Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Philadelphia Freedom
Photos from the ReLOVElution
On November 10, the Ron Paul campaign arrived in Philadelphia for a rally that started as a prize for the city's meetup group (it had raised more than $45,000, the best of any meetup group) and ballooned into the biggest event of the campaign. It saw the launch of "Veterans for Paul," an effort to tie Paul's donations from service members into a larger message about his support for the troops. (This won't be a surprise to people who've watched his House campaigns, which pound home his work to get veterans their pensions and get justice for P.O.W.s) And the rally of around 4000 people ended with an impromptu march around the city's Market Street that wended its way to a bar where more than 200 Paul supporters kicked back and strategized with beer and wings.
Handing out flyers to passing cars.
Lady Liberty and V meet and greet the voters.
And V meets his fans.
Some of the Pennsylvanian fans, whose suburban meetup groups have
been surging in membership.
One of the many anti-war Paulites.
Teenagers from the burbs named Tim, Tom, and Tim. (Tom is camera
right.)
The sound wasn't quite as good here. (In the background: The
National Constitution Center)
My personal favorite sign.
Show me another presidential candidate who brings out this many
Gadsen flags.
The man himself.
The front rows of the speech.
Self-explanatory. Note Kurt Vonnegut in the camera section.
On the side of the stage.
The crowd cheers.
|11.11.07 @ 10:20AM|#
"Note Kurt Vonnegut in the camera section."
Somehow, I am not surprised he would show up; he looks good for
being dead.
I wish I could have been there, and I am very much alive!
|11.11.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Well those pictures ought to dispell the myth that Paul supporters are a bunch of outcast mutants.
|11.11.07 @ 10:36AM|#
The crow wasn't really that big, the same dozen people just showed up over and over again.
|11.11.07 @ 11:00AM|#
From his web site, it appears Ron Paul will be on Face the
Nation this morning:
Ron Paul on Face the Nation (11/10/07)
Dr. Paul will be interviewed Sunday morning (Nov. 11) on CBS News' Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
Should be good...
severin|11.11.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Great pictures. The support for Ron Paul continues to surprise me. I have been a libertarian for 20 years and have always felt like a one percenter, this is the first time I have actually felt like a candidate with a lot of my views actually has some support.
ACJohn|11.11.07 @ 11:16AM|#
The intelligence, humbleness, honesty, integrity and conviction
of beliefs are palatable when Dr. Paul speaks. How any citizens of
this nation, with even a moderate knowledge of the concepts of
individual liberty and limited government can't see Dr. Paul as a
reincarnation of the spirit of the founding Fathers confounds
me?
Starting today anytime I want to waste money on a Starbucks coffee,
a rag of a newspaper and going out to eat junk, will be put to a
stop and every penny will be saved to donate on December 16th.
http://www.teaparty07.com/ Frugal living for Ron Paul, think twice
in the coming weeks about if you really need a new piece of bling,
how about renting a movie instead of going out…
I challenge all of you to make minimal personal sacrifices now for
a brighter future!
Signed,
Republican Hippie
John
|11.11.07 @ 11:27AM|#
The Geico sign was great. Go Ron. He was great on Face the Nation today. Bob Scheiffer was dumbfounded by the fact that a guy who wants to dismantle much of the bureaucracy could actually be garnering support and money.
|11.11.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Meanwhile, on "Reliable Sources" [CNN] a little while ago, they trotted out the classic politically-savvy-insider analysis of Paul as an "eccentric doctor" who for some utterly unfathomable reason wants to do away with the Education Department and the United Nations, who has somehow contrived to separate a lot of naive dopes from money which might be better spent making commercials to explain why Rudy Giuliani shouldn't be washing windshields down by the entrance to the Holland Tunnel.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 11:54AM|#
I hate to break this news to you, but dupes, dopes, dunderheads and look normal and spiffy. Nothing dumbfounding at all about a bunch of political keeners carrying signs for their candidate. Nothing has changed. Ron Paul is still a joke who won't win fuckall.
|11.11.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Why did Paul say he wants to go back to the gold standard? I thought he just wanted to legalize alternate forms of currency.
|11.11.07 @ 12:00PM|#
I was there with three friends, smoking cigarettes and screaming out "FREEDOM!" at the top of my (battered) lungs. Well worth the chilliness to see about 3,800 Ron Paul supporters charged up. The (visible) lunatic fringe was rather small, too. Lots of college kids, families, and veterans.
|11.11.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Aren't alternate forms of currency already legal? I.e., the
"liberty dollar"?
