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
Bad Reporting on Ron Paul
Seven months ago I predicted:
If he gets into another tussle with a frontrunner or if the campaign actually starts gaining ground in some state polls, Paul's controversies won't stay obscure.
Now Paul's winning the fourth quarter GOP fundraising race and
polling at spoiler level in the first four primary states, so,
voila: The E-Z Smears begin! The Associated Press
chases down the story of Stormfront.org founder Don Black's
donation to Paul, a story that had been reported elsewhere
(including on this site) more
than a month ago. Yesterday Paul was booked on Fox's Your World
With Neil Cavuto for one of the most thuggish, ill-informed
interviews conducted by a neckless man since MSNBC's Nachman stopped
clogging news junkies' arteries back in ought-three. The segment
began with Cavuto asking Paul what he thought of the leading
candidates' Christmas-themed ad, noting "I can't see you doing
these type of ads"—even though Paul actually did
one nine days ago.
Then Cavuto pivots to the Black story:
CAVUTO: There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?
PAUL: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes?
And I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?
And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.
CAVUTO: All right. So, Congressman, when you find out that it's this Don Black who made the donation, and who ran a site called Stormfront, White Pride Worldwide, now that you know it, now that you're familiar after the fact, you still would not return it?
PAUL: Well, if I spent his money and I took the money that maybe you might have sent to me and donate it back to him, that does not make any sense to me. Why should I give him money to promote his cause? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Frank James of the Baltimore Sun has an
interesting take on this, on the implications of Paul taking
money from anyone with a check book. Wonkette
responds in the typically overwritten, mirthless style that's
killing the site. (How does a DC gossip blog
lose traffic in the year of Larry Craig?)
Like I said, I expected a Paul rise to kick up some negative
coverage of the candidate. I'm just surprised said coverage is so
rote and
lazy*.
*"Lazy" refers to the lack of reporters at the presser, not
Crowley's smart post
mrk|12.20.07 @ 11:28AM|#
At the end of the interview, Cavuto mumbled and suggested it is unreasonable to expect a candidate to check the backgrounds of all of his or her donors.
Brian S|12.20.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Here is what I wrote in the comments section of the Sun
article:
The people for whom this is a controversy just don't understand
libertarians.
To a libertarian, a man's moral standing is utterly and absolutely
his own. Nothing he has not freely chosen makes up part of his
moral being in any way.
To Paul, since he came by the money honestly - by forthrightly
stating his platform and asking for donations - the money can't
possibly be "tainted". Mr. Black can't soil or sully Mr. Paul or
his campaign by contributing to it, because Mr. Black is completely
irrelevant and can never be relevant.
Asking a libertarian to send back a donation like this is like
asking a libertarian for slavery reparations. They consider even
the request to be a deadly moral insult.
That's why Paul seems to be so pissy about this issue, when he
otherwise has been quite mild during the campaign in the face of
provocation. [Unlike his more belligerent supporters.] Paul's been
happy to stand there and be booed at debates and laughed at by the
other candidates and insulted and marginalized by the media and
none of it has fazed him. But asking about this donation is the one
thing that has pissed him off - because it pushes a libertarian hot
button.
Lance Braga|12.20.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Cavuto is a truly obnoxious talking head. He's also an
intellectual lightweight. He's also a douchebag. Nothing he says
matters.
(How does a DC gossip blog lose traffic in the year of Larry
Craig?)
Because the writing is horrid fluff nonsense and everybody knows
it. They should just start blogging about Britney Spears' vagina
like every other brainless dipshit with a computer.
|12.20.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Neil Cavuto? For a laugh, read what that jackass said on Mission Accomplished Day.
|12.20.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Is it just me or have there been an exponential increase in (silly and weak) attacks on Ron Paul as of late? This of course is a good sign as it's basically an admission of the media that they consider him to be a real threat. Go Ron Paul! Big ups and mad love to the supporters of freedom and the constitution. Make sure to make your voice heard and vote for Ron Paul.
|12.20.07 @ 11:56AM|#
The whole line of questioning seems to come from a couple of
unstated assumptions.
(1) Inanimate objects (or even intangible goods like money) have
some kind of power or agency. In this case, it seems Cavuto
believes that money, once held by a nazi, has some power to corrupt
whoever the nazi gives it to.
(2) Collectivism, in this case the belief that because you took
someone's money you are now associated with them and can be held
responsible for their beliefs.
I would note that both of these beliefs are often held in tandem by
nanny staters and their ilk, but are anathema to free men.
Russ 2000|12.20.07 @ 12:00PM|#
It's the people bringing up the story that are promoting Don Black's cause. Bad ink is more useful than no ink.
|12.20.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Why don't we talk about Murdock donating to Clinton? Why don't we talk about the so called anti war democrats receiving more money than the republicans from MILITARY CONTRACTORS? Why don't we talk about the special interests who are flooding the campaign coffers of the so called top tier candidates? No, let's pick on a 72 year old man instead.
|12.20.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Speaking of Wonkette, what the hell is wrong with the commenters
there? What a bunch of angry tools.
I miss the Weigel-friendly Wonkette, especially compared to today's
worthless version.
|12.20.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Neil Cavuto is one of the worst people I have ever seen on television(though about average for FoxNews), he seems to (I am assuming willfully) misunderstand every issue. I can't watch his pudgy face anymore.
|12.20.07 @ 12:13PM|#
No, let's pick on a 72 year old man instead.
The above sounds whiney. Ron Pauls a big boy, all grown up in the
world of politics. He, and we, expected this shit and can take
it.
|12.20.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Wonkette is experiencing a full blown attack of 'tardedness. Their editorial staff needs immediate treatment.
Mad for Ron Paul|12.20.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Oh the powers that be fear the rise of Ron Paul, and they will do anything to stop him. The people are so hungry for what Ron Paul has to offer and so taken by his chasrm and wit that the evil corporate-controlled media can no longer ignore him. As Ron Paul continues to rise in the polls, expect the dogs of Hell to be unleashed against him. We, his faithful followers must be ready to suffer martyrdom for our pure libertarian beliefs, our commitment to freedom and everything good and noble, and our love and unwavering devotion to Ron Paul. His is a pure and unsullied grasp of all that matters is our guiding light. Ron Paul will prevail!
