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
Parsing Mona
Over at my personal blog, I pick apart conservative columnist Mona Charen's latest smear job on Ron Paul.
|11.18.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Charen's smear job is typical, she attributes every deranged
muttering from Paul wackjob enthusiasts as his own position.
Raising $4Million in one day on the net seems to have harshed the
mellow on K Street. Charen is just protecting the interests of her
masters.
Fluffy|11.18.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Your link tags are messed up. Two links widely separated by text end up as one big link to a list of people who should be pardoned.
|11.18.07 @ 1:16PM|#
No more threatening to cancel her subscription. Mona's on a whole 'nother level now.
|11.18.07 @ 1:23PM|#
We really should start a drive to comb the contributor lists for all the GOP candidates and find unsavory people. It would be a huge task, but with all the RP supporters on these here internets, it shouldn't be difficult. Maybe everyone should scour the list of contributors whose last name begins with the same letter as theirs.
S.A. Miller|11.18.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Smear job? Oh, please. Name one other candidate, that when made
aware that nazis were donating to his/her campaign, would not
return the donations.
Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy
theorists.
|11.18.07 @ 1:28PM|#
"We really should start a drive to comb the contributor lists
for all the GOP candidates and find unsavory people."
The problem with this is that the other candidates will simply
*return the money* of such people. I do understand Paul's rationale
for not returing money--if Nazis foolishly want to give him money
because they mistakenly think he shares their ideology, that's
*their* loss--but it does leave him vulnerable to attacks in a way
the other candidates are not.
|11.18.07 @ 1:30PM|#
SA Miller,
We're going to find out. Dr Paul's internet army is about to
unleash the power of distributed surveillance on Rudy, Mitt, and
Fred's contributor lists. You can bet there's going to be a trickle
and then a flood of revelations about their contributors, and we'll
see how they handle it.
|11.18.07 @ 1:37PM|#
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-right-vs-ro.html
Sullivan has picked up on this too
Charlie|11.18.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Name one candidate, that when made aware that pedophile priests
were donating to his/her campaign, would not return the
donations.
Oh wait, right. Rudy Giuliani.
And not only has he knowingly taken contributions from a pedophile
priest, he employs him:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/22/placa/index_np.html
|11.18.07 @ 2:20PM|#
We're going to find out. Dr Paul's internet army is about to
unleash the power of distributed surveillance on Rudy, Mitt, and
Fred's contributor lists. You can bet there's going to be a trickle
and then a flood of revelations about their contributors, and we'll
see how they handle it.
And after Congressman Paul get's the nomination, we're going after
Hillary and her connection to the defense contractors
merchants of death. I'm just kidding, aren't I?
|11.18.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once,
not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that
black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on
America.
Ron Paul has appeared on Jon Stewart's show. Jon Stewart is a huge
admirer of big government, so long as it is run by liberal
statists. So, by Mona Charen's logic, Ron Paul must also share
those views ...
|11.18.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Name one other candidate, that when (the public was)
made aware that nazis were donating to his/her campaign, would
not return the donations.
Fixed.
Kolohe|11.18.07 @ 3:21PM|#
More from Charen:
Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.
I can find no interview or speech where Paul has said he would eliminate these or any other federal agency "within weeks of taking office." If he has said it, it was in jest.
He pretty much said what Charen said he did in his interview with
either Colbert or Stewart. But,
1) This is not a bad thing.
2) When the interviewer starting reciting those more popular
members of the alphabet soup as a reductio ad absurdum, and asked
if Paul would eliminate those, Paul said something like 'yes I
would eliminate that department/program but that would be not be my
first priority'
3) In the worst case, we will finally get congress to take some
responsibility.
So much of federal authority is there because the legislature has
been lazy and or politically expedient, and so has abdicated much
of their rightful authority. Paul cannot get rid of any agency
program established by statute; I do not think Paul will refuse to
enforce a specifically written law. And, if Congress really
disagrees with how a President Paul is enforcing the law, they
could always impeach. Either way, Congress re-establishes their
core function of establishing what the government should and should
not do.
Edward|11.18.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Charen's analysis seems right on to me. Ron Paul has effectively smeared hismelf by not diavowing the extremist, Nazi support and returning the Nazi cash. The only people nuttier and creepier that Ron Paul are the slavering zealots who still think he has any chance at all of being nominated.
|11.18.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Interesting that the latest Rolling Stone gave Paul a fairer shake than Charen. Let's face it: Charen hasn't been relevant for years (come to think of it, neither is Rolling Stone, but at least RS still has some interesting interviews)...
|11.18.07 @ 4:07PM|#
How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky
Followers.
Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, "First, confuse the
vocabulary."
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call
them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his
person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the
answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don't report his
reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them
generously.
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and
courteous technical debate. Avoid that.
- Moderno Machiavelli
|11.18.07 @ 4:12PM|#
We're going to find out. Dr Paul's internet army is about to
unleash the power of distributed surveillance on Rudy, Mitt, and
Fred's contributor lists. You can bet there's going to be a trickle
and then a flood of revelations about their contributors, and we'll
see how they handle it.
Oh baby, I'll see what I can dig up. If I'm lucky enough to find
anything, I'll post it here or over at Urkobold.
So let's start helping each other. I had a link to a site where you
can check that stuff,but the page is broken. Was it
opensecrets.org?
Dave B.|11.18.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Instead of going after candidates for money they're keeping, we
should go after candidates for money they've returned. Returning a
donation from a disreputable source is essentially equivalant to
making a donation to that source.
