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
Ron Paul Elected President of Comedy Central
If the folks who show up at live comedy news tapings hold their
own primary, Ron Paul's got it in the bag. First Bill Maher's show,
now:
Has any brawl in a presidential debate done so much for both of the
brawlers as the Rudy-Ron mudfight?
|6.5.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Damn! Stewart handed him a hanging fast-ball and he didn't
swing!
After the Giuliani zinger ("You love the war on terror so much,
maybe you should marry it... no, you'd only divorce it after a few
years"), I found myself saying,
"yeah, but that's one kind of divorce I would support"
|6.5.07 @ 11:12AM|#
What a difference it makes when a libertarian runs under the
aegis of a major party rather than as a Libertarian. Paul's
received more press already than the LP in its entire history.
Despite his otherwise being treated as a nothing candidate.
Weird.
The media should be ashamed of its collective self.
|6.5.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Ron did well and gave good, honest answers. I also liked how Jon asked him about things other than foreign policy and made the conversations more interesting.
|6.5.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Pro Lib,
Yup, running under the aegis of the GOP gets you invited to the
debates. When people actually hear libertarian ideas they get an
enthusiastic response.
Duckman|6.5.07 @ 11:22AM|#
I think overall Jon Stewart was really trying to help Ron Paul.
Jon didn't ask any hard hitting questions about Ron's stances which
might have been more controversial (although he did get Ron Paul to
admit he's in favor of scrapping Medicare). But Jon could have
tried to probe Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve, or his
opposition to the drug war. I'm behind Ron on both of those fronts,
but positions like that are easy to exploit as being "kook"
positions (although ending the drug war might have been popular
with the Daily Show audience). But hey, the last time someone
implied Ron Paul was a kook (as Guiliani did during the 2nd debate)
it seemed to help Ron Paul quite a bit.
But getting back to big government, I think Ron's answer that a
generation has been raised with a dependency on big government and
that there needs to be a gradual rollback was SPOT ON, a really,
really good answer which helps defuse attacks on libertarian
positions by suggesting that the first thing a libertarian is going
to do when he comes to power is send pink slips to all current
government employees and make everyone who was recieving government
services fend for themselves immediately. I think such an attitude,
while perhaps popular here, is a non-starter among the general
public. I just hope Ron has good ways of handling questions about
his other libertarian positions which might be a hard sell to the
general public...
stephen the goldberger|6.5.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Ron Paul was trying to play politics but Stewart kept him
focused on ideas which wouldn't play to the left leaning crowd. The
difference between Bill Maher's legitimate respect for Paul as an
individual and Stewart/Daily show writers' respect for Paul as a
spoiler in Republican Debates was obvious.
I personally enjoyed the fact that Paul was able to discuss other
concerns but it'll alienate a lot of people and his words might
lose some meaning to them. A great appearance though anyways, with
some charming moments.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 11:33AM|#
All fanatics are principled, and goofy ones make good guests on comedy shows. I guess the tide is turning.
|6.5.07 @ 11:34AM|#
I was glad that Ron seemed relaxed and friendly instead of
awkward and/or angry as he has seemed in the past.
Bill Maher went from trying to paint Paul as a kook to practically
gushing over him. It was kind of embarrassing for Maher. Stewart
seemed genuinely friendly, but he also seemed like he was gently
trying to maneuver Ron into saying something outrageous. Paul did
impart quite a bit of what he stands for, but he did it without
losing the audience. It was a good interview for him.
Now if he could just do as well on some right-wing shows, he may
have something. If anything, all the applause he is getting from
the lefty shows will probably work against him with his own party.
Not for any good reason, but that's kinda how it plays out
usually.
|6.5.07 @ 11:41AM|#
IF THE CROWD THERE KNEW THE AMOUNT OF CUTS A PRESIDENT PAUL WOULD WANT TO MAKE[JUSTIFIED IN MY OPINION] THEY WOULD THROW EGGS AT THE STAGE.
Urkobold®|6.5.07 @ 11:46AM|#
EDWARD,
URKOBOLD WANTS TO KNOW WHY YOU FEAR RON PAUL. IF HE WERE SO
UNIMPORTANT, WHY WOULD YOU FEEL THE NEED TO POST SNIDE REMARKS
ABOUT HIM SO OFTEN? NAH, YOU'RE SCARED, MONKEY BOY.
thoreau|6.5.07 @ 11:49AM|#
I'm glad that when talking about economics he talked about
competition, and got a chance to distinguish between crony
capitalism and competitive markets. And I'm glad that Stewart
allowed him to make that distinction.