Sam Grove|12.20.07 @ 12:24PM|#
Returning the contribution would be appeasement political correctness, and we can't have appeasement.
|12.20.07 @ 12:29PM|#
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.
Sam Grove|12.20.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Doesn't the text at the bottom of the video say:
AD RUSH BY CANDIDATE TO SHOW THEIR "WARM AND FUZZY"
AIDE
|12.20.07 @ 12:43PM|#
That's funny, Sam. I thought that was a typo on your part. Then I actually looked at the screenshot. I guess I missed it because the eye is naturally drawn to Cavuto's wide open neck.
Episiarch|12.20.07 @ 12:46PM|#
How does a DC gossip blog lose traffic in the year of Larry
Craig?
Considering Wonkette got famous combining gossip politics with anal
sex references, you'd think the Larry Craig thing would be perfect.
Maybe being hacks isn't a good thing?
|12.20.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Episiarch, I think you're thinking of Wonkette the person (Ana
Marie Cox) rather than Wonkette the blog. Ana's not the one
presiding over the site's declines.
And the anal sex jokes were kind of funny.
Episiarch|12.20.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Episiarch, I think you're thinking of Wonkette the person
(Ana Marie Cox) rather than Wonkette the blog. Ana's not the one
presiding over the site's declines.
That was sort of my point. They need to go back to that style--in
other words, bring her back, if they want to be amusing again.
Kolohe|12.20.07 @ 1:04PM|#
Cartoon violence, by the same guy who does comics crumudgeon, is pretty funny, but that's the only the on the site I read.
|12.20.07 @ 1:10PM|#
The same people who criticize Dr. Paul for accepting donations from a racist hate group probably don't have a problem with the State seizing assets from drug dealers and using that tainted money for the children rather than incinerating it with the drugs.
|12.20.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Nobody is expecting Ron Paul to screen all his donations, but to
respond when somebody else digs up something like this.
Dodge.
He doesn't have to return it; he could give it to the ADL or ACLU.
Dodge.
Paul's being particularly weasely here, which is a mistake. He's
reputation for honesty and the contrast that draws with other
candidates is his strongest asset, andhe's pissing it away.
And to my fellow commenters, the flaming double-standard at play
compared to how donations to the candidates you don't like is
really glaring.
StevenNYC|12.20.07 @ 1:26PM|#
People are missing the big picture here, America is in bad shape. The Economy is is failing, deficits out of control, dollar plumetting and our millitary is in shambles. A vote for Ron Paul will return prosperity back to America. If elected the dollar would surpass the British pound in value by 2011
|12.20.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Please, people! Why are we still so shocked with this news? Dr. Paul is doing NOTHING wrong by keeping a donation which he received from an American!!! Whether that American has faulty views, is irrelevant. This man does NOT have the best values to respect, HOWEVER, as an American, it is still his right to vote & donate to any candidate he sees fit & it is ridiculous to suggest that Dr. Ron Paul should return that money....Like Dr Paul says, now he is able to use this money for a good cause & by doing so he is NOT condoning any racist views! Please, mainstream media, please understand this simple fact!
Mad for Ron Paul|12.20.07 @ 1:34PM|#
a vote for Ron Paul will return prosperity back to
America....
and greatly reduce redundancy.
|12.20.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Follow the Money
David Weigel | October 18, 2007, 8:53am
Hillary Clinton is raking it in from defense contractors:
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the
Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top
five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman,
Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential
candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.
Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going
to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going
to the entire GOP field.
Ron Paul is raking it in from harmless eccentrics.
Paul's third-quarter financial disclosure report is sprinkled with
supporters whose self-descriptions of their occupations are
unusual, to say the least. Wade Talkington of Panama City, Fla.,
who donated $1,000 to Paul, lists his occupation as "tax slave to
the Federal Govt." Erik Hovden of Olalla, Wash., is the "Head
slacker in Chg" at Simpson LLC, and housewife Pamela Schuberg of
Moorpark, Calif., a $2,300 donor, lists her employer as "our
children."
...
Starchild, a San Francisco-based escort and exotic dancer who ended
up on Paul's list as "Star Child," contributed $300. Starchild,
formerly Chris Fox, is a perennial Libertarian candidate in the Bay
Area, having run unsuccessfully for district supervisor, the state
assembly and the school board. Self-described monetary architect
Bernard Von Nothaus, who has said Paul is the "Internet's favorite
presidential candidate," has created a $1 Ron Paul coin and is
listed in the disclosure report as giving a $2,300 in-kind
contribution of coins.
So, wait, what are we saying about campaign donations again?
robc|12.20.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Nobody is expecting Ron Paul to screen all his donations,
but to respond when somebody else digs up something like
this.
He did respond. His reponse was "Im keeping it."
He doesn't have to return it; he could give it to the ADL or
ACLU.
Or he could spend it on advancing freedom by making Ron Paul
president. An even better use.
Paul's being particularly weasely here, which is a mistake.
He's reputation for honesty and the contrast that draws with other
candidates is his strongest asset, and he's pissing it
away.
He is being neither weasely nor dishonest. What is dishonest about
it? He is being particularly honest, in fact.
Homer J.|12.20.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.
Mad for Ron Paul|12.20.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Ron Paul does not seek honours. He loathes pomp. He is averse to public displays. He could have all the nominal regalia in the chest of a great state. But he prefers the background. He is the perfect inheritor of the individual rights enthroned in the Constitution. No other American is endowed with that characteristic. Ron Paul is the stern father of a family, the dogmatic pastor of a flock. He is a boss, with this difference: his power is not used for personal aggrandisement. Moreover, he is a boss with an education. Notwithstanding general impressions, Ron Paul is a widely informed and well-read person.
|12.20.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Although, joe, I think you're right that it would have been cool for him to donate the money to the ACLU or the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
|12.20.07 @ 1:43PM|#
(though come to think of it, the neo-Nazis employ the ACLU all the time) ... so maybe not.
robc|12.20.07 @ 1:43PM|#
joe,
Has Hillary returned the money (or donated it to charity) she
received from General Dynamics employees?
Discloser: Im a GD shareholder, I purchased in Feb of 2002. It has
doubled in price in that timeframe.
|12.20.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Setting aside the childish semantics, I count exactly one
substantive reply:
Or he could spend it on advancing freedom by making Ron Paul
president. An even better use.
Hmm, let's try that on Hillary Clinton.