Ron Paul's the only candidate that will take money from awful
people and put it to good use. All other candidates seem to think
that this money would be better spent by people they disagree
vehemently with. Ron Paul's basic argument is right, but it can be
taken further.
|11.18.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Oh, Radley. I think you've been trolled.
He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed
assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the
debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said
no.
There's no way this is a serious column. I mean, look at that
sentence.
Did you try running the name "Mona Charen" through one of those
anagram machines to see if is spells anything?
|11.18.07 @ 4:29PM|#
What about all the money that goes to the government through
asset forfeiture from drug arrests? Doesn't the blood of our
precious children count for anything?
Oh, I forgot, only the feds can magically take away the taint of
ill gotten money.
|11.18.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Whoa, it turns out that this "Mona Charen" person actually
exists, and writes things like that fairly frequently. No matter
how cynical I become about right-wingers, I never mangage to keep
up with reality.
It looks pretty clear that they're going to try to swift boat Paul
just like they did with Kerry. He needs to take a page from their
own playbook - anticipate what they're going to attack him for, and
attack his opponents using the term terms.
They're going to call his foreign policy naive? Talk about the
naivete of the people who said "they'll greet us as liberators" and
"throw flowers at our tanks."
They're going to call his foreign policy leftist? Talk about how
"If John McCain, Rudy Guiliani and their liberal buddies want the
United States to be the world's policeman, they should join the
Democratic Party."
They're going to call his economic policies crazy? Talk about the
crazy loons who think that "Reagan proved that deficits don't
matter."
Etc etc.
This strategy works even if the charges don't stick. If Ron Paul
calls another candidate's foreign policy "liberal," that will make
any similar charge levelled by that candidate at Paul sound like an
echo.
BakedPenguin|11.18.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Interesting that the latest Rolling Stone gave Paul a fairer
shake than Charen.
Rolling Stone is probably well connected enough to know
how Paul is doing on campus. And RS, unlike Real Clear
Politics, has delusions about being hip.
|11.18.07 @ 5:04PM|#
I am one of the proud slaving zealots that believe Ron Paul will win the nomination. And we will do it without the media's consent.
|11.18.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Even though a different Mona wrote that piece, I swear that I'm
canceling my subscription and never visiting this site again!
Mona
|11.18.07 @ 5:36PM|#
So let's start helping each other. I had a link to a site
where you can check that stuff,but the page is broken. Was it
opensecrets.org?
The brute force method is to go directly to the FEC and
start googling names and employers. I'm working on all the people
whose last names start with the same letter as mine.
M|11.18.07 @ 5:45PM|#
crimethink - thanks for the link - Is it because they're not up to date that my name doesn't show and a friend's name shows only a small fraction ($100) of teh $2,300 he donated? Is there a minimum to make the charts?
|11.18.07 @ 5:47PM|#
I'm not sure, M, but I think it's only updated at the end of the
quarter.
I'm on people whose names begin with PAD right now; no dirty
laundry found yet.
Jay D|11.18.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Someone please call Godwin's Law on the whole donations thing so we can move on.
|11.18.07 @ 6:01PM|#
Bingo!
PACE, GARRY MR. BERNSTEIN/FINANCIAL ADVISOR THOUSAND OAKS CA 91320
05/25/2007 $2300 Mitt Romney
This Mr. Garry Pace happens to be the president of the Church of
Latter-Day Saints. Do you know what that means? Mitt Romney
consorts with MORMONS!
OK, my work is done...
M|11.18.07 @ 6:04PM|#
crimethink - I think you're right. I've seen nothing past
9/29/07. I saw one $3. donation.
My next bewonderment is whether a google search of someone's name
will, in saecula saeculorum, reveal his/her donation.
Adolph Hitler|11.18.07 @ 6:08PM|#
If I were alive and an American Citizen (or an undocumented
worker with a drivers license linked voting registration under the
"motor voter" act)
I would contribute to and vote for Herr Doktor Ron Paul.
Jim|11.18.07 @ 6:10PM|#
M,
I think there is a minimum of $200 in donations (to all candidates
for all offices) before a donor's name is published.
Mad Max|11.18.07 @ 6:15PM|#
I think the thing about Giuliani's priest friend is useful,
because it challenges the anti-Paul crowd to consistently apply
their idiotic guilt-by-association techniques.
Just to be clear: It's good that Giuliani shows loyalty to a
lifelong friend who has not been convicted of sex abuse. The priest
was mentioned in a grand jury report, but as an ex-prosecutor,
Giuliani knows that if you spoon-feed a grand jury properly, you
can get the jurors to accuse just about anyone of a crime. Suspects
don't have the right to defend themselves before a grand jury -
those rights only become operative at trial.
Just because Giuliani did the right thing, though, doesn't mean he
should get a free pass, if his supporters employ
guilt-by-association tactics. Dr. Paul should lose no opportunity
to point out, "I would never say that Giuliani is guilty of
pedophilia by association simply because a lifelong friend of his,
a priest who got a job with Giuliani's firm, was accused of child
sexual abuse by a grand jury."
Again, if Giuliani denounces civil liberties and the rights of
defendants as "September 10 thinking," Dr. Paul could reply, "it's
the presumption of innocence, and the rights of criminal
defendants, which protect your lifelong friend the alleged
pedophile priest. He was accused of sex abuse by a grand jury, but
he hasn't been convicted, and until he is, he is entitled to the
freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights," etc.
Sound a bit too Nixonian for Dr. Paul, of course.
M|11.18.07 @ 6:17PM|#
Jim, fwiw my pal showed up at $100 as his sole contribution. I
don't see that he would give to anyone else.
Adolph, "he who is not against me is with me" - know Who said
that?