That played well with the audience. If Stewart had wanted to, he
could have worked on portraying Paul as an apologist for every bad
thing ever done by a corporation. But he didn't do that. He let
Paul show his strengths. And even when talking about Medicare and
Medicaid, he brought up the fact that Paul's principles carry over
into his own private medical practice.
Overall, I think he was very fair to Paul.
|6.5.07 @ 11:54AM|#
The best moment of the interview was when Ron cogently and calmly explained that corporations and profit are not evil (as Stewart and his audience tend to believe) until the Government gives a corporation more market power than it would otherwise have (which he called "corporatism"). This is something more Americans (and of course the world) need to understand, and Ron did a great job of making the distinction between a free market and a market corrupted by government influences. Well done sir!
pdog|6.5.07 @ 11:57AM|#
I think it went over too, especially the bit about being someone
with consistant principles and how thats so unusual for a
politician today.
And I'm glad he was allowed to go into some of his other domestic
agenda points. While the au dience might not agree with the idea of
cutting of social services and taxes, I think most agree that
growing deficiets are a bad thing and a president who would veto
outrages spending bills might be a good thing.
Didja Get Any Onya?|6.5.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Contrary to the feel of things, the election's 17 months away,
and the first primaries are still 7 months out.
Dr. Paul's campaign has to take care to preserve his rhetorical
ammo for the coming autumn/winter.
Sure and steady, not frenetic and frantic (like some Libertarians I
know)
Kris|6.5.07 @ 12:09PM|#
I think the important thing is that Paul seemed like a genuine cool guy, not a crazy kook. That goofy smile of his can go miles if he uses it right.
|6.5.07 @ 12:12PM|#
I'm shickled titless over Ron's positive exposure. However, being fawned over by Hollywood lefties and their minions, is not going to put much life into a GOP candidate. Still, I'm encouraged to see libertarian ideas playing well in Peoria.
Ryo|6.5.07 @ 12:37PM|#
I think a few of your are mistaken that success in venues like the Daily Show will not carry over into the GOP. I think a substantial part of McCain's mainstream awareness, if not popularity, is that he's already made numerous appearances on venues like the Daily Show over the past ten years. That spills over into the rest of the MSM, which are far more likely to report on the well known candidates than the ones who haven't had much national exposure prior to any campaign or debate. Being a senator from 1970s Alaska or the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate don't really raise your MSM profile. You have to be a media whore for the past few years to stand a chance.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Stewart was indeed fair to Paul, fair and light in the way one is fair and light with a symapthetic person who isn't to be taken seriously. Libertarian ideas don't play well in Peoria, but mildly likeable non-threatening kooks do. Libertarians should be deeply depressed, not encouraged, by Stewart's interview. Unless, of course, self-delusion is just part of the libertarian package.
ed|6.5.07 @ 12:41PM|#
tarran | June 5, 2007, 11:11am | #
Damn! Stewart handed him a hanging fast-ball and he didn't
swing!
Curve-balls hang. The fast-ball in question was merely slow.
|6.5.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Reason's readers were indeed fair to Edward, fair and light in the way one is fair and light with a mouthbreathing trauma patient who isn't to be taken seriously. Edward's ideas don't exist, and therefore don't play well in Peoria. Edward should be depressed, not encouraged, that he spends his time posting comments on web sites with his panties in a bunch. Unless, of course, self-delusion is just part of Edward's tiny package.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Ron Paul's veiws on race and crime:
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know
how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the
`criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95
percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or
entirely criminal," Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is
evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men
commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out
of proportion to their numbers."
|6.5.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Damn! Stewart handed him a hanging fast-ball and he didn't
swing!.
Just to nitpick, you also don't hand someone a fast ball,
you throw it.
|6.5.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Edward's views on race and crime:
mmph mrgh mffmfmmmms
*unable to speak while fellating Leviathan*
|6.5.07 @ 12:53PM|#
You know who else commites violent crime all out of proportion
to their numbers, Congressman Paul?