She could return the money that that felon bundled, or she could
spend it on advancing lawfulness by making Hillary Clinton
president.
Howzat work for you?
|12.20.07 @ 1:47PM|#
robc,
I have no idea. Do you think she should?
Are you suggesting that accepting money from unsavory sources
tarnishes a candidate? Indicates support or a willingness to work
with them?
I have to admit, you have me at a disadvantage here. I neither know
nor care very much about Hillary Clinton's campaign donations,
while you are obviously quite the defender of Ron Paul and know a
great deal about his donations.
robc|12.20.07 @ 1:49PM|#
joe,
If the felon illegally bundled the money, I think it should be
returned. If it was legally collected, I dont have problem with her
keeping it just because he is a felon. (Im not sure on the legality
of that case, I didnt follow it that closely, but I do know what
you are talking about). However, the premise of your argument is in
question. Does making Hillary president advance lawfulness?
Assuming the premise of your argument is true (which it isnt) and
assuming the money was a legal donataion (?) then I have no problem
with her keeping it.
Personally, because I dont believe the premise is true, I think she
should return all money she collects. :)
|12.20.07 @ 1:50PM|#
I neither know nor care very much about Hillary Clinton's
campaign donations
Why not? She's your mad cow. And you seem to have quite the
interest in one tiny donation to the Paul campaign from a lone
whackjob.
|12.20.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Also, robc, I wouldn't exactly put "General Dynamnics employees"
in the same category as "White Supremacists."
You didn't really mean to suggest that, did you?
|12.20.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
I haven't the foggiest idea how you could draw that conclusion. I
ruled out voting for her in the primaries months ago.
robc|12.20.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Also, robc, I wouldn't exactly put "General Dynamnics
employees" in the same category as "White Supremacists."
I didnt. I wouldnt insult White Supremacists that way.
Mad for Ron Paul|12.20.07 @ 1:52PM|#
http://www.davidduke.com/general/clear-media-conspiracy-against-ron-paul_2126.html
Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul
Regardless of whose poll numbers you use, it has become obvious to
anyone willing to look, that Americans all over this country,
responded to Rep. Ron Paul's message and his straight forward
programs to rescue this train wreck that The United States has
become. Immigration, The Economy, The War, as you go down the list,
his common sense approach and singly focused view of what is best
for America within the framework of what the Constitution says,
makes him stand out from the rest of the group of professional
liars, thieves, and grade B actors like a bonfire on a dark
night!
I wouldn't want to be Ron Paul. I've heard that he has some real
concerns about his safety should he become a serious contender. And
I must admit that we as a country don't have a great record when it
come to protecting our leaders when they don't go along with the
Bankers and other corporate Godfathers.
I have no inside information about what the future holds for the
good congressman, but one thing I CAN say by way of observation
..
"Rep. Paul may not be able to walk on water, but he has already
demonstrated that he is fully capable of swimming with the sharks
!"
|12.20.07 @ 1:52PM|#
The petty little things that the media and people focus on are very disheartening. WE ARE LOSING OUR COUNTRY PEOPLE! Our freedom, our economy, our standing in the world, are fading fast, and we are talking about a $500 donation? If we are going to talk about money, let us talk about the size of the federal deficit, or maybe, the size of our trade deficit, or the size of our military budget. Are we really that petty and/or stupid?
robc|12.20.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Note: since in the past it has happened that joe is humor impaired when it comes to my posts, the one at 1:51 is a joke.
|12.20.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Perhaps, Jamie, you just don't understand what "principled"
means.
Principle means standing up for what you think is right even when
you don't like the outcome or the people who might benefit. You
know, like when someone who doesn't like Hillary Clinton very much
objects to dishonest campaign rhetoric aimed at her.
|12.20.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Jeffrey,
No kidding. And it's $500 he plainly doesn't even need. Why he'd
rather spend his media appearances swatting this story away instead
of talking about his agenda is beyond me, when he could make the
whole thing vanish overnight.
robc|12.20.07 @ 1:56PM|#
joe,
How about these principle:
Money is neither good nor evil, it is a tool.
Money freely given belongs to the person it is given too.
Thus money FORMERLY owned by a person who does evil has no evil
attached to it when given to someone else and can be freely spent
as the recipient chooses.
robc|12.20.07 @ 1:58PM|#
joe,
Actually, this gives Paul a chance to point out a key
characteristic of his: He cannot be bought.
|12.20.07 @ 1:59PM|#
I don't like it, joe, when Hillary is smeared by the right, even
though I've long come to the conclusion that she's a borderline
socialist.
Nor do I like it when talking heads nit-pick to death an
insignificant contribution in a pathetic attempt to corner Ron Paul
into some sort of "yes massa" act of phony contrition.
The fact that he won't do it? That's principled.
|12.20.07 @ 2:00PM|#
robc,
I went through that entire thread about the military contractors'
donations to Hillary Clinton, and didn't find a single comment
arguing what you are saying.
Fair or not, people draw conclusions about what donations to a
candidate mean. Nobody had any trouble acknowledging this concept
when the donations were going to Hillary. Heck, just about everyone
agreed with that assessment.
I don't know a great deal about this "partisanship" thing people
keep talking about, but I understand that holding your candidates
to one set of standards and everyone else's to another fits the
bill.
|12.20.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Actually, this gives Paul a chance to point out a key
characteristic of his: He cannot be bought.
Hmm, let's run that one through the tester.
Actually, these donations give Hillary the chance to point out a
key characteristic of hers: She cannot be bought.
|12.20.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
I agree, Paul is being principled here. In exactly the same way
Hillary would have been principled if she didn't return those
donations that felon had bundled for her.
It's tough to make the case that you are acting on high principle
when your actions benefit yourself.
Mad for Ron Paul|12.20.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating
poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own
destruction.
Down with the teachers' unions!
|12.20.07 @ 2:05PM|#
robc,
Because it's really hard to make the case that you are acting on
high principle when your actions benefit yourself.
And because she wants her media appearances for the next six months
to be about health care, Iraq policy, and the issues she wants to
talk about, instead of campaign donations and implications about
what they mean.
robc|12.20.07 @ 2:06PM|#
joe,
I didnt participate in that other thread so you cant use it here.
