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
2,4,6,8, With Whom Do We Associate?
From that Will Wilkinson post that Kerry Howley links:
Insofar as Ron Paul’s racist newsletters propped up and encouraged racist norms, he has actually helped cultivate a cultural climate hostile to the prospects of “the blacks”, whether or not he would end the drug war in the miraculous event of his presidency.
I would agree with this if the newsletters were Ron Paul's final contribution to the discourse or an end unto themselves. They were not. In large part they were a vehicle to raise money, build a national donor list, and make a Paul political comeback possible. And that's what they did. This is the toughest part of the story for me to deal with: if it wasn't for the Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul wouldn't have raised so much money in 1996 and Greg Laughlin, a fairly typical southern Democrat-turned Republican, would be the congressman from Texas's 10th district.
What's the value been of having Ron Paul in Congress? I'm sure you could argue that policy papers and research and training from the Reason-Cato-IHS "Kochtopus" has done more to move libertarian ideas from the ether into practice than having a lone libertarian vote in the House. You could argue that Paul's career has been a net negative for libertarians, although I don't think Wilkinson is going there. Personally I like having Paul in the House, was thrilled when he entered the race (thinking he'd raise around $1 million and get a few votes in New Hampshire then pack it up), and am pleased that the next generations of libertarian-minded legislator—the John Campbells and Jeff Flakes—are pragmatic and removed from the old Rothbard mud-wrestling matches.
One thing, though. Neither of those guys, and none of the mainstream libertarain think tanks, have drawn more than 100,000 people to donate money or inspired thousands of people to camp out in snowy primary states, going door to door talking about libertarian ideas. Paul's done that, and he was able to do that, in part, because of hateful right-wing populist bigotry that grew his fundraising lists.
UPDATE: Fluffy, from the comments:
[T]he race war stuff in the newsletter was Rockwell's way of attempting to reach out to survivalists and militia members, who had overlapping issue affinity with a portion of libertarianism. How exactly would that "actually" worsen the cultural climate for minorities? Wouldn't the target for the material have already, you know, been racist?
I thought about this but it's awfully hard to prove. Maybe there were militiamen with Jesse Jackson dartboards who got the newsletters, found out about Hayek, and had "eureka" moments. Or maybe there were mainstream, Wilkinsonian libertarians who pored over this stuff about the "coming race war" and snagged copies of the Turner Diaries. We have no idea.
an accomplishment|1.15.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Each year since his return to Congress, Dr Paul has been able to put a rider in appropriations bill stopping the HillaryCare national health ID number.
|1.15.08 @ 5:10PM|#
So Libertarianism has lost it's political virginity and finally has a black spot on it. So what, get over it.
|1.15.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Question about all this back and forth re: Paul and "the letters": Is there all of a sudden someone that Reason would RATHER see in the White House? If so, who?
|1.15.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Question about all this back and forth re: Paul and "the
letters": Is there all of a sudden someone that Reason would RATHER
see in the White House? If so, who?
Addressing a major issue with a candidate openly is not saying that
you don't want him in office. It's called "intellectual honesty."
Something non-libertarians often find confusing and strange.
Fluffy|1.15.08 @ 5:18PM|#
As I understand it, the race war stuff in the newsletter was
Rockwell's way of attempting to reach out to survivalists and
militia members, who had overlapping issue affinity with a portion
of libertarianism.
How exactly would that "actually" worsen the cultural climate for
minorities? Wouldn't the target for the material have already, you
know, been racist?
I'm not really actively supporting the Paul campaign any more,
although I still talk about him online and will certainly vote for
him. But some of the stuff being written on this controversy is
just moronic. A couple of thousand militia guides reading a few
throwaway paragraphs about muggers being fast runners has about as
much impact on "the culture" as people at Hit N' Run reading my
posts where I call Guy Montag a cunt: i.e. zero.
Jerry|1.15.08 @ 5:21PM|#
I wonder how the Reason staff thinks about the 2005 use of the term racaille by then French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe the rioters in the Paris suburbs.
Russ 2000|1.15.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Ron Paul could be the biggest asshole on the planet. As long as he votes "NO" most of the time and has the likelihood of vetoing nearly every piece of legislation that would come his way as POTUS, he'll get my vote. When I give a shit about sanctimony, I'll go join a church/social club.