Legal yes, but these alternative currencies have been hassled by
the govt and are targets of mis-information campaigns sponsored by
your tax dollars.
http://digg.com/politics/Liberty_Dollar_Says_NO_to_the_US_Mint_Allegations
Please?|11.11.07 @ 12:08PM|#
If someone comes here and one hundred percent of the time is nothing but a complete dick, and he does it for a long time, and his sole purpose in life is to piss on people's hopes and dreams for a freer and more prosperous America, and he's clearly a deranged asshole, is not okay to IP ban him?
Give unto Toast|11.11.07 @ 12:15PM|#
It doesn't help that the "liberty dollar" guys are a bit strange
and just add to the confusion by their denomination. Why don't
".999 troy oz of..." coins get so much attention? Because then
people realize they'd have to have an up-to-date table to
conversions handy.
If you like metal so much, invest in it. A better solution is to
invest in a variety of things you think are important enough to
invest in. Now get rid of most of the government, all taxes, and
that stupid haircut. Almost there.
How any citizens of this nation, with even a moderate knowledge of the concepts of individual liberty and limited government can't see Dr. Paul as a reincarnation of the spirit of the founding Fathers confounds me?
Lots of people don't want limited government. But someone
still needs to explain that one to me.
|11.11.07 @ 12:15PM|#
I'm starting to think that Edward is actually a big Ron Paul
fan.
If he is a fan, he supports Ron Paul by pissing off people who are
sympathetic to Ron Paul but are not actively supporting him. These
pissed off people are then motivated to do something to support Ron
Paul as a way of saying "fuck you" to Edward.
I think Edward has attracted more people into supporting Ron Paul
than the vast majority of Ron Paul's overt supporters.
If I were an official in Ron Paul's campaign, I would say "thank
you" to Edward for all the help he's given to the campaign. ;)
Edward|11.11.07 @ 12:23PM|#
tarran
Shit, you've blown my cover. Isn't constantly pointing out that Ron
Paul is a crackpot with major backing from morons and neo-Nazis a
brilliant strategy? Morons and neo-Nazis love it. And, no, Ron Paul
won't return the "tainted" money.
|11.11.07 @ 12:31PM|#
If someone comes here and one hundred percent of the time is
nothing but a complete dick, and he does it for a long time, and
his sole purpose in life is to piss on people's hopes and dreams
for a freer and more prosperous America, and he's clearly a
deranged asshole, is not okay to IP ban him?
Nah. Libertarians support free speech even for goat fuckers like
Edward. We're principled that way.
|11.11.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Well, J Sub D, it is possible to get banned from H&R, just
not likely. Remember that gay/bi French attorney guy a couple of
years ago? Cavanaugh banned him.
Personally, I think Edward actually did quit and someone
resurrected him and he now exists in the same alternate universe as
Juanita. Just a theory.
|11.11.07 @ 12:44PM|#
I'd like to know what you can actually be banned for. Apparently, being obnoxious isn't enough. I know impersonating a moderator is one, what are the other infractions?
|11.11.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Everytime Edward says something negative about RP on here, I donate $5. I'm closing in on my max donations of $2,300.
|11.11.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Personally, I think Edward actually did quit and someone
resurrected him and he now exists in the same alternate universe as
Juanita. Just a theory.
TWC, you could be right there. It happens in the comic books all
the time. Old villian dies, new villian adopts the costume and
shtick. It could be the same with a troll nom de plume.
|11.11.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Cesar, the guy I'm thinking of made Edward look like a pansy. He would go on long tirades with generous use of language that would get your mouth soaped. I think he called Cavanaugh a fucking asshole once too many times, but I can't remember for sure.
|11.11.07 @ 12:52PM|#
" It happens in the comic books all the time. "
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, the Dread Pirate
Edward.
|11.11.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Cesar, the guy I'm thinking of made Edward look like a
pansy. He would go on long tirades with generous use of language
that would get your mouth soaped. I think he called Cavanaugh a
fucking asshole once too many times, but I can't remember for
sure.
I know who you are talking about, but his name escapes me.
When I was a lurker I thought Jersey McJones was pretty godwaful, I
wonder if he got the ban hammer.
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Dave,
Thanks for the pictures! I have not seen a circus since I ran into
you by the Navy Memorial.
This Jeffrey Toobin guy on CSPAN-2 right now is interesting, but
quirky.
|11.11.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Pig, Mark Kilmer does a nice weekly Sunday news show recap his
own blog (Rightsided.org) and for Red State. He's a news junkie and
he's pretty good at it.
Since I missed FTN I cruised by Red State to see what Mark had to
say (it's not up at his blog yet). It would seem that RP did quite
well. Hopefully someone will post the FTN interview on U Tube
soon.