Texans. You can look it up.
|6.5.07 @ 12:58PM|#
I was skeptical about Ron Paul's race. What could it accomplish? Now we see how it has been able to get libertarian (I know, some disagree) ideas out there to millions of people, just like David Nolan hoped would happen when he called for a Libertarian Party to use politics as a soapbox. What will help to make such ideas less strange and more mainstream is if libertarians, and their groups, start putting these ideas out there daily and weekly in their communities. We have to be part of the on-going debate, not just some group that runs a mess of candidates every so often and gets 2% of the vote.
ryan|6.5.07 @ 1:02PM|#
"All fanatics are principled, and goofy ones make good guests on
comedy shows. I guess the tide is turning."
fa·nat·ic (fə-nāt'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning
enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Sorry, but Ron Paul is just the opposite - his enthusiasm is based
upon reason, unlike his demagogue opponents who blather on about
their 'faith in God' and the 'evil terrorists' that are out to
destroy liberty in America.
News flash: terrorists terrorize Americans because of their
government's hegemonic stranglehold around the world, not because
they let women walk around without head-scarfs, speak their minds,
and vote in a democratic process.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Ron Paul is a political joke with absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, and his participation in the process will do absolutley nothing to advance a libertarian agenda. That he has excited the libertaian troops is a sad testimony to libertaianism's delusional marginality.
|6.5.07 @ 1:14PM|#
fish:
Obviously anyone who is "sensible" that believes in growing the
government only 4%/year, instead of 5%/year like those crazy
liberals!
Brian Defferding|6.5.07 @ 1:24PM|#
For cripes sakes, the lot of you negative nancies posting here
should be ashamed of yourselves. Ron Paul has done more for the
libertarian cause than any living person out there and has brought
libertarian ideas to the mainstream more than anyone I know; it
shouldn't matter what chances Ron has of winning or if he's a got a
few knicks in his libertarian record.
Be thankful he got on the show and offered his ideas and perhaps
converted voters out there to smaller-government public policies
instead of doing this incessant caterwauling on the internet.
And go Ron Paul!
|6.5.07 @ 1:28PM|#
The RonPaul2008 website last night had an announcement that Ron Paul would also be Colbert on June 13th. As much as I enjoyed the Stewart interview, I'm anxiously awaiting the Colbert one. Should be an interesting interview.
|6.5.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Um, it seemed like a fluff interview. Check these slants on Ron
Paul:
http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul
http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/05/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul-part-ii/
|6.5.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Um, it seemed like a fluff interview.
and you were expecting something else from the Daily Show?
|6.5.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Vissud,
You do realize that "The Daily Show" is a fluff show. You
will need to do far more than post Mr Brady's opinion about
congressman Paul to change my mind that he would still be the best
president!
Didja Get Any Onya?|6.5.07 @ 1:38PM|#
[i]Edward | June 5, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Ron Paul is a political joke with absolutely no chance of winning
the nomination, and his participation in the process will do
absolutley nothing to advance a libertarian agenda. That he has
excited the libertaian troops is a sad testimony to libertaianism's
delusional marginality.[/i]
You sound like dour old Minnesotans holding forth about Jesse "The
Body" Ventura's chances at getting elected governor back in the
day.
and we all know how that ended.
btw, it's kinda Bush league that you'd post the race quotes from an
old Paul campaign newsletter without noting that he's said that he
didn't write, nor did he approve, those quotes. I bet you snagged
them from Salon's "Ron Paul is blowing up real good" story, and
cherry picked the defamatory part because it's all you want.
Chumpy, that.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Fish
Who knows who would be a better president? My point is that Ron
Paul isn't going to be and that he isn't greaatly advancing the
libertarian cause. Maybe the real question is who would advance the
libertarian cause any better than Ron Paul? If you can't come up
with an answer to that one...
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 1:43PM|#
You gotta advance the cause a little before you can advance the
cause "greatly", Edward.
Our other choice this election cycle is to not advance the cause at
all. Or, to have it retreat, as it has in just about every other
election cycle other than 80 since I've been alive.
|6.5.07 @ 1:44PM|#
"Dr. Paul's campaign has to take care to preserve his rhetorical
ammo for the coming autumn/winter."
He needs to bring it out every chance he gets because he won't be
given too many opportunities to do so.
|6.5.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Maybe the real question is who would advance the libertarian
cause any better than Ron Paul? If you can't come up with an answer
to that one...
If right now the answer is "no one", what's so wrong with that?
|6.5.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Has no one else noticed that...
EDWARD IS A TROLL!!!