Bingo|1.15.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Jerry: I'm pretty sure the reason staff doesn't care because Sarkozy is not associated with the libertarian movement.
Episiarch|1.15.08 @ 5:28PM|#
So I'm guessing Reason's ad revenue from hit counts is way way way the fuck up since this newsletter business occurred. Not that I have a problem with making money, but let's take a cooler, more rational look at why we have the endless, super-inflammatory Paul posts.
Jim Lesczynski|1.15.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Addressing a major issue with a candidate openly is not
saying that you don't want him in office. It's called "intellectual
honesty." Something non-libertarians often find confusing and
strange.
No, I think they went further than that. Most of the Reason
staffers who have posted on this topic have implicitly or
explicitly withdrawn their support for Ron Paul's candidacy. That's
different than saying (as I do) that he made a serious mistake (or
series of mistakes), but he's still the best available
candidate.
Kaganspawn|1.15.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Episiarch, if you are suggesting that Reason keeps dogging this story not because it is likely to be of interest to the readership but because it generates more clicks than yet another reality-based Keystone Kops story (keep them coming Mr. Balko, you do good), I cannot agree. If that were the case, the site would feature pictures of scantily clad women along the edges and ... oh, wait. Never mind.
Tom Walls|1.15.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Amen, David. Whatever the tune of those paleo-penned missives
way back when, the song that motivates da youts is one of basic
optimism -- which is Ron's message.
David Kopel made my point in an op-ed on Ron a few months back,
contrasting the dour message of Buchanan with the upbeat demeanor
of the Paul campaign:
Like the Ronald Reagan message (and unlike the Pat Buchanan
message), the Ron Paul message is fundamentally positive. There may
be some anger about the depredations of huge and aggressive
government, but the campaign's theme is "Hope for America" and its
premise is that the American people are good people who can achieve
the best for themselves, their families, their community, and their
nation when the federal government gets out of the way and stops
behaving like a helicopter mother.
Can you imagine the 'LOVE' message in one of Buchanan's
campaigns?
Ali|1.15.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Great and honest piece, Dave. Thank you.
Have people seen this:
The Liberal's Ron Paul Problem?
Jerry|1.15.08 @ 5:43PM|#
@Bingo
Libertarians can support Sarkozy, because he breaks with a French
political tradition. Why should Paul be held to different
standards?
|1.15.08 @ 5:43PM|#
It's ridiculous that you can even come up with a partial defense
for the newsletters in this manner. The only people you are
convincing of their worth are people who don't want them to mean
what they do in the first place - actual libertarians who have
every reason to support Paul, except for his apparent long-term
endorsement of the bigotry that was written in his very own
newsletters. Whether or not Paul's libertarian ideas are good for
the nation (and they are) it is bad for libertarianism to be
associated with this hateful crap. There is no excuse, and I doubt
the person writing those letters was insincere and merely trying to
up the donor list. They were not created by a non-racist who was
merely exploiting racism, homophobia and extreme paranoia in order
to generate more revenue for an important libertarian campaign -
and even if they were, is that truly acceptable?
I'm gay, and I would still vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat.
Despite the fact that he for years did not decry the nastiness that
was invoked in those newsletters - something that is telling,
whether or not he or his supporters want to admit it - I know that
the philosophy he believes in would not allow him to exploit
homophobia or racism in order to create unjust laws. He may be a
bad person in private, but I know he espouses good principles in
practice.
Still, there is NO excuse for the content of those newsletters,
there is no excuse for him letting them run under his banner for
years, and there is no excuse for his supporters excusing it. They
are nasty, and there is something quite nasty about him for letting
them exist unchallenged.
SIV|1.15.08 @ 5:45PM|#
the rest of it.....
mainstream, Wilkinsonian libertarians
Mainstream Dondero libertarians.....
Give me the kooks anyday, even the blue guy is better than these
fuckheads
Weigel, I might of missed something in the ongoing libertarian
kerfuffle but from what I've read you are a real stand-up guy for
a
Democrat shill.
Dodsworth|1.15.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Let's face the fact that Ron Paul has money to spend and he's
going to spend it and act accordingly.
He isn't going to drop out. Thus, since he is already identified
with libertarianism, he should be encouraged to spending the money
in ways that most promote liberty: promoting civil liberties,
fighting the racist drug war, and opposing the war. If he does
this, he can do a lot of good.