FYI, Mark is a libertarian leaning conservative and a hell of a
nice guy.
|11.11.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Mr Weigel, I, for one, am very happy that you identified Kurt V.
because I would not have had a clue otherwise.
Thanks for posting the pictures but I didn't see the Kosmik Kid.
Told him to find you and mention my name.
BakedPenguin|11.11.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Note Kurt Vonnegut in the camera section.
I thought he looked more like a love child of Vonnegut &
Einstein.
Don't think to hard about that, it's not a picture you want in your
mind.
|11.11.07 @ 1:24PM|#
OTOH, it would not break my heart to see Edward fertilizing pine trees at Forest Lawn. Let's get up a petition. :-)
|11.11.07 @ 1:27PM|#
@TWC
Pig, Mark Kilmer does a nice weekly Sunday news show recap his
own blog (Rightsided.org) and for Red State. He's a news junkie and
he's pretty good at it.
Thanks, I wasn't able to catch it myself. I'll stop by there later
and see if he's posted a recap.
MPG|11.11.07 @ 1:38PM|#
I was at the rally yesterday, and there were a wide variety of
people there. Ron Paul himself pointed out that diversity of the
crowd. There were a few oddballs-I picked up at least one pamphlet
from the John Birch Society. Still, there were also a lot of
hippies and anarchists there.
Does he have a chance? Hell if I know. Still, it was good to see so
many people who actually cared about the state of their
country.
A veterans' group nearby was holding a display of tombstones
dedicated to the troops who've died in Iraq so far. At least one
guy commented on how disgusting it was that big government could
get so many people killed for no good reason. At least this crowd
wasn't asleep like most of their countrymen.
Syloson of Samos|11.11.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Edward,
While it is unlikely that Paul will win the nomination, much less
the Presidency, he has done far batter than was expected by
most.
ACJohn|11.11.07 @ 2:02PM|#
My wife and I attended the Rally as well; it was cold, but the
turn-out was inspiring. The fact is that this is a youth driven
movement. The key statement is movement which bodes well for us in
the future. The idea that these young people can rally around a
message of strict constitutional adherence and individual liberty
delivered by a 72 year old warms is curmudgeon's heart.
This country is like an alcoholic that unfortunately needs to hit
bottom before it can begin to change to a more positive course. Has
that time come? Can Ron Paul win? Maybe and I concede that it is
just a Hope right now. However, the more we support him the more
the message gets out, and helps change the national debate.
Is Ron Paul the perfect candidate? No. He comes as close to
perfection as any has in my lifetime.
|11.11.07 @ 2:08PM|#
MPG, thanks for the recap.
Some raw video
footage from the rally. Do not watch this if you have a
hangover.
|11.11.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Did the dude you're thinking of use the handle "Gary Gunnels" or something to that effect, as well as a few others. I think one of the moderators asked him to leave a few times, and he came back with the new reincarnations.
|11.11.07 @ 3:06PM|#
While it is unlikely that Paul will win the nomination, much
less the Presidency, he has done far batter than was expected by
most.
Wow, what a brave, novel observation there, GG...really putting
yourself out there on that one...
|11.11.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Yes, Cap'n, it was Gunnels, and yes, he did come back with a
bunch of different aliases. Actually, he used aliases before he was
banned as well, posting under many different names.
I sometimes suspect that eventually he came back under another name
and is now minding his P's & Q's.
Neu Mejican|11.11.07 @ 3:26PM|#
I have been a libertarian for 20 years and have always felt
like a one percenter
While the LP only garner's 1%ish support, the number of Americans
who espouse libertarian ideals (at least enough to put them toward
the libertarian end of the spectrum) is much larger.
I have seen estimates in the 35-60% range.
Moderately libertarian describes a lot of people.
|11.11.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Moderately libertarian describes a lot of people.
As long as you don't say "Mainstream Liertarian". That would mean
you-know-who.
ed|11.11.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Is this the Official Reason Endorsement of Ron Paul? I await such, with bated breath.
|11.11.07 @ 3:40PM|#
lots of people are libertarian about some things. I can always find people who are libertarian about taxes. Just hard to find people who are libertarian about taxes that are also libertarian about the rest of the enchilada.
|11.11.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Most people who are "libertarian" about only taxes also want more money for schools, roads, the military, SCHIP, (insert pet program X here). Tax cuts are popular, but so are peoples pet programs. Thus, deficit spending.
ed|11.11.07 @ 3:42PM|#
And yet they continue to endorse Ron Paul, albeit just barely by skirting their own stated boundaries.
ed|11.11.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Does Reason endorse candidates?