:)
Also, it could be argued that there is a difference in scale. No
one (reasonably) expects a $500 dollar donation to a presidential
candidate to influence policy. Lobbyists do expect $56k donations
to influence policy. Those lobbyists have been wrong in the past
and may be in Hillary's case. But, I havent heard her say she wants
to pull all the troops from 100+ countries home.
|12.20.07 @ 2:07PM|#
You know, if Ron Paul saw a homeless guy sitting on his front
lawn rubbing his sore feet, he could grab a shotgun, order the man
off his property, and spend the next six months explaining that he
did nothing wrong and was acting on principle.
But that would be really, really stupid.
|12.20.07 @ 2:08PM|#
It's tough to make the case that you are acting on high
principle when your actions benefit yourself.
Now that's true.
robc|12.20.07 @ 2:09PM|#
I have donated $200 so far to the Paul campaign. How come there hasnt been a big media push for that to be returned to me? Im sure I hold some views that the majority of America finds evil.
|12.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
No one said this was reasonable, robc. Of course Ron Paul isn't
going to turn into a neo-Nazi because some nutjob sent him a
piddling $500 donation.
But this is the big leagues. If Ron Paul wants to project the image
of a plausible candidate, he can't get bogged down bullshit like
this. The Heathers are going to hang him with this if he lets
them.
robc|12.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
The funny thing about acting on principle is that, in most cases, in the long run, it benefits yourself.
|12.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
You know, if Ron Paul saw a homeless guy sitting on his
front lawn rubbing his sore feet, he could grab a shotgun, order
the man off his property, and spend the next six months explaining
that he did nothing wrong and was acting on principle.
The principle of being a rude, overbearing asshole in a situation
that doesn't at all require the threat of deadly force to protect
property that clearly isn't in danger of being stolen or
plundered?
|12.20.07 @ 2:12PM|#
robc,
Probably because you are completely obscure, and because you aren't
actually as repugnant as a white supremacist.
a certain H&R regular|12.20.07 @ 2:12PM|#
I am here once again to invent issues which I will then muddy
with arguments that matter only academically. I do this in the hope
of accomplishing a very important goal of mine: to identify the
main point in a post on Hit&Run and then as quickly and as
opaquely as I can declare it deficient based on the flimsiest of
cobbled-together arguments, which I will insist are masterpieces of
rhetoric, as I and my fellow commentators spiral down the drain of
infinite regress on yet another Hit&Run thread.
That's the beauty of my arguments, people. They don't even have to
matter because they are pedantic piddlings over minutiae
that can't possibly be relevant to an issue. The best part is my
old chestnut: "No, [name], I didn't say the surface of the sun is
5800 degrees Kelvin. I said it is 5799 degrees Kelvin. See
the difference?"
I am the best person ever.
robc|12.20.07 @ 2:14PM|#
you aren't actually as repugnant as a white
supremacist.
I was going to respond with "thats not what your mother said" but I
dont think that really works in this case.
|12.20.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
The principle that he can defend his property rights with
force.
Some people would consider accepting money from neo-Nazis to be a
pretty unattractive act, too.
|12.20.07 @ 2:17PM|#
But I do apologize for changing the subject from the media's
response to Ron Paul's campaign donations to...the media's response
to Ron Paul's campaign donations.
Bad joe! Bad!
|12.20.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Ron Paul should return Neil Cavuto's neck, and I don't want to hear any of your kneejerk apologies!
|12.20.07 @ 2:19PM|#
I've yet to see the media point out that she's gotten so much in
donations from defense contractors. Why doesn't the media challenge
her convictions that are contrary to the agendas of
defense contractors?
If she comes right out and says something to the effect of what
Paul said, or denies that she shares the agenda of the defense
contractors but would be happy to take their money anyway, I'd be
more inclined to believe that the defense contractors have no
reason to have faith that their campaign donations will benefit
them.
|12.20.07 @ 2:22PM|#
Ron Paul should return Neil Cavuto's neck
You have to have a head to set on it.
|12.20.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Reinmoose,
I don't think it's the "incongrous beliefs" angle that's driving
this, but the loathesomeness of the donor. Ron Paul has, no doubt,
received a lot more than $500 bucks from liberals, but that doesn't
get reported either. Defense contractors aren't generally
considered to be evil.
As for what you would believe about Hillary Clinton if she said
that: BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAAAAA! Yeah, right, sure you
would. "Oh, but Hillary SAID she wouldn't be influenced by this
money, and she SAID it doesn't demonstrate that she's in line with
their agenda, so I, Reinmoose, totally take her word for it."
Um...no.
|12.20.07 @ 2:27PM|#
"That man has no fucking neck!"
The gains from this morning are disappearing...
"Like your fucking neck!"
The Cavuto Horror Picture Show.
|12.20.07 @ 2:31PM|#
As unfair as it is, Reinmoose, "Hillary Clinton is a warmonger"
is not a narrative that the press considers familiar, and "Ron Paul
is right-wing extremist" is.
The MSM jumps on stories that fit their pre-conceived narratives,
and as of right now, non-mainstream political factions all get
lumped together.
neo-nazis, libertarians, LaRouche people, whatever. If all that Ron
Paul accomplishes is to disabuse people of that notion, he will
have done a tremendous service to libertarianism, and keeping this
story alive isn't helping.
robc|12.20.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Defense contractors aren't generally considered to be
evil.
In addition to GD, I also have a big stock position in Philip
Morris, but, fortunately, tobacco companies arent generally
considered to be evil. Im not even going to mention my Exxon
stock.
Huh, makes me wonder, do I have any stock in companies that arent
evil?
robc|12.20.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Speaking of threadjacks and Hillary, a new fark headline:
Hillary Clinton tries to launch anti-Obama websites,
apparently not realizing that unlike her own idiot staff, some
people know about a little tool called WHOIS and see who they're
registered to
|12.20.07 @ 2:39PM|#
LOL!
Our country is being run by people who don't know how to "work
computers."
Bush says, "There are lots of rumors on the INTERNETS..."
Ted Kennedy says on his local cable access show, "Er, um, we put up
the, ah, web numbah..."
And, of course, the internet is a series of tubes.
And the worst part is, it's only going to get worse.
Read your Alvin Toffler. It's Future Shock, baby.
The Ubermensch|12.20.07 @ 2:41PM|#
If we have to censor one contributor's Ideals, let's not forget
Hillary, Obama and Giuliana hold Similar Values to Adolph Hitler,
who was a Socialist, Pro-Gun Control, Supported Government Over
regulation of Labor Unions, Social Services, and most important of
All, Hitler was Democratically Elected.
