robert, have to clarify your error, I have not as yet taken the Bar and am not a Lawyer. The J.D. is for the Juris Doctor degree earned after I graduated law school.
However, since I did graudate law school, I do know that punching someone in the nose, or even slapping them in the face, is committing assault/battery, a crime as well as a tort-civil violation. (The defense can worry about justification) Advocating violence, for ANY reason is totally against legal ethics. And, I thought Christian ethics as well, unless "turn the other cheek", doesn't apply to this situation.
Can you imagine the public outcry had Paul actually punched the "gay" guy and THAT got into a full length motion picture?
As for your other comment, I believe most Atheist and Libertarian would be very insulted by your accusation they they are "no better than drug pushers and pedophiles", but I sincerely doubt that anyone of THEN would react by punching you in the nose!
The correct response I've received by a majority of my associates, gay and straight, would have been that Paul should have laughed at the "joke", walked out of the room giving the guy a chance to get dressed and then conducted a "real" interview. Not punch him as he thought his supporters would have liked him to do, and as some here agreed he should have.
I've heard worse fake "interviewers" on the Daily Show, but not one of those interviewed, insulted or not, have ever once made a move to hit or slap the interviewer.
Maybe the "hit first, ask questions later" response, (ie the "Bush Doctrine") is why we're such a political mess with the rest of the world in the first place.
I was all set to rebut this article but I should have known that I would have to get in line to defend my guy R.P. He obviously doesn't need my help around here.
Your obvious bias is far more dangerous to our liberty than any bias Dr. Paul may have. The crude ad hominem attacks from various operatives of those 'groups' who hate our constitutional liberties are so pathetic, they aren't even worth laughing at anymore. The fact that they don't 'stick' is testimony to the honesty and principles of a TRUE STATESMAN.
Raven, if 10% of the houses of congress were even HALF the person Ron Paul is, this would be a FAR BETTER COUNTRY than the one we have let this one become.
Left or Right isn't the argument anymore. It is the ploy they use to keep us from UNITING AGAINST THEM. Both of 'them' are killing us.
Since there are some lawyers on here, what case does Ron Paul have against this actor? It seems to me that Ron Paul has a major million-dollar lawsuit against the interviewer.
On what grounds, is my question?
The biggest thing I see is that Ron Paul did not give his permission to be a part of this movie, and it being associated with a rude, homosexual, and fradulent person. Don't you have to give permission for something like this?
To the author of this article, I would say, you are sure short-sighted. First of all, YOU are the reason I got out of the LP. I was a big-time Libertarian activist years ago, but found myself surrounded by homosexuals everywhere I turned, wanting freedom without responsibility. They want (like you do) what will never be.
You are unwise for your petty criticizing of the major Liberty figure in the world today. Ron Paul is deserving of immense praise and gratitude, not this twisted, "below the belt" attack you are giving him.
I imagine you agree with Ron Paul on 98% of things, but have a personal difference with his views on the sin of homosexuality. You feel compelled to attack him (and the Bible and every moral authority in the world). This is a sad commentary on your moral compass.
But what is damaging is this type of article which trys to portray this great man as something less than positive or flattering. Shame on you.
If Ron Paul was a female, and some guy had done that, she would have been perfectly justified in smacking or hitting him, and any moral jury or judge in the country would completely condone such an indignant and "self defense" reaction to a rude, disgusting "come on" from a pervert.
So let me make sure I have this straight. Ron Paul is homophobic because he got upset about a pants-less man half his age who was attempting to trap him in a hotel room? He is biased against gay people because he had a very human knee jerk response to a completely inappropriate and bizarre situation? I can assure you there are plenty of gay men who would have reacted with way less reserve and class in that situation! Ron Paul had every right to not only be upset and disgusted but to even physically assault Bruno and frankly I really wish he would have! It has nothing to do with the fact that "Bruno" is "gay!" (who btw is a fictional character and not even a real gay man to begin with.) It has everything to do with the fact that Bruno was being sexually abusive to a senior citizen and attempting to keep RP in that situation against his will. Under your own twisted logic you are attempting to paint the picture of a human rights story and you're getting it completely backwards! Who's rights were really violated here? The old man who got emotionally/sexually violated or the fake homosexual with no pants who got called a nasty name for being completely inappropriate and threatening.