No. Individual writers for the magazine may take positions on
candidates or other political issues, but they represent only
themselves, not the magazine as an institution. Reason takes an
analytical, educational approach. It does not tell its readers how
to vote.
|11.11.07 @ 3:52PM|#
@severin
I have been a libertarian for 20 years and have always felt
like a one percenter, this is the first time I have actually felt
like a candidate with a lot of my views actually has some
support.
Well, according to
these 2 New Hampshire polls at RCP, you're now a 7
percenter.
Reasons to be cheerful......
@ed
Is this the Official Reason Endorsement of Ron Paul? I await
such, with bated breath.
I believe it's against their editorial policy to endorse candidates
or parties.
|11.11.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I sometimes suspect that eventually he came back under
another name and is now minding his P's & Q's.
Your suspicion is correct.
ed|11.11.07 @ 3:53PM|#
For the record, I support Ron Paul. But it bothers me that an ostensibly nonpartisan entity such as Reason continues to claim neutrality while incessantly campaigning for Ron Paul. I think it undermines their credibility.
|11.11.07 @ 4:01PM|#
"Note Kurt Vonnegut in the camera section."
Are you sure that's not the guy who played Commander Data on Star
Trek?
|11.11.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Ed,
I'm not positive but I believe the fact that Reason is an exempt
organization that 5013(c) precludes them from endorsing
candidates.
|11.11.07 @ 4:03PM|#
AC, interesting. I'm wondering who it might be.
Now I have to go back to pretending to load the
dishwasher.........
|11.11.07 @ 4:15PM|#
RP was fabulous on FTN. One of his better public appearances. Really well done.
Fluffy|11.11.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Actually, the magazine side is somewhat bereft of Paul
material.
It's only on the blog side that you get a lot of Paul stuff.
I think that's a function less of a desire to endorse than the
simple fact that if you have to produce Reasonish content day by
day, the Paul campaign is pretty much where it's at right now.
|11.11.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Crime, that was worth a smile. Thanks. Now, everybody knows what can get you banned.
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 4:21PM|#
I believe that Mr. Gillespie has noted that his personal policy is to endorse whomever the Libertarian Party nominates.
Syloson of Samos|11.11.07 @ 4:22PM|#
ed,
I don't get the feeling that Reason has endorsed any
particular candidate.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Paul has as much of a chance of winning as "Urkobold" has of
being funny: ZERO.
Fucking fools.
Syloson of Samos|11.11.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Guy Montag,
A person who won't be known until May of next year.
|11.11.07 @ 4:30PM|#
|11.11.07 @ 4:31PM|#
If at first you don't succeed,...
As long as you don't say "Mainstream Liertarian". That would
mean you-know-who.
I dunno, WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?
Pro Choice|11.11.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Ron Paul wants to leave the abortion issue to the states, but can't state governments be just as oppressive as the federal government?
|11.11.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Echoing Dan T, it's easier to move to another state than to move to another country.
|11.11.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Gosh, where is Tim Cavanaugh when you need him to ban someone?
Oh, yeah, he's at the LA Times. [shrugs]
Pro, of course the states can be just as oppressive as the feds.
The locals ain't no slouches neither.
Shotgun sings the song regards, TWC
Syloson of Samos|11.11.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Average American,
Well, name recognition is something almost any candidate is going
to have win. So that is not unique to Paul's campaign.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Of the 500 or so reasons Ron Paul will never get the nomination, poor name recognition is very near the bottom. The top reason? He is obviously an addle-brained kook.
|11.11.07 @ 4:50PM|#
He's an eccentric Texas doctor who wants to return to the gold standard, end Social Security and Medicare, close the United Nations, and allow your children to do drugs.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Ron Paul's biggest appeal is to dimwitted party-line libertarian losers who couldn't grab their asses with both hands if their lives dependended on it and assorted right-wing fanatics from Birchers to Nazis. Thankfully, both camps are fringe minorities.
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 5:03PM|#
Wow, I had the impression that it was unpossible to get banned
here. Seems Mr. Gunnels is proof that one can be. Anybody else get
banned here?
In other news, Carl Edwards lead about 87 laps of the Phoenix race
today, until he came in under green with a suspected engine
problem.
Any bets on what is going to fall apart on Dale Jr.'s car this
race? Wrote too late, he just went into the inside wall.
OB comment: Is RP going to debate in Ohio or is he just sticking
with States that the income tax protestors recognize?
Edward|11.11.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Now I'll bet even more money is pouring into the Ron Paul's coffers from pissed-off dimwitted party-line libertarian losers. I should be getting a cut.
|11.11.07 @ 5:12PM|#
"For the record, I support Ron Paul. But it bothers me that an
ostensibly nonpartisan entity such as Reason continues to claim
neutrality while incessantly campaigning for Ron Paul. I think it
undermines their credibility."