Adolph Hitler|11.18.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Adolph, "he who is not against me is with me" - know Who
said that?
A fictional Jew? Not Shylock but some other Jew character from
fiction.... forgive my ignorance of literary allusions.......
|11.18.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Mad Max,
As much as I love RP, he's not a very effective politician. If only
we could combine his policies with Hilary's cunning and Fred
Thompson's voice, we'd be set.
Mad Max|11.18.07 @ 6:42PM|#
crimethink,
I think it's charming that Dr. Paul doesn't want to crawl into the
gutter with these people. It looks statesmanlike.
But *someone* has to dirty themselves with the necessary gutter
fighting. The best people for the job are supporters of Dr. Paul
who aren't officially linked to his campaign.
rho|11.18.07 @ 7:00PM|#
Dr. Paul should lose no opportunity to point out, "I would
never say that Giuliani is guilty of pedophilia by association
simply because a lifelong friend of his, a priest who got a job
with Giuliani's firm, was accused of child sexual abuse by a grand
jury."
Problem is, Dr. Paul is highly unlikely to do that. As crimethink
says, he's a terrible politician, defined as a person who works
hard to make people like him enough to vote for him regardless of
whatever bad things he does. He's a conscientious representative
for his constituents and he's a consistent ideologue for the
Constitution and rule of law.
(To be honest, I think he's crazy because he's enduring all this
hassle of running for President when by any measure he's earned the
right to sit at home and enjoy his retirement and grandkids.)
Therefore, in the spirit of the grassroots, bottom-up Ron Paul
Juggernaut™, I think we should all take it upon ourselves to
proclaim to the world that Rudy Giuliani employs a pedophile
priest.
WikingerElch|11.18.07 @ 7:07PM|#
"contribute to and vote for Herr Doktor "
a vote for HERRN Doktor.
MEIN GOTT.
Saan's so blöd dass s ned amoi ihre aegne Muttaschbrchå
kenna?
Nå - ane föschung. darum.
(nehme an, wenn Sie das richtige Hauptarschloch (URARSCHLOCH??)
wäre, wäre die Umgangssprache für Sie fassbar - bevorzugt
sogar...)
bob|11.18.07 @ 7:15PM|#
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."
Well, we've seen ignorance such as deleting online polls and Gone
Vanity discrediting Fox's own cell phone poll. Then we saw repeated
ridiculous attempts to link Ron Paul with 9/11
"truthers" courtesy of Michelle Malkin's Hot
Farts.
Now we see even more aggressive smear campaigns, with a slime de
jour of a non-existent connection to NAZIs. Despite the fact that
the sum total of contributions from supremacist nutjobs wouldn't be
enough to put a decent down payment on a new double wide. But
apparently they think it's their best shot, so they take it.
The Ron Paul campaign is actually farther along than I thought it
would be at this point. The 11/5 money bomb seems to have worried a
few folks... GOOD!
Comparing
the number of pledges between the 11/5 and 12/16 events, it
looks like they'll be even more worried soon.
Merry Christmas Neo-Cons... (and ya'll didn't get us
anything!)
Ilsa She Wolf of the SS|11.18.07 @ 7:25PM|#
I and Doktor Mengele have started a group of Nazi German Doctors for Ron Paul.
|11.18.07 @ 7:25PM|#
I can't understand how Ron Paul giving money to a White
Supremist organization is a demonstration of how he's not a White
Supremist himself.
The problem is that all the other candidates get money by making
back room deals. So accepting money from an organization actually
does tell you what agenda they'll be pushing once in office. Ron
Paul doesn't need to, and never has, sat down behind closed doors
to get contributions. His record as a congressman gives him more
credibility than anyone else. They can scream racist all they want,
but they can't make it stick. There is simply no there there.
|11.18.07 @ 7:38PM|#
As a strictly impartial observor because I don't vote and never
will because I'm still pissed the other Founders didn't go along
with Ben Franklin's proposal to have an unpaid committee of three
serve as Chief Executives of the US:
Who the hell could Mona possibly prefer over Ron?
Any of the others, even untalented and unknown moi could slime so
much more easily than Ron. And I'm talking slime that would
stick.
|11.18.07 @ 7:50PM|#
This Mr. Garry Pace happens to be the president of the
Church of Latter-Day Saints. Do you know what that means? Mitt
Romney consorts with MORMONS!
crimethink -- The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints is Gordon B. Hinckley. None of the top leadership
of the Church, the approximately 100 General Authorities, is named
Garry Pace.
If you're trying to be facetious AND accurate, LDS.org would give
you the names of all the high-ranking Mormons, who would almost
certainly include many contributors to Mitt's campaign.
Edward|11.18.07 @ 7:57PM|#
So libertarians finally get a mainstream party candidate who espouses some really libertarian positions only to discover that his biggest supporters are Nazis, White supremicists, and conspiracy nuts. Most Americans aren't quite as anti-government as right-wing exremists tend to be. Ron Paul just won't sell to the wider public. But good libertarians should accept the judgement of the market, shouldn't they?
|11.18.07 @ 7:59PM|#
Haven't Repulicans been fighting the guilt by association
argument for decades. Democrats have been accusing Republicans of
racism due to support they got from racist organizations. Do they
really want to open that can of worms because anything the
Republicans use against Ron Paul can, and will, be used more
effectively by the Democrat nominee*.
* If Rudy and Hillary are the nominees, I'll bet dollars to donuts
that Hillary will toss out the pedophile charge.
|11.18.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Okay, imagine your kid's in band at school. The band is selling
candy as a fundraiser. Some kid sells a chocolate bar to that
creepy guy in the unpainted singlewide and unmown grass. Turns out
this guy surfs stormwatch.