Hitler used Jews as a Hate Point to drive his Goals; they are using
Terrorists, Drugs, and similar tactics. Hitler needed an enemy, so
do they.
Ron Paul's enemy is Dishonesty.
Vote Rationally, Vote Responsibly...
Vote Ron Paul.
robc|12.20.07 @ 2:45PM|#
The thing is, I dont expect Clinton (or Paul) to understand the internet. But I expect their IT staff to understand it. And to listen when they tell them they have a dumb idea (I understand Bush has the problem of not listening). Ive had clients who understood that I know more and will take my advice (or at least consider it) and others who got pissed at me trying to give them advice (they arent clients for long).
|12.20.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Defense contractors aren't generally considered to be
evil.
BUZZZ!!
WRONG!
I know plenty of people who would consider themselves liberals who
have completely written-off some of their friends because they went
to work for defense contractors. The term "Military Industrial
Complex" has very negetive connotations in a lot of circles and is
considered to be in some way evil.
There's something behind publicly denouncing the agenda of those
who donate to your campaign that isn't there when you sit quietly
on it. I'm not faulting her for not bringing it up... I wouldn't if
I were her... but if she were challenged on it, it takes more
strength to dencounce the agenda of the donors than it does to
avoid comment.
So yes, I would be "more inclined" (not inclined, not that I
necessarily would completely believe her, which isn't even
what I said...) to believe that the defense contractors have no
reason to have faith that their campaign donations will benefit
them.
Not "totally take her word for it."
Derrr
Fluffy|12.20.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Are you suggesting that accepting money from unsavory
sources tarnishes a candidate? Indicates support or a willingness
to work with them?
Well, Joe, I'd like your evaluation here:
Which do you consider more likely: that large contributors to
Hillary Clinton's campaign will get something for their
contributions, or that Black will get something for his?
Fluffy|12.20.07 @ 3:15PM|#
As for what you would believe about Hillary Clinton if she
said that: BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAAAAA! Yeah, right,
sure you would. "Oh, but Hillary SAID she wouldn't be influenced by
this money, and she SAID it doesn't demonstrate that she's in line
with their agenda, so I, Reinmoose, totally take her word for it."
Um...no.
I wouldn't believe her, because:
1. She is a liar and a manipulator.
2. The first Clinton administration showed great favoritism to
large honors, showering them with Lincoln bedroom sleepovers and
last-minute pardons.
So I would have grounds for not believing Hillary.
On what grounds am I to believe that Ron Paul will seek to create a
white power fascist state?
Fluffy|12.20.07 @ 3:22PM|#
I understand that holding your candidates to one set of
standards and everyone else's to another fits the bill.
This is crap. It is perfectly appropriate for the known honesty or
dishonesty of the speaker to impact your evaluation of the
statements of that speaker.
But in any event - This isn't about the donation itself, or the
potential for the donor to have influence over the candidate, and
you know it. It's about the importance of ritual denunciations in
our symbolism-obsessed media-driven society. Black is bad, so Paul
must be seen to denounce him for his badness, and must undertake
the proper meaningless symbolic act to buy an indulgence from the
media. Fuck that noise.
Every day Hillary is asked to ritually denounce some statement made
by some party or to ritually comment on some meaningless symbolic
event, or to ritually comment on someone else's meaningless
symbolic act or statement. When does this nonsense end? Frankly,
during the Hsu episode I would have gained a lot of respect for
Hillary if she had cut off questioning on the matter by saying,
"You know what? Go fuck yourselves."
Paul is telling people that his platform is his platform and if
they don't like it they can go fuck themselves. Frankly, that's
ultimately the only way out of the grotesque semiotic game of
twister that modern politics has become.
|12.20.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Personally, I'm very good at Internet
¢£¥€ ©®™ ℠℞°±²³µ÷′ ″√∞≅≠≤ ≥•℃℉☠☢☣☤✄✌ ✔ ✗
☪☭☮☯✠✞✡♠♡♢♩♪♫♬♭☹☺☿ ♀♁♂♃ME TOO!♍ ♩♪♫♬♭
|12.20.07 @ 3:41PM|#
"The first Clinton administration showed great favoritism to
large honors, showering them with Lincoln bedroom sleepovers and
last-minute pardons."
Also allowing Loral and Hughes, who were big contributors to
Clinton, sell technology to China that allowed China to improve the
accuracy of their missiles.
Also making a national monument of some clean coal bearing land in
New Mexico of which the only competitor was Riadi's company in
Indonesia. Riadi was a top contributor to Clinton.
|12.20.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Picture a big slab of raw rump-roast with a microphone headset
propped up on a chair. This would be a better interview. Ron Paul
is so nice, he would still give his characteristic "Nice to be with
you".
Somebody flipped a switch after the last $-bomb, the
smarmy-reporter factor is up to 11. As someone before me said,
"Fasten your seat belt Paulians, its going to be a bumpy ride.
|12.20.07 @ 4:10PM|#
reinmoose,
"I know this friend who..." Gee, that is impressive.
I've yet to see a single presidential candidate who suffered bad
press from having received donations from defense contractors.
|12.20.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Fluffy,
Which do you consider more likely: that large contributors to
Hillary Clinton's campaign will get something for their
contributions, or that Black will get something for his? Me?
Personally? What do I think? I think neither will get anything from
those two.
Now, if I were a Fox News viewer/Republican primary voter who
didn't know much about those wakcy libertarians except that they're
a third party fringe? I might draw all sort of conclusions about
Ron Paul.
|12.20.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Fluffy,
On the merits, I agree with you about the silly ritual denunciation
game, but it's not terribly smart politics for a candidate who
hopes to be more than a single-digit also-ran.
Frankly, that's ultimately the only way out of the grotesque
semiotic game of twister that modern politics has become.
Perhaps it is. I guess the question is whether Ron Paul is more
eager to plausibly compete for the Repubican nomination for the
presidency, or to give the country a civics lesson about campaign
donations.
|12.20.07 @ 4:23PM|#
I also think that Ron Paul's very outsiderness makes him a particularly poor choice to try to make that rather nuanced point.
|12.20.07 @ 4:26PM|#
I'm sorry, joe. It was a perfectly valid answer to a vague statement. I don't think it warrented your arrogance.
|12.20.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Reinmoose, aka Miss Manners,
If you wish to keep things civil, don't start your replies to me
with "BZZZTTT!! WRONG!!!"