He hasn't contributed to the debate other than calling Paul a
kook.
By the way, what was up with Dr. Paul running off the stage after
the interview?
Edward|6.5.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Here's an "anti-racist" statement by Ron Paul that toes the
anti-collectivist line but flies in the face of everything we know
from evoltuionary psychology. There are real and substantial
differences between groups--between men and women, for example.
Racism isn't a form of "collectivism"; it's a nasty reaction to
those who really are different. To deny group identity is to deny
human nature. Marxists also thought that the human mind is a blank
slate.
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that
views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals.
Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical
characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in
terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group
mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually
perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is
inherently racist.
|6.5.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Edward
Ron Paul is a political joke with absolutely no chance of
winning the nomination, and his participation in the process will
do absolutley nothing to advance a libertarian agenda. That he has
excited the libertaian troops is a sad testimony to libertaianism's
delusional marginality.
Ron Paul is a political joke.....
He's a sitting member of congress and is running for president by
espousing very definite Libertarian positions.
Absolutely no chance of winning.....
I suspect you are correct about this but who knows. There is still
plenty of time between now and the election for the United States
to come to its collective senses (That said, they probably
won't).
his participation in the process will do absolutley nothing
to advance a libertarian agenda.
How does speaking in forums where your ideas might be heard do
nothing to advance the Libertarian cause?
Who knows who would be a better president? From the tone of your
earlier posts you seem to think that you do so why don't you answer
my question?
Edward|6.5.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Marcus
What's wrong with that?? You mean you're satisfied that Ron Paul is
the best libertarians have? Amazing.
|6.5.07 @ 1:55PM|#
I hate Reason- eating up the book I just wrote ( Cliffs: I wish Ron Paul would get a little more into the compassionate choice and charitable aspects of free market healthcare, competition,etc. And libertarians in general need to do a better job with the progressive " Ron Paul wants poor sick people to die" stuff)
Edward|6.5.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Fish
Ron Paul is a political joke.....
He's a sitting member of congress and is running for president by
espousing very definite Libertarian positions.
The congress is full of political jokes who have been elected by
espousing all sorts of nonsense. So what your point?
|6.5.07 @ 1:58PM|#
I'll ask you one more time. WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD DO A BETTER
JOB AS PRESIDENT? There I've typed very slowly.
At least attem
|6.5.07 @ 1:58PM|#
"You know who else commites violent crime all out of proportion
to their numbers, Congressman Paul?"
At the risk of sounding like a bigot, let me say Texas has a large
percentage of blacks and Hispanics who commit a big portion of the
crimes in Texas.
|6.5.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Racism isn't a form of "collectivism"; it's a nasty reaction
to those who really are different. To deny group identity is to
deny human nature.
Is'm wondering, Edward: isn't it hard to type wearing a sheet?
|6.5.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Hello Edward...
everything we know from evoltuionary psychology.
What, exactly, do 'we' know?
|6.5.07 @ 2:01PM|#
I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but Edward's unassailable
logic has moved me.
I'm votin' stright down the nasty and bitter turd platform. Hillary
in the primary and Giuliani in the end!
|6.5.07 @ 2:02PM|#
"I wish Ron Paul would get a little more into the compassionate
choice and charitable aspects of free market healthcare"
I do too. The public needs to know that socialized medicine isn't
the only alternative to our present system.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Fish
Who would make a better president? Many, many other able men and
women and just about any of the other candidates from either party.
As a fringe zealot, Ron Paul just isn't presidential material. It's
a sign of the--dare I say it?--collective wisdom of the American
electorate that wingnuts like Ron Paul never make it. Well, okay,
Reagan made it. Morons are okay, but fringe extremists?
Never.
I doubt very much that you really think he's electable. You think
he's giving a big boost to libertarianism. I think you're
mistaken
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Edward, I personally don't think he's electable. I'm happy if he
merely serves to help the Republican party continue its implosion.
By standing there to be a pinata, he will help the major candidates
drive every last person who is against the war out of the party.
That will pretty much doom the party of torture and the party of
theocracy to a defeat of historic proportions, and that will be
good enough for me this time around.
I'm even willing to accept that the Democrats, when they take
power, will probably do things that I won't like as a libertarian.
That's not really as important to me right now as seeing the party
of Bush go down in flames.