The next day the local paper (edited by some bint named Mona) has
the following headline: "School Band Takes Nazi Money!"
Does the band give back the money? Suspend that student? Grovel in
the mud before Mona? Or does it tell Mona to get a real job? I vote
for the latter. It's stupid making kids get signed ideological
statements from each candy customer, just as it's stupid making
candidates do background checked on every $100 and $200
donation.
|11.18.07 @ 8:01PM|#
OK, I will feed this troll: explain how Ron Paul's "biggest" supporters are Nazis, White Supremacists, and conspiracy nuts. At the rally at Independence Mall in Philadelphia, they seemed to be veterans, college students, and anti-war activists. Were they some new super-stealth Nazis, or are you just an asshole?
Edward|11.18.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Michael,
Go to any Nazi or white supremicist site and see how enthusiastic
about Ron Paul they are. The taint of such support is exaggerated
by Ron Paul's evident unwillingness to openly and loudly denounce
such support and return the cash they've given him. The conspiracy
nuts are much in evidence at his rallies, and he himself was close
to Aaron Russo, a 9/11 Truther nut. A lot of his anti-war support
will vanish when its proponents learn more about his positions.
He's not a viable candidate by any stretch.
Mad Max|11.18.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Michael,
I may as vell admit der truf - ninety-nine percent uv us Ron Paul
supporters are der Stealth Nazis. Did it take you zis long to
figure it out?
Ha ha ha, you naive American fools! Virst ve elect Ron Paul, zen ve
take over der vorld! Und zer is nuzzink zat anyone can do about it
- no vun can stop us, not effen Captain America!
Ha ha ha ha . . . oh, verdammt, I vas laffink so hard I dropped my
monocle. Zere, I put it back again.
|11.18.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Am I the only one who thinks Charen looks like 1970s porn star Sharon Mitchell?
|11.18.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Go to any Nazi or white supremicist site and see how
enthusiastic about Ron Paul they are. The taint
Did somebody say, "taint"?
|11.18.07 @ 8:47PM|#
Charles Oliver,
I had no idea what Charen looks like, but, thanks to your
prompting, and a Google image search, I do now hereby agree with
anything coming from the lips of Mona.
Even from her "taint."
Eric Dondero|11.18.07 @ 9:04PM|#
You didn't pick apart Mona's piece, as she exposed Ron Paul for the America-hating wussy that he is. Vote for Giuliani, the mainstream libertarian candidate, not for nutcase Ron Paul.
|11.18.07 @ 9:11PM|#
Say there, edward: I see that Barry Goldwater junior just
endorsed Ron Paul. Is he some kind of stealthy, nazi jew?
-jcr
|11.18.07 @ 9:18PM|#
This story is now dugg. Let's see what interesting characters end up here now...
|11.18.07 @ 9:26PM|#
For those of you who vote:
Your choice is
"Crankcase" or "Nutstream."
Get fortune cookie after meal.
|11.18.07 @ 9:28PM|#
I had a link to a site where you can check that stuff,but
the page is broken. Was it opensecrets.org?
Yep.
Also, you can find other resources if you Google
Campaign Contributions 2008
Personally, I'm not going to bother. I'd find it refreshing, and I
think a lot of other people would, if he'd just say, "Look, beggars
can't be choosers. If it's legal, I keep it. Fuck you!".
I think at this point, most of the world tacitly understands
accusations of racism, fascism, etc., etc., etc, usually say a lot
more about the clown throwing them around than about the target
they're directed at.
My money says that for every vote he loses for telling his critics
to go to hell, he'll gain 3 from people who admire him for having
the stones to do it.
Really, do you think most of the people doing the screaming were
going to vote for him anyway? I don't recollect ever not voting for
someone simply because I didn't like who else contributed to
them.
|11.18.07 @ 9:43PM|#
Bah, the real Dondero is far more eloquent (or at least longwinded) than that. Try again.
Guy Montag|11.18.07 @ 9:46PM|#
Just a few moments ago a RP supporter I know was telling me that
Dr. Paul refunded a donation from Stormfront,
apparently some Nazi-ish website. He sounded like he thought all of
the "Nazi" money was refunded over a month ago (or just last month
maybe)?
The only reference to this is one I found via Google
at Hot Air and appears to have been a partial refund
to correct the incorrect amount of the intended donation.
Does anybody have better information?
SIV|11.18.07 @ 9:50PM|#
This story is now dugg. Let's see what interesting
characters end up here now...
Well unless it has changed in the past 18 months I'd bet on fat
kids who don't know what they are talking about.
rho|11.18.07 @ 9:54PM|#
Edward cracks me up.
Why, just yesterday, when I was hollowing out his mom as she choked
herself, she told me a story about young Edward and his youthful
hijinks. It was totally amusing, and I laughed. Oh, yes, I
laughed.
Fake Edward™ and Fake Eric Dondero™ are getting a little
predictable. 'Bout time to retire those, eh?
blogcruiser|11.18.07 @ 10:07PM|#
It would be nice to see all the candidates contributers openly
available and listed for informational purposes.
However, the smears are rather useless for anyone that thinks about
it for a few minutes. Every candidate has received contributions
from what someone might think is unsavory source. So Rep. Dr Ron
Paul is doing exactly what he should be doing ignoring the so
called inquiries, they are a waste of the campaigns time and
energies to answer. They really don't deserve an answer at
all.
Like I said if other individuals were willing to make lists of all
the candidates contributers it would be interesting to see but not
really useful, if intended to retaliate to the mundane accusations.