Carry on.
|12.20.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Which do you consider more likely: that large contributors
to Hillary Clinton's campaign will get something for their
contributions, or that Black will get something for his? Me?
Personally? What do I think? I think neither will get anything from
those two.
I guess I could give you half-credit for that answer, joe, because
I think even you know that Hillary is a slimeball politician who
just really really really wants to be president, and Paul just
really really really wants his country back.
|12.20.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Sigh.
Yes, sage, it's only the politicians that everybody else likes who
act like politicians. The ones you like are the good people.
You know, for all the horse shit I've put up with about being a
"partisan" who allows my "blinders" to interfere with a healthy
skepticism, I should probably be a lot more pissed off by the
fanboi naivete of Ron Paul supporters.
But I can't. He's your first crush, and you don't have much
experience with this dating thing.
|12.20.07 @ 4:43PM|#
well, do you deny that (particularly those on the left, and many libertarians) view defense contractors very negetively? (albeit sometimes for different reasons.) It may not be seen as being as evil as white supremicists (in fact, isn't by the vast majority), but I wouldn't say they're squeaky clean.
|12.20.07 @ 4:47PM|#
I think it's a fringe position, reinmoose. In a country of
300,000,000 people, a fringe position can be held by millions, but
it's a fringe positions nonetheless.
This isn't the 30s. Heck, even Ike's "military-industrial complex"
speech would be characterized as an expression of radical
anti-American pacifism these days.
Once again, name me a politician who has suffered from being seen
as too close to defense contractors. I can't think of any.
Fluffy|12.20.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Joe, come on.
At least if Don Black had Bill Gates type money, we could theorize
that he thought maybe Paul would cut his income tax. Or if Black
was also a convicted pot smoker or tax evader, we might think he
was angling for a pardon.
But he's none of those things. And you and I both know there is
very, very little that a libertarian politician could feasibly be
offering a middle class race rabblerouser like Black. OTOH, I can
think of lots of things that a defense contractor might think they
could self-servingly obtain from Hillary, that it's pretty
reasonable to think they'll get.
I don't think evaluating the calculus of the donations in different
ways is due to a "crush". I'd be interested in hearing
counterarguments to the contrary.
|12.20.07 @ 4:56PM|#
If all that Ron Paul accomplishes is to disabuse people of
that notion, he will have done a tremendous service to
libertarianism, and keeping this story alive isn't
helping.
He's keeping it alive? I haven't noticed him bringing it up. I
could have sworn that it is the people who are trying to bring him
down who can't seem to shut up about it.
And him giving the money away or returning it just give the story
legs for another news cycle.
|12.20.07 @ 5:01PM|#
RC,
He doesn't bring it up, but his response guarantees that others
will keep bringing it up.
I could have sworn that it is the people who are trying to
bring him down who can't seem to shut up about it. And they'll
keep doing so. That's the way it works.
And him giving the money away or returning it just give the
story legs for another news cycle. Yes, for one. One news
cycle, and then it's gone, just like the "Throw the Hillary Donor
from the Train" story. That's how this works.
|12.20.07 @ 5:04PM|#
I'm now hearing that the White House is scared of Paul. Cheney
is building a Death
Blimp that will shoot Paul's blimp out of the sky. Apparently
it's enormous.
"Some Paul supporters doubt that a blimp that large will be able to
fly. "It will go down like a lead zeppelin," remarked Keith
Entwistle, a Paul supporter.
But other Paul supporters are preparing for the worst. Hal
Jawarski, a Paul volunteer, shovels coal in boiler room one aboard
the Ron Paul blimp. He was asked if the Paul blimp could outrun the
Death Blimp if required.
"We've outrun large hot-air balloons, not the local hot-air jubilee
event balloons, mind you," Jawarski bragged. "I'm talking about the
big, corporate-sponsored balloons. She's fast enough.""
|12.20.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Yes, sage, it's only the politicians that everybody else
likes who act like politicians.
I was only talking about Hillary. And I was a little more specific.
I said slimeball politician.
Under a Hillary administration, the status quo will be maintained.
And with that, all the earmarks going to...defense contracters and
such.
|12.20.07 @ 5:43PM|#
As someone who worked for a nice politician who frequently did the wrong thing because it was politically expedient, I find it refreshing that one candidate has the gumption to stand on principle and NOT give money back to Neo-Nazis to be used to further their odious agenda. Go Ron!
|12.20.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Hmm, let's try that on Hillary Clinton.
She could return the money that that felon bundled, or she could
spend it on advancing lawfulness by making Hillary Clinton
president.
Howzat work for you?
HAHAHAHAHA! *Wipes away tears of laughter.* Yes, joe, that's
totally what HRC would do with the money.
|12.20.07 @ 5:59PM|#
I was only talking about Hillary.,/i>
You were talking about Ron Paul, as well. Who, as I understand it,
shits marble, has never told a lie, and can bring a baby bird back
to life with the power of his decorum.
And, in what is an amazing coincidince, this professional
politician who is so completely unlike all the other professional
politicians in his moral rigour and honesty just happens to support
a political agenda with very close to your own!
I mean, seriously, what are the chances that the one politician who
is so unquestionably honest and above political considerations
would just happen to line up with you on policy and political
philosophy?
If only those silly partisan Democrats and Republicans could see
through their partisan blinders and recognize that the guy who
agrees with anti-partisan libertarians is beyond reproach, pure as
the driven snow, and doesn't need to have his actions examined with
a skeptical eye that takes political considerations and his
personal advancement into account!
|12.20.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Sorry that went over your head, prolefeed.
The fact that it is ridiculous statement was the point.
|12.20.07 @ 6:10PM|#
joe, you're releasing a lot of CO2 with all the strawmen you're
burning in your 5:59 post.
Ron Paul isn't a saint, as I've pointed out in other threads, but
on this particular issue he's willing to take a lot of heat to
stand on several points of principle.
And, imagine that, a person who has more integrity than most
politicians also holding (mostly) libertarian views. It's so hard
to imagine, that of course one or the other MUST be false, and
since he clearly believes in enhancing liberty, he must be
dishonest, yeah?
