I had a thoughtful response to Brian Miller about Ron Paul, centralism and gays, but Susan censored it from the LP radicals list.
On 11/1/07, Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anthony Gregory wrote to Brian Miller on lpradicals (from which I was > expelled after my No First Force > Pledge<http://marketliberal.org/No1stForce.html>challenge was censored there): > > BM) the Republicans (including Ron Paul) are such homophobic bigots that > [...] (BM > > AG) Ron Paul is not a homophobic bigot. What on earth are you talking > about? (AG > > Anthony, here is some context for you. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2107 is my unrebutted > response to Miller's untenable attacks on Paul in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5181, where you can see > the previous messages in that thread. More context is at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13332, to which > Miller's only response was to complain that Ron Paul, a candidate for the > GOP nomination, did not answer a survey from the Outright Libertarians. > Quelle homophobia! > > I was soon expelled from lpsf-discuss, where one is not allowed to > document Outright leaders issuing serial misrepresentations about somebody > like Ron Paul. Nevertheless, Miller's claims are a smoking cinder, but good > luck trying to get a reference to my rebuttals past the censors at > LPradicals. My postings are filled with Paul quotes that contradict > Miller's claims, but you probably won't be allowed to post such evidence > there even if you keep my name out of it. :-) (For example, see all the > unanswered Paul quotes I transcribed for Miller from the Values Voter > debate: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13297.) > > In Miller's universe, the only reason to be a radical constitutionalist > and skeptic of central federal authority is if, despite all of one's public > statements to the contrary, one secretly favors oppression of gays by states > and localities. I told Miller: > > You don't have to like Paul's position that the federal government should > not be -- and textually isn't -- entrusted to do for gay rights what it's > done for our rights concerning substance use and political expression and > self-defense and "hate crimes". I don't either. But you don't get to > pretend that's not his position -- at least not without seeming illiterate. > The fact remains that you cannot produce a single quote from Paul saying > that he "believes that government -- not individuals -- should be the final > arbiters of your sex life and the sexual activities of consenting adults." You > can run from that quote as far as you want, but I've got a brand-new laptop > and its copy/paste keys are a long way from wearing out. > -- "There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." — Benjamin Tucker