Considering he's the ONLY Libertarian leaning candidate actively
campaigning for President right now and the primaries are only
months away I chalk it up to being "topical".
Yes I realize other libertarians are running but they aren't going
to matter anyway, and will only matter slightly in the general.
Maybe Phillies (or whoever the nominee is) will get some coverage
then.
longtimelurker|11.11.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Gunnells called Cavanaugh a faggot or something. It was a very personal insult from an arrogant and prickish poster.
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 5:15PM|#
That French guy, who won the Indy 500 in recent past, the past
just destroyed his car.
Those fenders are not made of indestructium man!
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 5:16PM|#
oops!
That French guy, who won the Indy 500 in recent past, just
destroyed his car.
Better.
|11.11.07 @ 5:18PM|#
under the Unborn Angel handle, I called Cavanaugh "bitch" in
response to a very offensive comment he made in his post, and he
retaliated by posting my IP address in the thread.
Never got banned, though.
Syloson of Samos|11.11.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Guy Montag,
There have been a number of bans (a dozen or so maybe?), though I
know of no permanent bans.
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Kasey Khane just wrecked out.
Does anybody know if Ron Paul appreciates NASCAR at least as much
as John Kerry?
|11.11.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Does anybody know if Ron Paul appreciates NASCAR at least as
much as John Kerry?
He can't appreciate NASCAR less than I do. ;-)
Syloson of Samos|11.11.07 @ 6:07PM|#
J sub D,
I've read that some NASCAR fans have done some Ron Paul related
stuff at races.
|11.11.07 @ 6:30PM|#
I've read that some NASCAR fans have done some Ron Paul
related stuff at races.
That's great. I'm not a fan, but untold millions are. There's votes
in them thar hills.
|11.11.07 @ 6:42PM|#
"under the Unborn Angel handle, I called Cavanaugh "bitch" in
response to a very offensive comment he made in his post, and he
retaliated by posting my IP address in the thread."
Wow, I remember that. It was very near the beginning of my visits
to reason. Struck me as a little unprofessional at the time.
|11.11.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Edward:
Shit, you've blown my cover. Isn't constantly pointing out that
Ron Paul is a crackpot with major backing from morons and neo-Nazis
a brilliant strategy?
Ron Paul supporters should be quite gratified by Edward's
opposition. It's nice when the opposition is this slow-witted and
unethical.
Hey Edward, when are you gonna fuss up again and threaten
to crash the Reason site like you threatened to crash the URKABOLD
site? Ha! Judging by what you write, you're too stupid crash a
party. You're just a troll, only dumber.
|11.11.07 @ 6:47PM|#
@CharlesWT: I gave $25 to celebrate Veterans Day. Figure it certainly wouldn't hurt.
|11.11.07 @ 7:46PM|#
TWC,
I think you may be referring to "Libertarian Larry". If so, he
wasn't banned so much as he died.
|11.11.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Ron Paul wants to leave the abortion issue to the states,
but can't state governments be just as oppressive as the federal
government?
No. They can be, at worst, 1/50th as oppressive as the Fed. While
getting anything accomplished at the federal level takes decades
and millions of dollars (or one suitably atrocious terrorist act),
states have passed all sorts of wacky laws like gay unions,
incandescent lamp bans, TABOR amendments, and
constitutional amendments guaranteeing stem cell
research funds.
States are much more responsive to the desires of their residents
than that high tower on the Potomac.
M|11.11.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Anybody else get banned here?
Oh, yeah.
Others of us avoid ostracism by getting around to posting on
threads only after they've died, zombie-like.
The $50 is the new $20|11.11.07 @ 8:53PM|#
The Libertarian Party oughta consider going dormant for the 2008 presidential race if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 9:17PM|#
How can libertarians get so fucking excited about a completely unelectable kook like Ron Paul? Jesus, it's pathetic.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 9:21PM|#
How is this for kooky?
From "The War on Religion" by Ron Paul
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no
basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our
Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views
were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the
drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,
both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal
government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the
First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an
official state church like the Church of England, not to drive
religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet
religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital
institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout
our nation's history, churches have done what no government can
ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil
individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and
wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is
the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as
institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance,
and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in
the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war
against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's
Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that
war."
iih|11.11.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Edward:
I am not sure I have heard from you, but:
1. Who is electable in your view? and
2. Who are you voting for?
And also let me ask: if it so happens that the one candidate that
you really like turns out not to be electable, would you vote for
the guy(/gal) with whom you totally diasgree with simple because
the other guy(/gal) is electable and yours isn't? Seriously, would
you do that? Wouldn't that be like prostitution?