Issues like this seem to take away from the real issues that people
need to know about. Isn't that something the media has done a good
job of anyway. Trying to turn election issues into profit building
entertainment and pointless issues.
A good idea but I think efforts at making people aware of the Ron
Paul Revolution are the most important at this time.
The list is a great idea too but maybe for all the candidates as I
stated not just GOP or Democrats and for additional information for
voters not to smear. I would like to see who many of the Clinton
contributers are.
Well my moment of thought out loud anyway.
Asharak|11.18.07 @ 10:19PM|#
If Ron Paul won't denounce the neo-Nazis who think he's one of
them, then I can't support him. However, it's obvious to me that's
not really what irks Mona Charen.
And why is this supposedly conservative woman taking Paul to task
for opposing the IRS? I suppose all that talk about jack-booted
gubmint thugs only applies to Democratic presidents.
Asharak|11.18.07 @ 10:23PM|#
You didn't pick apart Mona's piece, as she exposed Ron Paul
for the America-hating wussy that he is. Vote for Giuliani, the
mainstream libertarian candidate, not for nutcase Ron
Paul.
Assuming this is really you, Eric, the mere fact that Giuliani
supports the War on Drugs makes him not a real libertarian
candidate. Just wanted to let you know that (again).
|11.18.07 @ 10:24PM|#
"If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss,"
|11.18.07 @ 10:41PM|#
The Ron Paul camp should continue the current strategy.
On one hand, a few nutjob NAZIs contributed a week's beer money,
but are getting/demanding nothing. On the other hand, a few
loudmouths are contributing $0, and demanding extraordinary
action.
You tell me... Which hand is behaving more authoritarian?
|11.18.07 @ 10:47PM|#
There are plenty of crackpots in the mainstream of politics. Pat Robertson, for example, is a wacko who is actively courted by the leading candidates.
|11.18.07 @ 11:38PM|#
prolefeed,
Wait...are you saying google lied to me?!
crimethink -- I assume you're snarking on the whole "edward thinks
google search numbers give infallible truth" thing.
FWIW, googling "Mormon church president" gives you this
as the second search result.
|11.18.07 @ 11:39PM|#
Mona Charen is a Neocon closly associated with Scooter Libby, if
not be marriage, some other very close relationship. She is tied in
with other Isreali Firsters and was a head cheer leader through
many of her opinion pieces to get the U.S. involved in Iraq.
Her motive to deep six the Paul Campaign would be as any other
Neocon, welfare to Isreal would be over if Paul was ever elected or
his non-interventionist ideas took hold with any adminstration.
|11.18.07 @ 11:46PM|#
Am I the only one who thinks Charen looks like 1970s porn
star Sharon Mitchell?
Wow, Charles, you sure know your 70s pr0n! Could pass for her
daughter, yeah?
|11.19.07 @ 12:13AM|#
S.A. Miller:
Name one other candidate, that when made aware that nazis were
donating to his/her campaign, would not return the
donations.
Ron Paul has the most anti-Nazi ideology and positions of any of
the candidates of both parties.
Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy
theorists.
What ever that means. Anyway political conspiracies happen.
|11.19.07 @ 12:18AM|#
On one hand, a few nutjob NAZIs contributed a week's beer
money, but are getting/demanding nothing.
The neonazis seem to be getting a lot of free publicity, thanks to
folks like edward. Pretty savvy investment on their part,
especially if Paul caves and hands the money back.
|11.19.07 @ 12:49AM|#
Edward:
Ron Paul has effectively smeared hismelf by not diavowing the
extremist, Nazi support and returning the Nazi cash.
What Nazi "support"? Even if there are any actual Nazis who
support Cong Paul, the numbers are so small that they make up an
infinitesimal and insignificant fraction of his partisans. Note how
Edward, admittedly not a clever fellow, but other of Paul's other
detractors as well, don't engage his policy advocacies, but instead
dwell on "Nazi support". This bodes well for the advancement
libertarianism.
Edward|11.19.07 @ 12:53AM|#
I look forward to all the lunatic conspiracy theories Ron Paul supporters will come up with to explain his inevitable loss. What a pathetic joke.
|11.19.07 @ 12:59AM|#
Nice refutation, Radley! It deserves a wider audience than just the few million who read your blog and Reason. (The world should be so blessed). Can You direct it to Mona Charen's audience? (Perhaps smaller than Reason's, but they really need it.)
Edward|11.19.07 @ 1:07AM|#
Ron Paul has taken some garden-variety right-wing Christian
positions. He's hardly libertarian when it comes to immigration.
Nazis probably like that and his opposition to gay
adoptions.:
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May
2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
(Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May
2005)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's
life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide
abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May
2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec
2003)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of
Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
(Mar 2006)
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May
2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep
2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman
Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital
treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep
1998)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting
immigration. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
|11.19.07 @ 1:11AM|#
Edward:
What a pathetic joke.
What's actually pathetic is that you hang around a site as good as
this and have no more to offer than what you do. You're way out of
your depth here.
Edward|11.19.07 @ 1:14AM|#
In his appalingly stupid screed "The War on Religion," Ron Paul
offers this ignorant and blatantly distorted view of the Founding
Fathers and their religious convictions:
"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 Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet
religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital
institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
|11.19.07 @ 1:18AM|#
Edward,
Most of those votes are manifestly not ant-libertarian. (Like
Edward cares if they are or not) Also, please cite a source.
Edward|11.19.07 @ 1:19AM|#
So is Ron Paul a liar or just an ignoramus?
http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-on-seperation-of-church-and.html
How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?