Way to completely bend reality to suit your own politically motivated agenda! If Bruno did that to your grandfather I bet you'd have a slightly different opinion.
Any normal person who sees this scene will like Ron Paul more, not less. He's not some limp wristed slave to political correctness, who gets rendered incapable of standing up for himself in anger against a sexual assault, just because it is from a (fake) gay man, as though homosexuality is some kind of untouchable kryptonite. Nor does he express his anger in any kind of over-the-top way, retaliating against Bruno with a level of abuse anything close to what Bruno had just done to him, such as most of us would have.
Anybody who actually sees this scene as a mark against Ron Paul is so beholden to the gay agenda that they can't think for themselves.
I've seen the full clip and RP would have been completely in his rights to "sock the guy in the nose".
RP tries to leave the room as soon as the guy drops his pants. Cohen initiates physical contact and tries to restrain him. That right there would have been cause enough for RP to do whatever it took to get out of the situation.
To say that RP was at all at fault for his reaction to this assault is ludicrous.
And in regards to his usage of the word queer that some writers have picked up on and used to smear him. He used the word as an adjective, not a noun. There is a very big difference in the definition by this correct usage.
This is the last straw for me as for supporting the Libertarian party. Nominating Bob Barr I let slide but now this has brought my support to a halt forever. You idiots really don't even understand what liberty and freedom is do you? You calim to defend the constitution but don't have the first clue what the constitution actually stands for and articles like this prove it.
How dare you make a claim that somehow gays have some special rights that are above anyone elses, how can you possibly JUSTIFY an attempted sexual assault? YES , that is exactly what that was.
As to your comment about "VIOLENCE AGAINST A GAY MAN" guess what idiot? If he did that to me I would beat his ass and wouldn't lose a seconds sleep over it because he was attempting to SEXUALLY ASSUALT ME! Do you not understand that people that are not gay actually have the same rights gays do? I can not believe you are actually defending this action simply because he was acting as if he was a gay man?
Here is a clue, people that are not gay HAVE THE RIGHT to not be assualted by gays. Gays do not have the right to attempt to sexually assault someone that is either gay or not gay. You have proven how ignorant you really are with an article such as this. I would suggest you read the constitution and take the time to understand it.
I personally would like to that the writer for making it easy for me to no longer support the Libertarian party any longer.
I'm also gone from Nolan Chart forever. This is the single stupidest piece I have ever read, by an insufferable, humorless nobody. (I know, I know, there's nothing funny about threatening to sock someone in the nose. Good grief.)
This is very reminiscent of the South Park episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance." There's a fine line between being tolerant and being ignorant. Any real interviewer, gay or otherwise, wouldn't have been so disrespectful to a guest, let alone a public official. Congressman Paul showed exceptional restraint when Bruno turned down the lights and danced provocatively in front of him. He only had enough of Bruno's antics when Bruno dropped his pants, probably seconds from giving a lap dance.
The real victim here is the gay community, not because of Congressman Paul's rather accurate description of Bruno being "queer as the blazes", but because of Cohen's reinforcement of every single gay stereotype for a few laughs.
Hey reactionary Libs, the next time some punk sticks his package in your face, let me know how tolerant your reaction is. Sasha Cohen deserves a punch in the face for what he did. He blocked the door from a totally unsuspecting man and starts pulling his pants off. That's an assault. And by the way, homosexuals refer to themselves are "queers" all the time...remember "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"? Looks like you're the ones who need to get used to it.
Get your house in order and start running for 2012 now. So far the party is a mess and a joke. What Bob and the part did Scattered the libertarians to the four winds. People are waking up and you could be the third part IF you get your act together.
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-07-14 11:44:42
Dear Raven -
Thanks for the links - the true problem with DADT is that if they say they ARE homosexual then they get expelled, correct?