Edward|11.11.07 @ 9:25PM|#
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards
uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the
British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal
appeal.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if
there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that
of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the
plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed
by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure
from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;"
the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that
they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the
Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and
Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act
for Religious Freedom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative
merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the
latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves
Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard
Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion
and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is
Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of
any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics,
or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself.
Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral
agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13,
1789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me,
will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe
rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all
they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus
building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan.
1, 1802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
iih|11.11.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Edward:
I can send you a video of Ron Paul defending Muslims, for
example.
Also, you have to put his defense of Christianity in full
perspective by comparing it with his record on separating state and
church.
I am not Christian, but RP's religious views (as expressed in the
excerpt you quote above) do not scare me a bit.
iih|11.11.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Edward- In case you missed it, here is my comment from above.
Please respond:
~~
Edward:
I am not sure I have heard from you, but:
1. Who is electable in your view? and
2. Who are you voting for?
And also let me ask: if it so happens that the one candidate that
you really like turns out not to be electable, would you vote for
the guy(/gal) with whom you totally diasgree with simple because
the other guy(/gal) is electable and yours isn't? Seriously, would
you do that? Wouldn't that be like prostitution?
Edward|11.11.07 @ 9:30PM|#
iih,
Any of the other candidates in either party, except maybe for
Dennis Kucinich are concievably electable in a way that Ron Paul
isn't. His views are way too marginal and extreme. That's why he
appeals to marginal extremists. Like most Americans, I'll probably
vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
iih|11.11.07 @ 9:33PM|#
Any of the other candidates in either party, except maybe
for Dennis Kucinich are concievably electable in a way that Ron
Paul isn't. His views are way too marginal and extreme. That's why
he appeals to marginal extremists. Like most Americans, I'll
probably vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
OK, though I never thought that asking for liberty is an extreme
position.
So to answer the question:
Wouldn't that be like prostitution?
Would the answer be in the affirmative?
|11.11.07 @ 9:37PM|#
quoting the same person over and over does nothing to prove your
point. Paul's view is consistent with many founding father's
inconsistent with others. In any event, whether or not we should be
a Christian nation has nothing to do the proper role of
government.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice,
ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of
our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams, October
11, 1798
Jerry|11.11.07 @ 9:37PM|#
I saw a Ron Paul snippet on CNN International today. He had to explain why he didn't support giving a congressional medal to Parks. He did not have to explain why he didn't support giving a congressional medal to the Reagans. Deep sigh.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 9:39PM|#
iih
Oh, right, Ron Paul is for liberty. Everybody else is for slavery.
I'll bet if pressed, Ron Paul favors honesty, too. Slogans are
cheap and a poor substitute for thought.
iih|11.11.07 @ 9:43PM|#
Classical with us or against us thought. Not being for liberty is not the same as being for slavery. One could think that he/she is for equality for example, but that ultimately comes at the cost of liberty and, possibly, equality itself!
Edward|11.11.07 @ 9:43PM|#
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity" --Thomas Paine
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 9:49PM|#
Wow, looks like someone is trying to tweek the "how to get banned" formula by staying under 100 words, but making 100 comments.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 9:52PM|#
"I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen
that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and
'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume
to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am
even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of
every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control
my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them
today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate
their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
-- Barry Goldwater
DR. DOG|11.11.07 @ 10:06PM|#
His views are way too marginal and extreme. That's why he
appeals to marginal extremists.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater
Edward|11.11.07 @ 10:13PM|#
"Extremism in the pursuit of a theocracy most definitely is a vice"--Barry Goldwater's Ghost
iih|11.11.07 @ 10:17PM|#
On Ron Paul, one thing is for sure: I'll have the last
laugh.
When liberty in this country is dead?
Guy Montag|11.11.07 @ 10:18PM|#
You get the constituency that you deserve.
- Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote something like that about the Ron Paul
collection of supporters.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 10:52PM|#
Geez if you wouldn't repsond to trolls, the trolls would go away, and you could enjoy your echo chamber. How about exercizing a little self-control. Don't feed the trolls!
|11.11.07 @ 10:54PM|#
Even if Ron Paul never got another single interview, another media mention, or another nickel in donations, he has already done more to advance the message of hands off government and hands off foreign policy than any other politician since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. There have been many others with the principles and the message, but none has done more than Ron Paul has done up to this point.
|11.11.07 @ 10:57PM|#
Edward,
If we stopped feeding you, you might go away. As was observed
earlier in this thread, with your passionately content-free insults
you are doing an exceptional job of engendering support for Paul
here. If you are a Paul plant, kudos to you, please don't ever take
off the mask and ruin it for the rest of us. We hate/love you just
the way you are.