I've seen a lot of pandering politicians up close and personal for
years on end working at our state legislature, and it's
breathtaking to me that someone can act like Ron Paul and actually
get the kind of support he does.
Ron Paul's not perfect, joe, but he's the first politician in a
long time who I actually feel really good about voting for. And if,
in your eyes, that makes me a deluded fool lacking your worldly,
wise cynicism, you're entitled to that POV -- but I won't share
it.
|12.20.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Sorry that went over your head, prolefeed.
The fact that it is ridiculous statement was the point.
Sorry you have so little regard for my intelligence that you think
that your comment went over my head. I understand that it was meant
to be a ridiculous statement, saying that HRC would act like Ron
Paul did and then be commended for her integrity. However, it does
not follow that her lack of integrity means that Ron Paul is
similarly lacking in integrity.
Think it through -- if a professional politician who has repeatedly
won reelection does something that even the most newbie politician
knows will cost them votes among most voters, then which is the
likely explanation for that politician doing something that appears
to be politically suicidal?
1) He has forgotten everything he has learned about politics, and
is incapable of relearning a very hard lesson and costly lesson
despite it being rubbed in his face over and over.
2) Despite raising over $18 million in the quarter, he is desperate
for the marginal help the $500 represents.
3) One or more points of principle are involved, and he won't back
down on those points of principle, and is perhaps engaging in a bit
of pandering to all his supporters who would pillory him if he did
something to endanger that reputation for being principled.
Ron Paul is engaging in a very counter-intuitive strategy in this
campaign, sort of like "shooting the moon" in the card game hearts,
and that strategy requires going all in on being principled. Caving
even a little would be costly.
|12.20.07 @ 6:31PM|#
prolefeed,
On this particular issue, as I've already written, I agree that
he's acting on principle.
I just don't think it's a terribly wise thing to do. It will crowd
out everything else, and he's got bigger fish to fry.
And if, in your eyes, that makes me a deluded fool lacking your
worldly, wise cynicism, you're entitled to that POV -- but I won't
share it. Yes, you will. You already share. You pose as the
wordly, wise cynic about every politician in the country - except
the one you support. You want me to start pulling up old comments
from worldly, wise, cynical prolefeed?
I understand that it was meant to be a ridiculous statement,
saying that HRC would act like Ron Paul did and then be commended
for her integrity. Nope, you still whiffed.
Maybe if you got over your conceit that nobody who agrees with you
could possibly suffer from partisan confirmation bias, the very
simple point I was making wouldn't elude you so stubbornly.
|12.20.07 @ 6:35PM|#
Oh my God.
And, imagine that, a person who has more integrity than most
politicians also holding (mostly) libertarian views. says the
libertarian.
And, imagine that, a person who has more integrity than most
politicians also holding (mostly) Christian views, says the
Christianist.
And, imagine that, a person who has more integrity than most
politicians also holding (mostly) Muslim views, says the
Islamist.
And, imagine that, a person who has more integrity than most
politicians also holding (mostly) socialist views, says the
socialist.
|12.20.07 @ 6:41PM|#
And every single one of them can point to planks in their
ideology's platform to demonstrate that those who adhere to that
ideology would demonstrate a high level of integrity.
Every single one of 'em.
Fluffy|12.20.07 @ 7:31PM|#
And every single one of them can point to planks in their
ideology's platform to demonstrate that those who adhere to that
ideology would demonstrate a high level of integrity.
The difference, of course, being that if one politician's platform
is "The government should do favors for nobody!" and another
politician's platform is "The government should do favors for
some people," it's infinitely more likely that the donors
for the latter are hoping for favors than it is for the
former.
The libertarian ideology just presents fewer opportunities for
backscratching, Joe, because of its basic structure. It's easier to
bury favors in a big budget than in a small budget.
|12.20.07 @ 7:43PM|#
That was a disgusting rant by Cavuto, let's not stoop that low. We don't have to.
|12.20.07 @ 7:51PM|#
"The difference, of course, being that if one politician's
platform is "The government should do favors for nobody!" and
another politician's platform is "The government should do favors
for some people," it's infinitely more likely that the donors for
the latter are hoping for favors than it is for the former."
fluffy
I'm not sure that is true. If, for example, you are an employer who
could cut costs and raise profit by getting rid of some government
regulation then you may be willing to give money to such a
candidate expecting such a favor.
But it occurs to me that you will reply "well it was his to do with
the business as he saw fit and he is only asking for the slavery to
end."
But it still seems apparent that at libertarian administration
could do quite a few favors for quite a few well connected
folks...
|12.20.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Re: Paul's unusual courage
I find his refusal to give the money back refreshing. The Nazi guy,
to my knowledge, is a citizen. He can vote, has to pay taxes. He
deserves the right to play politics. I'm sure all kinds of awful
people give money to all kinds of things. It's childish to assume
that there is more to this kind of thing than that...
I also think Paul's position on the war, given the GOP's
hyperjingoism is brave.
But you have to admit that his major deviations from pure
libertarianism, abortion, immigration, same sex mrriage, are ones
that just happen to be more appealing to folks in his
district...
That said, if I were a libertarian I would support Paul. No
candidate is going to have exactly the same views as you or I, or
whatever. It's a relative thing...
|12.20.07 @ 7:55PM|#
So, if a candidate is expected to return a contribution made by an 'evil' person, must he also give back a vote cast by that same person come election time? Perhaps the solution to this whole thing would be to have all contributions to politicians go through a third party so that the candidate (and everyone else) never knows who the giver is.
Fluffy|12.20.07 @ 8:10PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy -
I think one difference would be that, presumably, all employers
would be similarly freed simultaneously, so the employer would not
gain any actual advantage over his competitors.
But assuming that not every act of de-regulation, de-taxation, etc.
would be simultaneous, it is theoretically possible to show
favoritism by manipulating the order in which people become
free.
It would seem, however, that this is a contigent feature of the
existing regulatory regime, and not a function of the ideology per
se. The capacity for favoritism is intrinsic to the big government
parties regardless of the state of the system at the outset of
their rule.
|12.20.07 @ 8:13PM|#
From the Wonkette article:
The standard thing to do, for both Republicans and Democrats
caught with money with the stench of pig-fucking on it, is to
donate it to a charity.
Isn't that illegal? When you accept campaign money you are not
supposed to use them for anything unrelated to the campaign, I
thought.
|12.20.07 @ 8:29PM|#
I think that Eric Dondero should volunteer to go through the
donor list and check off people that he does not think are
politically correct enough.