This is rather ridiculous since if someone claims to be heterosexual nothing happens, so I would disagree with Dr. Paul here.
I still haven't seen the Paul video, but from all of the commotion above perhaps it is worth it - it sure has brought out some emotion.
It's a bit harsh to blow up a pretty small event this much though. I don't think any of us can really say for sure what we ourselves would do - say you have a bad day, or they made you wait in the room for an hour before someone comes in and starts taking off their pants.
Yes, violence surely isn't the answer - it wouldn't do either party much good - and that's not what Dr. Paul in actuality did. It's very human and even a little humorous to hear a grandfather say he should have punched the actor. If you pressed Dr, Paul on this point you might find out he was A) joking about using force and B) truly horrified by the whole incident.
I suppose if you and another man were in a professional situtation in a room together and he came onto you and then dropped his pants you would just laugh and take it as a joke? I assume you wouldn't and if you had stormed out saying "This is ended!" would be label you an ultra feminist for protecting yourself? Certainly not. Ron Paul did not know it was a joke, therefore he acted very candidly and much the same as anyone else in that situation, whether it be gay-straight, straight-straight, or anything else. There was nothing homophobic about it.
I'm a Libertarian from Indiana and been a LP for over 13 years now and even though Indiana has one of the strongest Libertarian organizations in the USA, I tend to see those who stand more upon party rather than principle. Ironically, it's known that you can get a room full of Libertarians together and rarely will we agree upon everything so it's always interesting seeing articles like this because they really don't add anything to the issue at hand. Why go off on Ron Paul instead of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John McCain, and many others who are squarely against the concept of Liberty and corrupt? This is really not responsible for the Libertarian Party to do and I would expect some form of apology for such senseless pieces and encourage them to stay focus on going after true enemies of the people.
First of all, the bruno character shut himself into a room with Dr. Paul and started taking off his clothes! If a guy did this to a girl and she went running out of a room everyone would side with the girl for running out. However, in the case that a man ran out on another man (who by the way was completely mocking the gay community with every min of that worthless movie) all of the sudden its a determination of what is politically correct....THE GUY TOOK OFF HIS CLOTHES AFTER HITTING ON DR PAUL TWICE! And if you notice Dr.paul was very accepting as he hit on him and started dancing, it was when bruno pants were dropped that he stormed out! I think the only colors the good doctor showed during this clip were those of being a true libertairian. Dr. Paul had the right not to want to see him drop his pants and until Bruno dropped his pants, him being gay was not an issue.
I am very sad to see nolan chart write up such a poorly thought out article smearing Dr. Paul, up until now i thought of this as a great place to catch up on some information.
This articles completely lacks credibility and seethes with unwarranted vitriol. Like many of your posters declared, I think I will be avoiding nolanchart- a site that only gained massive traffic during RP's presidential run to begin with and probably misses it at this point.
Raven & Nolan, I am apalled at the bias and pettiness of this aricle.
It distorts Dr. Paul's consistent positions on individual liberty, easily proven in links other commentors included--and by Dr. Paul's numerous books and articles. But also it also irrationally blames RP, victim of a fraud to lure him into a compromising situation intended to harm his reputation and decades of work for liberty , if he hadn't had the presence of mind to get out and tell off the jerk in no uncertain terms.
The twisted and untruthful interpretations in Raven's article show he is no friend of liberty. I'm used to such low attacks from collectivists and Statists who deeply fear Dr. Paul's awakening of the spirit of individualism and freedom in the world. What can be Raven's agenda? And is Nolan just peevishly holding a grudge against Paul for not supporting turncoat Barr?
The "author", raven aka Robin C. Westmiller, J.D.., Has decided to pass judgment on a true statesman based on his reaction to a truely pathetic attempt at a pratical joke.
What a bunch of tripe. robin- you should be ashamed of adding to this cesspool.
When you misquote the pledge of allegiance, how am I to take any of your ramblings seriously. This is a libertarian website, correct? If anyone, you should know it's "liberty and justice for all". I've been a libertarian all of my voting life, up until your party nominated neo-con, interventionist, pro drug war, pro patriot act, Barr last year.