M|11.11.07 @ 10:58PM|#
Mr. Edward @10:13 pm:
To point out the obvious, paragraph #2 of the passages you quoted
from Ron Paul at 9:21 pm hardly constitutes a brief for theocracy;
quite the reverse.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 11:02PM|#
Rimfax
Wow! Ron Paul's the best defender of whatever it is you so
fervently believe since the ratification of the Bill of Rights??!!
Fuck! When it comes to hero worship, the fascists are pikers. Move
over Benito!
|11.11.07 @ 11:06PM|#
Not to feed the troll, but what's up with the Guy Fawkes day theme -- a terrorist who tried to overthrow representative government because it wasn't the theocracy of his liking?
Edward|11.11.07 @ 11:07PM|#
Yeah, I'll bet I've made a lot of converts to Ron Paul in this skeptical, free-thinking crowd.
Edward|11.11.07 @ 11:09PM|#
Matthew,
People who think the founding fathers were fervent Christians don't
know much history. Ron Paul probably thinks Guy Fawkes sold
Christmas trees.
Syloson of Samos|11.11.07 @ 11:10PM|#
matthew hogan,
Stuart England under James I (or VI if one were in Scotland) was a
lot of things but it was hardly a representative government and it
officially driscriminated against people based on their religious
beliefs.
Paul|11.11.07 @ 11:27PM|#
Edward:
I should be getting a cut.
A cut is precisely what you'll be getting if you keep up the
trash-talk.
|11.12.07 @ 12:07AM|#
Everyone except Paul and Kucinich is electable?
Mike Huckabee, Mike Gravel and Duncan Hunter all had a laugh at
that. Fred Thompson just yawned.
|11.12.07 @ 12:08AM|#
And of course that should read "Everyone except Paul and
Kucinich ARE electable?"
..."Is our children learning?"
|11.12.07 @ 12:27AM|#
Ron Paul does occasionally make statements about history that
are either untrue or make you want to ask what direction he is
coming from. For example there is no reference to God in our
Constitution. Or his statement in the debate that everything turned
out fine in Vietnam. I am sure that my friend Vu who's father was
shot by the communists as a collaborator and spent the first 2
years of his life in the jungle because his family was running for
their lives would disagree.
That being said I can still consider him an honest man and I am
behind him 110%.
|11.12.07 @ 1:05AM|#
Edward:
Oh, right, Ron Paul is for liberty. Everybody else is for
slavery.
Yes, Rop Paul is for liberty and far more so than any of the other
candidates appearing in the GOP or Dem debates. Ron Paul favors
dramatic reductions in government spending, taxation, and
regulation. Most of the other candidates would take us in the
opposite direction
Edward|11.12.07 @ 2:10AM|#
How on earth does such a dorky fanatic as Ron Paul inspire such devotion? How did he pick up all that Nazi support? It is all very odd.
|11.12.07 @ 2:15AM|#
Oh, right, Ron Paul is for liberty. Everybody else is for
slavery.
Edward wrote that he would probably vote for whomever the Dems
nominate. Well if that nominee is The Bitch, and it
probably will be, then that is probably a vote for
slavery. I have a real nasty suspicion that if Hillary becomes
President, she will try to restore not only the military draft, but
that she will attempt to institute a compulsory national service
program of some sort as well.
She wouldn't really have to do even that; there are plenty in
Congress and in her own party that have been lusting for a return
of the draft, especially for national service, since back when her
hubby was still in office. All she would have to do is quietly let
it be known in the right places that she would not veto such a
proposal.
|11.12.07 @ 4:03AM|#
I never saw on Gary Gunnel's posts. I guess I discovered Reason
after he had already been banned.
I do want to compliment Reason on the H&R blog. This is the
most open and interesting blog I have discovered on the web. I
tried a few of the lefty blogs (democratic underground, etc), and
was immediately blocked because I dared to opine such incindiary
thoughts as, "Perhaps Ronald Reagon deserves some credit for ending
the cold war".
I have certainly stuck my foot in my mouth here a few times and
said things that I later regretted. I appreciate not being banned
here, although my comments have never gotten an email reply from
any of the Reason staff, so I guess my stuff is tame by comparison
to some.