There aren't enough libertarians out there to make the Republican
abuse of Paul make any difference - but there are still quite a few
anti-war Republicans, and they might see Paul's treatment as one
more sign that they should hit the road. That'll do.
zeiner the lurker|6.5.07 @ 2:14PM|#
thoreau | June 5, 2007, 11:49am | #
I'm glad that when talking about economics he talked about competition, and got a chance to distinguish between crony capitalism and competitive markets. And I'm glad that Stewart allowed him to make that distinction.
I agree. I can't tell you how many times that I had to explain to
my friends the difference between "pro-business" (as the
Republicans view it) and being for free markets.
|6.5.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Edward,
I was looking forward to an intelligent discussion on last
night's Daily Show, but since that isn't the case, I guess I'll go
back to work now.
And Ed, enjoy going on these threads and ruining them for juvenile
gratification. It's likely beat your only alternative, namely
jerking off to World of Warcraft in grandma's basement.
It's a sign of the--dare I say it?--collective wisdom of the
American electorate that wingnuts like Ron Paul never make
it.
Ed, you are a shining example of the collective wisdom of the
American electorate.
thoreau|6.5.07 @ 2:14PM|#
The RonPaul2008 website last night had an announcement that Ron Paul would also be Colbert on June 13th. As much as I enjoyed the Stewart interview, I'm anxiously awaiting the Colbert one. Should be an interesting interview.
Oh. My. God. This. Will. Be. Awesome.
Colbert, the man whose viewers vandalize Wikipedia on command, with
Paul, whose followers hack online polls.
Teh intarnetz might just pass through a singularity when they
meet.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Fluffy
All very good points. If you're right and Ron Paul helps destroy
the Republican party, then I guess I have to say that I'm glad he's
there. I never thought of it that way. Thanks
|6.5.07 @ 2:21PM|#
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you
know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the
`criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95
percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or
entirely criminal," Paul said."
"Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is
evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men
commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out
of proportion to their numbers."
If Edward knew Ron Paul or had ever read his writings or followed
his career, he would know that Ron Paul didn't write any of the
above.
|6.5.07 @ 2:23PM|#
"All very good points. If you're right and Ron Paul helps
destroy the Republican party, then I guess I have to say that I'm
glad he's there. I never thought of it that way. Thanks"
I think the Republican Party is doing a good job of destroying
themselves without Ron Paul's help.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Miche has last night's Ron Paul clip from the Daily Show up here.
|6.5.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Right or wrong, useful or useless, good or evil--all such comparisons fade to the point of obscurity when put up against the only question that matters to most people: electable or unelectable? It's this horse-race mentality that gets us the current crop of losers as candidates.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake
How did those statements get in his newsletter? Must have some
racists on staff, huh?
Edward|6.5.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Pro Libertate
All "electable" means is accpetable to American voters. Isn't it a
good thing that we American voters have the final say?
Didja Get Any Onya?|6.5.07 @ 2:37PM|#
The party primaries are where the rubber meets the road. Everything until then is merely jockeying for position.
|6.5.07 @ 2:39PM|#
You think he's giving a big boost to libertarianism. I think
you're mistaken
Ron Paul is putting a message out there that you can oppose our
occupation of Iraq without having to lump in affirmative action,
socialized medicine, and high taxes.
Many people who are not exposed to a libertarian message might not
ever conclude that those two positions are compatible.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Taktix®
No, what you were looking for was comforting verification of your
own illusions. Sorry to disappoint you. You probably shouldn't be
getting your ears tickled on work time anyway.
|6.5.07 @ 2:41PM|#
"How did those statements get in his newsletter? Must have some
racists on staff, huh?"
Yes, one racist that I know of who has written for him is Lewellan
Rockwell. Some have suspected that he is the one who wrote those
remarks. That's also my suspicion judging from what I've read from
Rockwell in the past.
Average Voter|6.5.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Hugh
You mean I can oppose the Iraq war and socialized medicine at the
same time? I never knew that. I guess I'm a libertarian. Where do I
sign up?
miche|6.5.07 @ 2:43PM|#
TWC,
Nobody's linking to that clip- they all seem to be fixated on my
new t-shirt.
|6.5.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Who would make a better president? Many, many other able men
and women and just about any of the other candidates from either
party.