You know who else looked through lists and checked off people he
didn't like? Stalin.
|12.20.07 @ 8:34PM|#
When are all the other politicians going to return the money they get from the war profiteers? What about all the donations that Erik Prince gives out? Erik Prince is the head of an American terrorist group--it's called Blackwater.
|12.20.07 @ 8:58PM|#
I have no doubt that Ron Paul made the decision he did based on
principle. And he was 100% correct. Ron Paul's entire candidacy is
based on his principles and integrity. The second he starts
compromising on that, he's finished.
But let's look at Joe's purely cynical analysis for a second. If
Paul gave back the money, would that end this? Having gotten their
pound of flesh, you think his enemies would just walk away? Dream
on. There are no doubt hundreds of these guys who have donated to
Paul. And what about the Birchers? The Gold Bugs? The Truthers? The
guys over at Lew Rockwell who think we should celebrate every time
a DEA agent is shot dead? Paul is the freedom candidate. As such,
he is going to have a stranglehold on the "outsider" vote. There is
a reason Paul is the leading candidate among both Neo-Nazi's and
Blacks.
Eric Dondero|12.20.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Two photos have just emerged of Ron Paul meeting with Don Black
of the Nazi StormTrooper Front at an even in Florida in September.
Black's son is also in the photo.
It's all over the top conservative websites and blogs now.
Paul gives the word kooky a ba|12.20.07 @ 9:59PM|#
"But let's look at Joe's purely cynical analysis for a second.
If Paul gave back the money, would that end this? Having gotten
their pound of flesh, you think his enemies would just walk away?
Dream on. There are no doubt hundreds of these guys who have
donated to Paul. And what about the Birchers? The Gold Bugs? The
Truthers? The guys over at Lew Rockwell who think we should
celebrate every time a DEA agent is shot dead? Paul is the freedom
candidate. As such, he is going to have a stranglehold on the
"outsider" vote. There is a reason Paul is the leading candidate
among both Neo-Nazi's and Blacks."
This is, without doubt, the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever
read in my life. This site tarred and feathered the Clinton's over
who donated to their campaign, yet it harps on Cavuto about his
repeated questioning over money donated by a man who thought a guy
who tried to wipe out the jews was a hero. So I guess if the Ku
Klux Klan donated money en masse to Paul, he is performing a civic
duty by not disavowing them and giving it back? Yeah, you fucking
ass-kissing morons can tell yourselves that all you want.
There is a reason that these people donate to Paul, and it's not
because he's an outsider. It's because he's a fucking nutjob. To
say he hasn't rebuked the scores of supporters who blame George
Bush for the mass-murder of 9-11 is an understatement. His repeated
statemnents blaming the US for the situation in Iran is another
example of his brilliance. Ron Paul is a fucking disgrace, and the
way this site reports on him so uncritically is absolutely fucking
pathetic. This website has become one gigantic love note to Paul,
and any time people raise the inconvenient truth about his
supporters, Reason attacks the messengers; yet this site has no
qualms with attacking Romney and Huckabee for their broad support
from Christians, who at least aren't advocating the massacre of
jews.
Evidently only the Barbara Walters treatment of fawning over the
interviewee whilst lobbing softballs is what you think Paul
deserves.
Yeah, Paul is an "outsider" in the same way Lyndon LaRouche was an
outsider.
|12.20.07 @ 10:09PM|#
Maybe if you got over your conceit that nobody who agrees
with you could possibly suffer from partisan confirmation bias, the
very simple point I was making wouldn't elude you so
stubbornly.
From grylliade's listing of "joe" on Known Hit & Run Trolls:
"...He specializes in heavily implying a claim and then arguing
whether he actually made the claim, acting righteously indignant
whenever someone dares to disagree with him ..."
The listing is far from complete, and should definitely be updated
to include "implies that a convoluted and ambiguous point he made
was so patently obvious that anyone but the deluded fools on
H&R would grasp his point", but that is arguably a subset of
the above.
I'm a little hurt that I wasn't included in the List, but give 'er
time ...
|12.20.07 @ 10:18PM|#
Dondero,
Are you saying RedState isn't one of the top conservative websites?
Cause I don't see any pictures of Dr Paul there.
|12.21.07 @ 12:46AM|#
On December 19th, I wrote Cavuto as follows:
Neil,
I am an investor and will be voting for Ron Paul. I've watched your
show over the years, and I never really formed a negative opinion
of you, but now I have. Neil Cavuto, you are a SMALL MAN who is
hurtful & petty. Your extremely demeaning & disrespectful
interview toward Dr. Paul today regarding your website tagged,
"Importance of Being Liked" left me asking, "Are you a robot, too?
Do you have any sense of how to be liked yourself?" Doesn't being
the Senior VP of Business News carry any clout at all anymore? You
left me feeling angry & disappointed in you, because you have
previously interviewed him in a respectful manner.
But, dare I say, Neil, you didn't listen to Dr. Paul. He DOES have
a Christmas Ad. It is playing now. It is the "All I want for Xmas"
Ad, and it is SUPERB. But, having MESMERIZING MUSIC in the
background, in combination with a "Message" is not good enough for
you?
You made me sick today, along with all the rest of the COWARDS that
have the nerve to call themselves "Journalists". YOU, along with
the rest of your peers, have stooped to new lows, and not only have
lost your way, you've lost your hearts....
....and, here it is Christmas!
P.S. If you want to bother yourself, WATCH THESE Ron Paul Xmas
Ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKyquzrRr3s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-spIoZQT3Ds&feature=related
Doug D|12.21.07 @ 2:06AM|#
My favorite Ron Paul interview moment of the whole campaign was
when Neil Cavuto asked him this past summer how he thought we could
pay for things like the Capitol building Ron Paul was standing in
front of, without the income tax.
Ron Paul pointed out that the Capitol was built before we even had
an income tax.
|12.21.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Fluffy,
If you go back to the railroads being given eminent domain power,
or the Penn Coal case, or the use of the military to break strikes,
you'll see that rich people buying the government goes back a long
way. The government at that time was as small and devoted to
property rights and any libertarian could hope for.
|12.21.07 @ 11:48PM|#
"The guys over at Lew Rockwell who think we should celebrate
every time a DEA agent is shot dead?"
Proof?
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