Zero! And if you don't believe me you can go check Ron Paul's own
congressional website where he has a copy of the text. Go to the
page and read it yourself. It is worth reading now and then. But if
you don't have time do a page search for "God" and see all the
abundant references on your own. All zero of them.
And what about the drafters of the Declaration of Independence?
That would be Thomas Jefferson. Paul says he would be "aghast at
the federal government's hostility to religion." Hostility? Didn't
Jefferson actually say something about that? He said that the
clergy, who opposed Jefferson strongly, "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." Eternal hostility to the schemes to promote state
religion.
|11.19.07 @ 1:26AM|#
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet
religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital
institutions that would eclipse the state in
importance."
That sounds good to this non-believer's ears. Churches that would
eclipse the state in importance means that the state would lack the
power to force Christianity on the
nation.
Edward|11.19.07 @ 1:28AM|#
What the Founding Fathers really thought about religion:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less
in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and
persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against
Religious Assessments, 1785.)
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions,
Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we
find religion encumbered with in these days?" - John Adams
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established,
nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner,
or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording
of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8,
1789).)
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war
or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by
the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall
ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the
two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President
John Adams.)
|11.19.07 @ 1:28AM|#
Ron Paul:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet
religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital
institutions that would eclipse the state in
importance."
That sounds good to this non-believer's ears. Churches that would
eclipse the state in importance means that the state would lack the
power to force Christianity on the nation.
Edward|11.19.07 @ 1:31AM|#
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?" (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)
Edward|11.19.07 @ 1:35AM|#
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. - Ron Paul
Edward|11.19.07 @ 1:44AM|#
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of
evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of
his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative
theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry.
Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of
scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
HUCKABEE: Yes.
TANCREDO: Yes.
COX: Yes.
BROWNBACK: Yes.
PAUL: Yes.
HUNTER: Yes.
KEYES: Yes.
|11.19.07 @ 1:46AM|#
Check out Edward making threats and having a tantrum on another
site:
I don't play games. Keep fucking with me and you and the rest
of the Urkobolds will find that out." - Edward
"Fuck with bull, and you WILL get the horns.
Fools." - Edweird
"Keep pushing me, Urkobolds. If you want a war I'll give you one.
Don't think for one second I'm joking either." - Edward
"Hey Urkobolds, how about keeping your schtick confined to your own
unfunny, racist [!?] website and keep it off of here." -
Edward
http://urkobold.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-wave-saturday_17.html
|11.19.07 @ 1:52AM|#
And note yet another of Edward's tired and baseless accusations of racism in the above.
|11.19.07 @ 1:57AM|#
Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation
of scientific facts that contradict the theory of
evolution?
And why would anyone be opposed to the presentation of scientific
facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
I certainly wouldn't. I just don't think that many exist.
Edward|11.19.07 @ 2:54AM|#
Austin Cline's Agnosticism / Atheism Blog
From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation,
Secularism
Ron Paul is frequently portrayed as a "sensible" conservative and
staunch libertarian, thus making him increasingly attractive as a
presidential candidate. He's being strongly promoted to
libertarians, conservatives fed up with Bush and the Christian
Right, and Democrats dissatisfied with the current crop of
Democratic candidates. At the same time, though, Ron Paul
demonstrates the limits of wedding libertarianism with social and
political conservatism. They simply don't mesh well.
Ron Paul's consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but
how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and
church/state separation? How many realize that his "states' rights"
rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to
promote "traditional marriage" and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul
is only a "libertarian" where and when it's convenient. Much of the
rest of the time, he's not merely a social conservative but a
religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of
Christian Nationalists.
If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a
significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately,
he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do -
but this doesn't mean that his candidacy won't influence people for
the worse. In particular, I'm concerned about people learning to
accept anti-secularism while making excuses for him and their
support of him. The first and most important step in preventing
that is to examine his ideas now and explain not only how wrong
they are, but also why they represent such a threat.
|11.19.07 @ 3:37AM|#
It's apparent, Edward, that you have absolutely zero in the way
of original thoughts or intellectual contributions.
I call for Edward to get the ban-hammer. Please.
|11.19.07 @ 6:46AM|#
"... his biggest supporters are Nazis, White
supremicists, and conspiracy nuts..." (emphasis mine)
Edward: Support that statement with references, or fuck right
off.
"Edward's favorite sexual act is to be sodomized by a donkey."
God|11.19.07 @ 6:52AM|#
How many times is God mentioned in the
Constitution?
I don't always sign My work.
Mr. Blather|11.19.07 @ 8:06AM|#
Alex Jones has some kooky theories, but he did do an excellent
analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act that was cited by Project Censored
a couple years ago.
He also is the only person I know of who did anything resembling a
ballistics test on Cheney's claim his friend was "90 feet away"
when he shot him in the face. According to Jones' test it was more
like 10-20 feet.
|11.19.07 @ 8:54AM|#
Edward if you are so lazy that you can't even provide a source
PROVING the accuracy of your smear at 1:44 am regarding Paul's
alleged support of teaching alternatives to evolution in schools,
why do you think we ought to listen to you ?
No one here takes you seriously, dude.
If that bothers you, you may want to figure out why we don't.
Fluffy|11.19.07 @ 8:58AM|#
The policy impact of Paul's views on the place of religion in
society can be boiled down to one sentence: he thinks that the
state should not have the power to suppress the religious speech of
its citizens while they are on public property, in the same way it
should not have the power to suppress political speech on public
property.