Guy Montag|11.12.07 @ 5:13AM|#
When Ron Paul comes out with his position on Ohio Statehood he stands the risk of losing his base. He has been sucessful in dodging the issue, for now, but that can't last forever.
|11.12.07 @ 5:44AM|#
Of course Edward is a Ron Paul volunteer, and an excellent one at that. That RP quote about the establishment clause was wonderful. He just won probably a dozen votes from the Christian conservatives who are feeling disenchanted about the war.
Fluffy|11.12.07 @ 8:36AM|#
Kathryn Jean Lopez is a worthless cunt. I read the Corner every
day, and she has yet to write one single word that isn't the output
of a worthless cunt.
And Edward, the sole policy impact of Paul's views on religion in
public life is his advocacy for a Constitutional amendment to make
it plain that religious speech on public property should be as free
as political speech on public property. That may make it a bit
inconvenient to have certain public institutions, but that doesn't
really matter to me, so I guess I can cut him some slack on this
one.
robc|11.12.07 @ 9:40AM|#
matthew hogan,
You do realize that Guy Fawkes Day is celebrating his plot failing,
right? It is anti-anarchism.
Oh, I guess you didnt.
Edward|11.12.07 @ 9:45AM|#
fluffy
Once you true-believer loonies settle on a hero, you cut him a lot
of slack on just about everything. From his statements on religion,
Ron Paul is a fucking fanatic and regarding the founding fathers, a
total ignoramus.
|11.12.07 @ 10:18AM|#
Edward - calling other people fanatics while foaming at the mouth yourself is not good form!
Edward|11.12.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Pig,
Disagreement with your comfortable verities doesn't constitute
foaming at the mouth. Idiot.
Gene|11.12.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Dondero strikes again:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/20911
He still tries in vain to be relevant.
|11.12.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Edward:
How on earth does...Ron Paul inspire such devotion?
Ron Paul's libertarian ideas and policy advocacies are strongly
argued and embody a consistent adherence to principle. His honesty
is a refreshing contrast in the political world.
How did he pick up all that Nazi support? It is all very
odd.
What "all that Nazi support"?? Libertarianism and Nazism are pretty
much opposite political philosophies. More foaming at the mouth
from Edward.
|11.12.07 @ 11:58AM|#
wayne,
Glad you're here! Which other lefty blogs banned you? That's
terrible.
The editors at Reason are quite committed to open debate. Heck,
they even tolerate Edward's mindless nay saying. ;)
This really is the best blog in the whole damn sphere. (Ref:
"Blogosphere")
I think that you're right, the evidence certainly does reveal that
Ronald Reagan deserves some credit for ending the cold war.
Mark Bahner|11.12.07 @ 12:09PM|#
My wife and I attended the Rally as well; it was cold, but the turn-out was inspiring. The fact is that this is a youth driven movement. The key statement is movement which bodes well for us in the future. The idea that these young people can rally around a message of strict constitutional adherence and individual liberty delivered by a 72 year old warms is curmudgeon's heart.
That is indeed amazing. Before Ron Paul's performance in the last
month or two, I would have said that the country was drifting
farther and farther away from the ideas of constitutional adherence
and limited government. And I would have said this was particularly
true for younger people. It's so great to see that I appear to have
been wrong.
iih|11.12.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Good article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-bank/ronstock-rally-rocks-ph_b_72110.html
Look at the comments too. Some on the left are seriously
considering Paul.
|11.12.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Hey, being a Ron Paul supporter can help you pick up
chicks!
The Lifetime network did a poll among women (found
here) and discovered RP gets 15% of the vote from the 18 to 24
year old ladies.
Maybe someday Reason.com will have ads showing beefcake guys
wearing conservative shirts?
|11.12.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Edward,
Obviously they are the 15% on the right hand side of the IQ
distribution ^-^
And they all look like the cuties selling conservative shirts!
M|11.12.07 @ 4:32PM|#
With all due respect for Warren et aliae's wish to discouragetroll-feeding, I learn a lot from such responses. (Yeah, yeah, Edward, I know - I learn stupid things because I'm a stupid person blah blah.)
|11.12.07 @ 4:51PM|#
"Could 15% of 18- to 24-year-old women have impaired
vision?"
They probably like Ron Paul because they're opposed to war.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by David Weigel
- Czar Wars, David Weigel, January 27, 2009
- How Big Is Small?, David Weigel, January 27, 2009
- Where Did It All Go Wrong?, David Weigel, January 7, 2009
Related Articles (Ron Paul)
- Fed Up, Brian Doherty, October 27, 2009
- Where Did It All Go Wrong?, David Weigel, January 7, 2009
- The Third Man, David Weigel, October 27, 2008
- Look Who's Coming in Third!, David Weigel, August 21, 2008
- The Obstinate Obstetrician, Jacob Sullum, July 30, 2008
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245