Thanks for finally getting around to only sort of evading the
question! You can go home to Pandgon now!
|6.5.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Ah, the lowest common denominator is the best choice. Right. That kind of thinking got us Bush and, to a lesser extent, Clinton. And Zeus knows how much lower we can go.
|6.5.07 @ 2:46PM|#
"Many people who are not exposed to a libertarian message might
not ever conclude that those two positions are compatible."
It's like me when I gave up Chrisianity. I started feeling out of
place in the Republican Party because of their position on social
issues, but I knew I couldn't accept the Democrats' economic
issues. I was glad to find out there was a philosophy that I fit
into.
miche|6.5.07 @ 2:47PM|#
I was happy that the congressman was able to say a little something about third parties, debates, and ballot access.
|6.5.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake -
I've read some Lew Rockwell articles in the past, but never ran
across anything that triggered my "racist!" alarm. Can you link to
any of the racist stuff you're talking about?
(I'm not callin' you a liar - I'm just genuinely curious.)
|6.5.07 @ 2:53PM|#
"I've read some Lew Rockwell articles in the past, but never ran
across anything that triggered my "racist!" alarm. Can you link to
any of the racist stuff you're talking about?"
No, I can't link to anything. I just remember he had some racist
writings in the "RR Report" that I used to subscribe to. In fact,
that was one of the reasons I stopped subscribing to it.
goldenequity|6.5.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in
chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
|6.5.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Y'know what's worse than comment spam that one disagrees with?
Comment spam that espouses a viewpoint one holds, because it makes
one look bad.
Come on, goldenequity... quit spamming. That's no way to win
converts - it just annoys folks.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Okay, as long as we're going to cheer for an unelectable candidate,how about Noam Chomsky? Chomsky for President. He's opposed to an interventionist foreign policy and he's extremely intelligent. There is the little problem that he's not running, but Ron Paul might just as well be not running. How do libertarians feel about Chomsky?
|6.5.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Yeah that does tend to be a problem if one aspires to political office......not running.
|6.5.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Wait, are you talking about the real Chomsky or the well-loved inflatable version?
daddym2000|6.5.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Hi Edward....are you a CFR member,(Council on Foreign
Relations)?
That would explain why you don't care who wins as long as it is not
Mr Ron Paul...
...loaded dice comes to mind.
|6.5.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Anyone have any predictions for tonight's "debate" on CNN? I think Mitt Romney is going to look tall and presidential again and John McCain will pound his fist on the podium and stutter while trying to drive home that he will veto pork spending. That's about all I got
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Edward, here's a short list of other candidates who are not
going to be the President of the United States:
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Huckabee
Brownback
Hunter
Gilmore
Thompson, T.
Edwards
Gravel
Dodd
Biden
Richardson
Kucinich
Should all of the supporters of these zero-chance candidates
immediately switch to someone else?
miche|6.5.07 @ 4:00PM|#
In an effort to get the focus off Ron Paul's recent attention, Rudy will dress in drag and insist on being called Ruby.
|6.5.07 @ 4:05PM|#
In an effort to get the focus off Ron Paul's recent
attention, Rudy will dress in drag and insist on being called
Ruby.
I've said all along that I would chuck every last libertarian
principle and impulse if Rudi/Rubi would conduct his presidency in
drag!
Tom Walls|6.5.07 @ 4:06PM|#
I'd love to see Beatle Bob dancing onstage while the candidates are debating tonight in New Hampshire.
|6.5.07 @ 4:08PM|#
"The Scottish kilt was just for everyday wear... for battle, we
donned full-sequinned dresses adorned with frills and lace!"
-Groundskeeper Willy for Prez in 2008:
Duckman|6.5.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Well, I think Noam Chomsky might not be as bad as some other
options... he is anti-imperialism, he is anti-drug war, he has
somewhat anarchist sympathies (some libertarians are sympathetic to
anarchism, as in the "no government" aspect of anarchism as opposed
to the "violent insurrection" aspect).