Despite my militant atheism and hostility to religion, I can
certainly see his point. If the state cannot prevent one school
student from turning to another and saying, "You know, Democrats
really suck," then it should not have the power to stop one student
from turning to another and saying, "You know, it would be really
good if we prayed to Jesus right now." Don't like that? Get rid of
the public schools. Problem solved.
If I can get together with 1000 hippies in a public park and wave
signs against the war, then if a bunch of Christians want to get
together in a public park and have a revival meeting, the state
should not be able to stop them. If private citizens' groups are
encouraged to set up memorials to war or to historical events in a
public park, if some Christian want to put up a plaque with the 10
Commandments on it they really should be able to. Don't like it?
Get rid of the public parks and town greens. Problem solved.
It's a question of whether these private actions are
"establishments", and it's very difficult to say that they are. In
any event, even if you disagree with Paul's view of the nature of
the Establishment Clause, it's certainly a defensible
libertarian view of it, and not some shocking Christian
Dominionist view.
|11.19.07 @ 9:03AM|#
How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?
I don't always sign My work.
Further evidence you don't exist, since, in your omniscience, you
would have noticed that the signators acknowledged doing so in a
year of your making.
|11.19.07 @ 9:04AM|#
For everyone who thinks Ron Paul wants to criminalize abortion,
if you watch that interview he did with the editorial staff of some
New Hampshire paper, he actually said that he thought an abortion
ban would be unenforceable.
For one thing, he thinks RU-486 should be widely available, and he
says there's no legal evidence of an abortion when one takes that.
He also said that he doesn't think jailing pregnant mothers is at
all a good idea.
Over at Pandragon, you get ignorant comments to the effect that Ron
Paul wants to cut off peole's social security check, which is a
blatantly false misrepresentation of his actual policy
prescriptions.
Are we to believe that unlike the nut-job faction of the left-wing
that the white supremacists er sorry white nationalists are the
only ones in the world who understand Ron paul?
And a rhetorical question for edward,
If you were on a sinking ship, and some Illinois Nazis were riding
on it, and when a fishing boat came alongside some of the Nazi
called for them to throw a rope over which hey did, would you
refuse to climb down the rope because the Nazis thought it was a
good idea?
Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 9:19AM|#
Edward,
I'm sure Giuliani shares your "mainstream Libertarian" opposition
to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as
your denunciation of *all* churches, including Christian. That's a
winning platform, right there!
Now, let's look at Dr. Paul's positions to see if the National
Socialists would support them.
"Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May
2007)
"Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
(Jan 2007)
"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May
2005)"
The National Socialists supported medical experimentation on human
beings, so they would have been happy with embryonic stem-cell
research.
"Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save
mother's life. (Oct 2003)
"Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide
abortion info. (Sep 2002)
"Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
(May 2001)
"Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
"Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec
2003)"
The National Socialists legalized abortion - for Jews! Under the
Weimar Republic, abortion was a crime. The National Socialists kept
it a crime for "Aryans" only. Nowadays, many abortions are
performed on babies in marginal families - especially black people.
So he National Socialists would have been fully comfortable with
abortion. Not to mention the "research" which "proves" that
aborting black babies lowers crime - that Nazis would have been
happy to support abortion on such grounds.
"Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of
Allegiance. (Jul 2006) "
The National Socialists, at least from 1941-1945, looked askance at
people who pledged allegiance to the US flag, so they're on the
other side from Dr. Paul.
"Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
(Mar 2006)
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May
2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep
2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman
Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital
treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep
1998)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting
immigration. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Guy Montag|11.19.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Um, if that list of votes that Edward posted are accurate I must
lean a little farther in the Dr. Paul direction. Now, if he would
just polish up a bit and stop coming across as the Dennis Kucinich
of the Republican Party . . .
BTW, anybody have anything on that comment I made in this thread
last night? Was the only Nazi money returned a result of an
incorrect donation amount or were other monies involved?
NO, knee-jerkers, I do not think that Dr. Paul contributed to
Nazis. Just wondering about refunds and corrections.
AuH20|11.19.07 @ 9:35AM|#
Edward | November 18, 2007, 3:39pm | #
Charen's analysis seems right on to me. Ron Paul has effectively smeared hismelf by not diavowing the extremist, Nazi support and returning the Nazi cash. The only people nuttier and creepier that Ron Paul are the slavering zealots who still think he has any chance at all of being nominated
Mornin',
Edward!
Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 9:38AM|#
More items of Ed's list:
"Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
(Mar 2006)"
How much did Dr. Paul vote to appropriate for "White
colleges"?
"Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May
2007)"
Hitler was a naturalized German citizen of Austrian origin. If only
the Weimar Republic had been more xenophopic, and had excluded
naturalized citizens from high office, Hitler could never have
reached power. So I suppose that National Socialists would support
the eligibility of naturalized citizens for high office.
"Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep
2006)"
Try out that talking point of Daily Kos.
"Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman
Project. (Jun 2006)"
Dr. Paul has repeatedly explained that the combination of a large
welfare state an open borders is a recipe for disaster. Hence, the
need to oppose illegal immigration.
"Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital
treatment. (May 2004)"
See above.
"Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May
2001)"
If only the Weimar Republic had been more strict with that Austrian
immigrant!
"Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep
1998)"
National Socialists opposed skilled workers if they were the wrong
race, religion or politics.
"Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting
immigration. (Dec 2003)"
See above on illegal immigration.
"Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep
2004)"
Protecting the Pledge of Allegiance - proof that you're more
mainstream than Dr. Paul.
"Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)"
The National Socialist attitude toward gays evolved over time.
Under Weimar and the first two years of National Socialist rule,
the Nazi paramilitary arm, the SA, had a big gay influence. After
the SA got purged, the Nazis swung around to being anti-gay.
