Brian Miller wrote: BM) I don't indulge Holtz. It is amusing when a straight white guy in suburbia lectures a queer activist on gay stuff [...] I've got concrete policy to talk about. Holtz has demonstrated virtually no knowledge of any of the legislation in question (BM
What "lecture"? I'd challenge you to quote in full the three most damning consecutive sentences of such a "lecture" by me about "gay stuff", but I've long since learned that you don't have the human decency or intellectual integrity to bother to substantiate such personal attacks on fellow libertarians. I don't need to be gay to correct your false claims about what Ron Paul has or has not said. Nor did I need to be gay to correct your claim that 10 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html> U.S.C. ยง <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html> 654 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html> (the Don't Ask Don't Tell law) automatically applies to anyone "caught in any gay event or venue". I just need to be a competent reader of English. You've claimed that Ron Paul has "said he's not a libertarian". That's false. Two weeks ago I challenged you: quote Ron Paul saying (outside of the context of the LP) that he "is not a libertarian", and I'll donate $1000 to the LPCA in your name. I repeat this offer now, and the Outrights can be the beneficiary instead. You still have failed to offer any "concrete" documentation for your claims that * Ron Paul is "a homophobic bigot"; * Ron Paul "declares he isn't a libertarian"; [$1000 prize] * Ron Paul is "a statist on health care"; [yes, Miller actually wrote that] * Ron Paul "voted for continued government spending on education"; [hah] * Ron Paul "committed himself to pursuing increased government funding of abstinence education in the future"; [I already documented this claim to be false] * Ron Paul "supports some of the most odious versions of [border control] legislation"; * Ron Paul wants to "reduce the freedom of Americans to conduct business in Canada and Mexico"; * Ron Paul "believes that a centrally controlled federal government immigration policy that would have banned the migration of [my neighbor Intel CEO Andy Grove] is 'good for America'"; * Ron Paul "believes any enforcement of the Bill of Rights in favor of individual liberty (and not state control) is a 'violation of states' rights'" [emphasis added]. I've criticized Paul's views on abortion, anti-interventionism, the gold standard, and trade pacts. I too disagree with Paul's position that the federal government should not be trusted to do for gay marriage rights what it's done for substance use and campaign speech and warrantless monitoring and gun rights and "hate crimes" and reproductive technology and digital copying technology. But by smearing Paul as "a homophobic bigot" instead of admitting his career theme as a federal office-holder and office-seeker to constrain and reduce the scope of federal involvement -- for better or for worse -- in our personal lives, you simply undermine your credibility as an analyst of events in the libertarian movement. I'll grant you this much: when you can take an anarchistic scathing Paul critic (Tom Knapp) and a flamboyantly radical Paul cheerleader (Starchild) and a minivan-driving LP reform leader (moi) who is lukewarm on Paul and unite us all in questioning your intellectual integrity, you demonstrate a knack for uniting libertarians that even Ron Paul would envy.