Where Chomsky loses me is in his "libertarian socialism" idea in
which all existing businesses and governments will be reformed by
the state and given to direct popular control. This sounds like
"kinder, gentler" communism to me, and I am opposed to that on the
grounds that it can't work (no state can be wise or fair enough to
control everything) and because I believe you need an ownership
society so that you can strive for and keep wealth and security in
life. As you can see from the U.S. government, an institution left
soley to democratic control (as Chomsky suggests everything be
converted to) can be corrupted and not end up serving anyone's
interests except for those of the powerful. In fact, it is for
these sorts of reasons that I have noticed that in general
libertarians take a somewhat more dim view of democracy than do
other people on the political spectrum; we believe democracy is
generally good, but far, far from perfect, and that there need to
be adequate safeguards for minority points of view which are not
provided by straight majority-rule democracy. I believe only a
government which provides absolute personal liberty (which actually
goes beyond the human rights fought for on the left) can adequately
correct for some deficiencies inherint in democracy.
|6.5.07 @ 4:12PM|#
fish,
I understand the motivation behind your comment. But you need to
ask yourself - What then? Do you imagine politics could return to
something like what they resembled before the Rubi administration?
And if not, Who would wish to bear witness to what followed.
Sean|6.5.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Edward is sad about Ron Paul's growing popularity.
It makes him sad because he's become so used to sucking on the big
boner of life that is the welfare federal government.
Weening isn't that tough, I promise.
|6.5.07 @ 4:21PM|#
I've heard aphorism recently that says, in essence, that each president serves only to burnish the reputation of his predecessor. This seems to hold pretty well for at least for the last 30 or so years. Bush the 1st was made to look more statesmanlike by the Clinton administrations various hijinks. Clinton is looking positively founding fatherlike by the clown currently serving! Following this line of thought the next president will either be the recently BoToxed Hillary or Rudi in drag. Between these two choices, I'll take; "La Cage aux Folles"!
lunchstealer|6.5.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Why not Chomsky? Because libertarian noninterventionist != wacky (if intelligent) leftist kook. But then again Edward != !troll, so who gives a shit?
|6.5.07 @ 4:36PM|#
"dward, here's a short list of other candidates who are not
going to be the President of the United States:
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Huckabee
Brownback
Hunter
Gilmore
Thompson, T.
Edwards
Gravel
Dodd
Biden
Richardson
Kucinich"
You don't think Guiliani has a chance? He is way out in front in
the polls of the Republicans and the latest general election polls
showed both Guiliani and McCain beating Hillary.
|6.5.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Face it RJ, Hillary is going to be the next President of the United States, and it will officially be no longer worth living.
Duckman|6.5.07 @ 4:46PM|#
The way I see it, Guiliani only has a chance if Hillary gets the nod. In fact, except for Ron Paul, who has crossover appeal because of his principled war opposition, NONE of the other Republicans can win the general election UNLESS Hillary (or maybe Kucinich) gets the nod. I hope the Democrats realize this.
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Giuliani ran screaming from a contest with Hillary last time and
he's in no shape to face her again.**
I don't think McCain or Giuliani will ultimately get the
nomination. That makes it hard to win the general.
Anyway, at most I can only be wrong with one of the names on that
list. That means I'm right with all the others. :->
**I know, I know, he had a note from his doctor. I still think he
bailed because he knew he would lose, and the prostate thing gave
him an out.
lunchstealer|6.5.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Seriously, Hillary is popular among democrats, and relatively
popular among the apolitical, but there are a lot of people who
would vote for anybody but her. There are people who'd consider
voting for Obama or Edwards, but wouldn't give Hillary the time of
day.
Kinda like me. If it's a hawk like Giuliani or McCain, I can't see
myself voting GOP, but I might vote democratic unless it is Clinton
or Edwards. Edwards I'm probably more alone on, but Clinton brings
a lot of baggage that doesn't play as well outside traditional blue
states.
Then again, she's a really good campaigner, so she might just be
able to do it.
While we're on the subject, can we have a rule stating that no one
related by direct blood (sibling/parent/offspring) or by direct
marriage at any time during the term of a sitting president may be
president for at least 10 years? That will at least mean that we've
got to come up with three families to rotate the hereditary
presidency between, instead of just two.
|6.5.07 @ 5:01PM|#
"Face it RJ, Hillary is going to be the next President of the
United States, and it will officially be no longer worth
living."
I haven't given up. The latest USA Today poll has her and Obama in
a virtual tie and I'm expecting her to continue to fall.
|6.5.07 @ 5:17PM|#
I haven't given up. The latest USA Today poll has her and
Obama in a virtual tie and I'm expecting her to continue to
fall.
Not a chance. We're still what, forty months away from the
primaries? Obama's one-time supporters will wither in the coming
weeks. Hillary's war chest has no bottom.