However, you have to wonder about what was on the minds of Hitler
and his buddies when they idealized the image of tall, blond,
muscular Aryans.
R C Dean|11.19.07 @ 10:17AM|#
Am I the only who thinks is a little odd that supporters of a
party that had an actual bona fide "out" KKKer as an actual elected
Republican official in Louisiana are trying to smear Ron Paul for
accepting a few campaign contributions?
(And since the Dems have spent decades re-electing Klan Kleagles to
the Senate, they should keep their fucking mouths shut on this
also.)
Bingo|11.19.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Anyone got a link to that pic of Michelle Malkin in a bikini? I'm thinking some people here need to relieve a little tension.
Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Bingo,
There is no such picture, but there *is* a picture of someone else
in a bikini, with Malkin's head Photoshopped onto it:
http://tinyurl.com/en3cb
Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 10:59AM|#
No offense to La Malkin, but I don't associate her with
"relieving tension" in any form. That's like lulling yourself to
sleep with the gentle sounds of Fran Drescher's voice.
But whatever floats your boat, dude.
|11.19.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Mad Max,
When you see her on your teevee, hit the mute button.
Then make up your own words while she's speaking.
Guy Montag|11.19.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Am I the only who thinks is a little odd that supporters of
a party that had an actual bona fide "out" KKKer as an actual
elected Republican official in Louisiana are trying to smear Ron
Paul for accepting a few campaign contributions?
Nice phrasing to exclude any other party, State or other KKK
official, thus skillfully removing Senator Byrd, the Democrat party
and West Virginia from the discussion.
BRAVO to you Sir! Did this work during your high school
debates?
Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 11:15AM|#
"make up your own words while she's speaking."
Let's see: "Hello, I'm Michelle Malkin, and I'm all that stands
between American and the invading foreign hordes. Isn't it great
how our wonderful conservative President, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, locked up American citizens because of their national
origin? We need to do that sort of thing more often. And, by the
way, isn't it horrible how all my enemies are such racists?"
|11.19.07 @ 11:17AM|#
It's apparent, Edward, that you have absolutely zero in the
way of original thoughts or intellectual contributions.
I call for Edward to get the ban-hammer. Please.
You guys actually read anything he *cough* writes? I filter him
right out.
If you ignore him.....
|11.19.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Guy, it might help if you had read the second paragraph of the
comment you seem to have gotten so exercised over.
The other clue is that the comment was made by a regular here who
has never exactly cultivated an image as an apologist for the
Democrats.
R C Dean|11.19.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Nice phrasing to exclude any other party, State or other KKK
official, thus skillfully removing Senator Byrd, the Democrat party
and West Virginia from the discussion.
Try reading the next sentence, Guy.
Oh, and can I have entered into the record that I have just been
accused of being a partisan Democrat?
Dave Woycechowsky|11.19.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Oh, and can I have entered into the record that I have just
been accused of being a partisan Democrat?
Noted and lol'd. Oh, and nice comment above, RCD.
|11.19.07 @ 11:47AM|#
See, Max, that's just not the sort of thing Silent Malkin would
say.
I mean, there wasn't a single "coo" in that statement.
I don't think you understand what Silent Malkin in all about.
Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Ewww - not even Malkin deserves having a bunch of H&R posters beating off to her picture.
Guy Montag|11.19.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Wow, that scroll thingie on the side reveals important
information on occasion.
Apologies RCD.
|11.19.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Oh, and can I have entered into the record that I have just
been accused of being a partisan Democrat?
Team Red's logic is, Not Bush Republican=Libruh!
Team Blue's logic is, Not liberal Democrat=Bush supporter!
Either that, or the Democrats like to accuse me of being
"objectively pro-Bush Republican".
|11.19.07 @ 1:21PM|#
I wasn't able to find anyone defending Charen in the comments to her story, so I came over here to read Edward. Thanks, buddy, for reminding me that only Nazi's support Ron Paul.
R C Dean|11.19.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Apologies RCD.
No prob, Guy. Worth it so I can periodically reming people that I
have on occasion been mistaken as a Democrat.
Edward|11.19.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Kooks for Ron Paul:
Jim C Perry, the "Orthodox Jewish" head of "Jews for Paul" also
calls himself a gay pagan Unitarian.
Now it turns out that Perry, Paul's point man in response to
questions raised by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, is also accused of
stealing money from the local New Hampshire branch of the
Libertarian Party. What a great guy! It's only an accusation. And
the "Libertarian" Perry was in 2006 running for New Hampshire
Legislature as a Democrat.
|11.19.07 @ 2:57PM|#
he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles)
Huh, and all these years I thought "Liberal Hollywood Types" was
shorthand for teh Jooos. Damn, I learn sumthin' new every day.
Guy Montag|11.19.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Well, even with all of this positive spin, Dr. Paul shall
not be gaining so much as a schilling, lira or nickle from
Italians for an Independant Scotland* until Dr. Paul
clears up his position on thr right of people to be free from the
yoke of tyranny! And just how he shall support this said yoke
loosing.
*Sorry, only one member for now but I use the plural in advance of
sweeping international polularity.
Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 3:11PM|#
"is also accused of stealing money from the local New Hampshire
branch of the Libertarian Party. What a great guy! It's only an
accusation."
Just as the grand jury's accusation of child sex abuse against
Giuliani's lifelong friend who got a job in Giuliani's consulting
firm, is only an accusation.
Stealing from the Libertarian Party, eh? Wow, he must have really
cleaned out! I'm surprised he didn't move to Monaco with the
proceeds of his alleged theft.
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