Ron Paul was arguably a victim of assault in Cohen's movie. Do you libertarians even listen to what you're saying anymore? I'm done with this website and the LP.
If you wish to support group rights instead of individual rights, which seems to be the gist of this article, you are more lost than I had previously surmised.
... needless to say, quoting (rather misquoting) the pledge as written by Bellamy, a utopian socialist, speaks volumes to your libertarian philosophy... idiot.
i am bi, and i am more offended by your Bob Barr who authored the defense of marriage act. it is nothing but semantics to call out ron paul over this movie. seriously, get over it. if anything, this movie just validated the gay stereotype.
Posted By: Eric Pangborn
Date: 2009-07-14 20:46:18
After reading your ridiculous article about a even more absurd subject, I have a question for you! If you were in that room and that jerk did that to you, how would you react? Maybe you'd get mad, maybe you'd even get turned on...I don't know, (although I sense the latter)! I do know one thing...Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and many of the other founding fathers, probably would have shot him!
Now that we know you have a love-fest with Sacha Cohan, please go somewhere else to support this shameless degenerate and the garbage he produces and stop trying to destroy a true patriot like Dr. Paul!
You have absolutely lost all credibility with me and all those I have influence with, for the poison you dole out under the guise of journalism and Libertarianism! You are no different than any of the other irrelevant talking bobble-headed, psy-ops agents presented in the MSM...a divisive, self-serving, destructive shill, who message has now lost an audience...period!
Bottom line is that we are working very hard to replace this Rebuli-crat party system with patriots who will represent among other things, personal liberty, common sense, less government and lawfulness! Ron Paul is one of these patriots! It is now obvious that you are not truly concerned with this vision...you are more concerned about making this a petty, pointless, off-message, "Entertainment Tonight" style gossip column! Bottom line is that Dr. Paul has done more for your country and your personal freedom then you would ever have the slightest personal integrity to do! Go bash someone else!
From this point on, if you are a representative of what the Libertarian party really stands for, you won't be winning my vote again anytime soon!
You should be fired for incompetence and for driving people away from the true Libertarian message...God knows the party needs all of the supporters it can get!
I am disappointed for sure!
Posted By: Steven Orrange
Date: 2009-07-14 22:03:35
If someone used fraud to deceive me into meeting with them at a hotel, and then proceeded to drop their pants, you better think about calling the ambulance or maybe the undertaker. I love how RP used the word QUEER....a fitting term for bruno.
–adjective form websters
1.
strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice.
2.
of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away.
3.
not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish: to feel queer.
Oh, I'm so glad I read the comments all the way down to the bottom. The last one has Webster's definitions of the adjective "queer." And guess what -- all the meanings perfectly fit the situation.
The consensus seems to be Ron Paul reacted like any normal human being would have, whether it had been male, female, gay or straight. Another strong opinion seems to be that the Libertarian Party has been going down the toilet ever since Bob Barr was nominated and people who claim to be members of it write trash like this, attempting to smear Ron Paul.
Ahhh, I smell humble pie! I'm sure the thought of someone placing you in a non-agreed upon, awkward, and politically detrimental position, then whipping out their flaccid genitalia in your face, and attempting to hold you against your will, won't make you lose your appetite one bit. Sorry, sexual assault makes me lose mine. Quite sad Joy Behar, your "associates", and you would, and had, have "laughed" in this situation.
Time to eat, Raven.
(Yes, I purposefully ignored your point. It's post-rebutted minutia.)
"The correct response I've received by a majority of my associates, gay and straight, would have been that Paul should have laughed at the "joke", walked out of the room giving the guy a chance to get dressed and then conducted a "real" interview. Not punch him as he thought his supporters would have liked him to do, and as some here agreed he should have."
- Except he didnt KNOW it was a joke. That's the entire point!
I find it interesting that you make no mention of the fact that the 'Bruno' character physically blocked Ron Paul's access to the exit of the room. Please, do tell - what is the correct 'libertarian' response to being forcefully confined in a room under unwilling circumstances?