Like I've been telling you all along, no force on heaven or earth,
save a felony conviction, can stop HRC from being the Democratic
nominee.
|6.5.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Warren,
I predict that she gets hammered early on. Money alone can't help a
poor early primary performance. In fact, it might make things
worse--what, all that cash and you still are a loser? Bah.
Florida's move to a January primary may rock some worlds, too. Will
there be a Hispanic lift for Richardson? Mexican, etc. doesn't
equate to Cuban, but it might be close enough for election
purposes, especially given his more moderate posture. I'm still
convinced that he's going to take off in the primaries. But I've
been wrong before.
Anyway, Clinton still rubs too many people within the Democratic
ranks the wrong way, not to mention the perception that she'll get
about zero swing voters. I think Obama is a long shot for different
reasons. Besides, everyone hates Senators.
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 5:48PM|#
When the question was asked about who didn't believe in it, he was not one of the candidates to raise his hand.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Duckman
Absolute personal liberty is a pipe dream. Absolute silliness,
however, is evidently quite attainable.
Edward|6.5.07 @ 5:52PM|#
I suspect Congressman Paul was exercising his personal freedom not to answer the question. I belive he's a funadmentalist Christian, isn't he?
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 6:25PM|#
My understanding is that when he travelled through time to the year 3010 to fight the evil robot king, he learned from the scientists there that evolution had, in fact, been proven.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Miche: I saw the tee shirt. :-) Okay, moving right
along....
I'm about to make a nuisance of myself by shilling, once again, for
the Ron Paul video you posted, by posting the link to it on another
thread here at H&R.
Fish:
What, exactly, does it mean when you say your shit finger
slipped?
Meh|6.5.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Edward | June 5, 2007, 5:50pm | #
Duckman
Absolute personal liberty is a pipe dream. Absolute silliness,
however, is evidently quite attainable.
Your posts do a great job of proving that...
|6.5.07 @ 7:24PM|#
Commonsewer,
I leave you to draw your own conclusion.....now I got to go wash my
hands.....and the mouse.
|6.6.07 @ 12:22AM|#
Edward, there is something really creepy about you. You express
your hostility in a measured and understated way that is most
unpleasant. It makes a person wonder exactly what is lurking under
there.
And by the way, I don't think that Paul's statement is an
endorsement of the blank slate. Humans can have an evolved nature
and still create a dizzying array of social constructions to
reinforce that nature, for better or worse. Race might be
biologically meaningful, but group identities and racist ideologies
are still social constructions.
Yes, there might be small but distinct differences between races
other than superficial physical characteristics. It is also likely
that the human tendency to form in-groups and out-groups, such that
persons in out-groups are devalued, is a biologically evolved
tendency.
These factors do not justify racism. One can acknowledge both that
races are different and humans are inclined to devalue out-groups,
and still decry racialist ideologies. In fact, I would argue that
knowing these facts about us creates a moral imperative to try and
overcome them. So I think Paul's statement about race and
collectivism is pretty much right on. We need expand our ideas of
inclusiveness rather than reinforcing divisiveness.
There are races, but there is only one human species. If there are
slight differences in the distribution of certain characteristics
across races, the similarities vastly outweigh them.
You know, Steven Pinker talked about all of this in The Blank
Slate. Based on your comments, it seems like you might have
read it. If so, I think overlooked a few things.
Here's a quote from an interview of Pinker, expressing many of the
ideas he wrote about in The Blank Slate.
Our moral sense may…have a free parameter… People in all cultures
have an ability to respect and sympathize with other people. The
question is, with which other people? The default setting of our
moral sense may be to sympathize only with members of our clan or
village. Over the course of history, a knob or a slider has been
adjusted so that a larger and larger portion of humanity is
admitted into the circle of people whose interests we consider as
comparable to our own. From the village or clan the moral circle
has been expanded to the tribe, the nation, and most recently to
all of humanity, as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…
It's an example of how we can enjoy social improvement and moral
progress even if we are fitted with certain faculties, as long as
those faculties can respond to inputs."
From:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_print.html
|6.6.07 @ 5:28AM|#
Wow, it seems there's a lot of "libertarians" that are
freakishly specific about what a real libertarian has to believe
in. With this kind of fanatical demands of orthodoxy it's no wonder
the libertarian party is inconsequential. Where do you guys get
this notion that to be libertarian you have to totally object to
international borders, or any kind of control over
immigration?
Seems to me the fanatical libertarians should take a page from the
repub party's "big tent" rhetoric.
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