This is so ridiculous. I'm one of the most ardent LGBT rights advocates in my community, yet even I can plainly see that Paul's reaction was one of a frightened man who feared for his life and safety.
Ron Paul wasn't reacting negatively to *gays*...he was reacting negatively to a man who was ostensibly trying to sexually assault him! What, now are we going to demonize men who are raped in jail by telling them to "get over their homophobia"?!
Whether straight or gay, stripping in front of a complete stranger is not something that is socially acceptable. To imply that, somehow, gays are absolved from observing even the most rudimentary laws of personal conduct and etiquette is to suggest that they incapable of functioning as true equals in society without the patience and accomodation of straight people, which is very insulting.
You obviously were not a very good at law because your defense and/or rebutt is 100% wrong.
# 1 : dropping your pants is attempted sexual assualt
# 2 : jumping in front of the door and grabbing someone is assault, attempted sexual assualt and attempted kindnapping.
# 3 : Punching someone that is attempting to commit multiple felony counts is considered self defense and would be justified as such.
# 4 : Just because it was intended to be a joke does not ever justify assualy or attempted assualt.
# 5 : Ron Paul didn't know it was a joke nor would I if I was in that situation. The only reason you knew it was a joke was because you knew it was a borat style movie, hence : after the actually assualt.
Your article implies that some how Ron Paul was against gays and that is 100% wrong. Although his christian beliefs may justify his opinions he is also a firm believer in the constitution and that people can do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
Your bible quote as to "turn the other cheek" The bible slao states " AN EYE FOR AN EYE" So before you start attempting to know what you are talking about you should check your facts!
I could go on but this has already wasted my time.
Posted By: Michael McDonnough
Date: 2009-07-17 20:22:46
Come on. A gay baiting set up and he is upset and angry. So what? This is the second such situation set up by this director. This director is the one who's motives I would question not Ron Paul's. Anyone acting immodestly in a situation where you are strangers is going to face possibly violent rejection if not at least angry protest at this treatment.
I appreciate you keen insight into the bigotry of others.
Obviously all these commentators are ijust gnorant of your unbiased perception. They are jealous and afraid of you Raven. You will be proven right in due time. I know Ron Paul is going to slip again and probably next time it will be violent (I hope not for the sake of his next gay victum).
As a gay man I literally wept when I heard Ron Paul say, "He's queerer than blazes" Ron Paul USED to be my hero!
Also I want so say that Bruno is my new hero, because he stands up for libertarian principles like you Raven.
Bruno and Raven are now my favorite libertarians in the whole world.
I was wondering if you had someone commit unwanted advances in; stripping, gyrations, and gay sexual advances to you, that you wouldn't get upset? You would be the first to call Law Enforcement and file a Lawsuit, you Carpet Munching Liberal Gas Bag.
Hypocrisy... look it up in the dictionary, your name is there!
What an ill informed individual Raven West is as demonstrated by his ill informed comments. It seems obvious that he has not actually studied Dr. Paul's compassionate teachings regarding individual rights (vs. group or class rights which creates factions). Furthermore most conscious people know that Cohen is a complete idiot as documented in his works, even though he is apparently of a suitable mentality for much of the public, unfortunately.
Trying to paint someone who gets angry over having his time wasted and having to face unwanted sexual advances from another man as being a homophobe is ridiculous.
Let me guess,anyone who doesn't appreciate being set up by Cohen in an attempt to either humiliate or otherwise make him look bad is suddenly a homophobe??
What next? You might as well accuse Ron Paul of hating Jews since he was angry at a Jewish man.
And before I get accused of employing an ad hominem attack,I would like to point out that this entire article is one giant ad hom attack on Ron Paul.
Gay_4_Life,
Are gay people who get annoyed or even grossed out at heterosexual advances labelled 'bigots'?? No,they aren't. Your double standard is a joke.
How about you stop crying over the fact that Ron Paul isn't interested in having homosexual intercourse and that the idea doesn't sit well with him?
As a gay man,you should be angry with Cohen for stereotyping homosexual men as being flamboyant sex crazed perverts rather than getting pissy at Ron Paul.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