People who are making with the purple prose about the sordid nature
of the newsletters should emphasize these and other constructive
ways for the Paul campaign to turn a negative situation into a
positive one for libertarianism instead of wasting time a futile
effort to get Paul to withdraw.
|1.15.08 @ 5:47PM|#
And one more thing... Ron Paul supporters need to stop acting
like this shouldn't be talked about. You are starting to sound like
the types of people who support Hillary Clinton. Should we just
ignore the bad aspects of a candidate because we support a greater
cause?
That just makes us sheep.
|1.15.08 @ 5:47PM|#
I agree with Jim Lesczynski. I have been a Reason subscriber for
almost 10 years and a Cato supporter. I had no idea who Lew
Rockwell was prior to the Paul campaign, and my beliefs align with
Reason/Cato but I am appalled with both. Let me get this straight,
Boaz, et al are afraid of being associated with someone who is
associated with a racist? Cowardice, pure and simple.
My faith in Reason and Cato I fear has been permanently damaged. I
am not sure that Rockwell has the answers either. I honestly don't
know what to do...
Click \'n\' Learn|1.15.08 @ 5:51PM|#
While some aspects of libertarianism aren't that bad, considered
as a complete ideology it's pretty darn far out there. I hesitate
to say "inhumane", but, well I guess I just did.
I don't think too many of RP's supporters are full-on libertarians
or understand everything that it involves and implies. Otherwise,
many of them would run away in horror.
I'll bet if you reviewed the popular comment threads at YT, Digg,
etc. you wouldn't find too many people discussing Hayek. Instead,
they'd be concentrating on selling anti-CFR, anti-NAFTASuperhighway
(the one that Reason tells us doesn't exist despite a map showing
it at a Canadian government site), and "freedom" (i.e., free
drugs).
|1.15.08 @ 5:56PM|#
People who are making with the purple prose about the sordid
nature of the newsletters should emphasize these and other
constructive ways for the Paul campaign to turn a negative
situation into a positive one for libertarianism instead of wasting
time a futile effort to get Paul to withdraw.
Okay, I'm game. If Paul wants to stay in the race, he should engage
in some proactive spin: first off, he should take responsibility
for the newsletter, explain why he was associated with those
opinions in the past and for the love of God, have someone write
him a decent speech explaining why his politics are antithetical to
those attitudes today.
|1.15.08 @ 5:56PM|#
David:
I would agree with this if the newsletters were Ron Paul's
final contribution to the discourse or an end unto themselves. They
were not.
"Final contribution"? What?? The evidence is that he didn't even
write em. Among that evidence is that they don't even sound like Dr
Paul. He speaks and writes in a more up-scale manner. (Not that
there's anything wrong with other modes of verba;y expressing one's
self, of course)
Here's what someone who's known Dr Paul for 20 years has to say
germane to this matter:
"Austin TX NAACP President Nelson Linde, unequivocally
dismissed charges that the Congressman was a
racist..."
http://tinyurl.com/28g7p9
|1.15.08 @ 5:58PM|#
So to 'raise money', Paul had to write about Wild conspiracies
and play to the politics of fear and paranoia. As well as Racist
and other bigoted things?
and today we see the guy go regularly on Alex Jones radio show,
talk about the "Trilateral COmmission" and the "New York
Bankers"....while openly endorsing the North American Union and
repeating the Moveon.org War Propaganda?
|1.15.08 @ 5:59PM|#
Paul admitted to writing them in 1996, as this blog has already pointed out! They also have personal details of his personal life in them, look in paragraph below calling MLK a Gay Pedophile for one instance.
|1.15.08 @ 6:04PM|#
They also have personal details of his personal life in
them, look in paragraph below calling MLK a Gay Pedophile for one
instance.
Are you saying that Ron Paul was molested by Martin Luther
King?
Fluffy|1.15.08 @ 6:04PM|#
Actually, Click N' Learn, I would say that the people supporting
Paul because they're afraid of the NAFTA superhighway are much more
likely to be racists than the people supporting Paul because
they're libertarians.
If anyone should be "horrified when they learn the truth", it
should be libertarians when they discover that people supporting
Paul for that stuff do so because they hate Mexicans.
I personally think "Mexicans Out!" and "Build A Wall to Protect Us
from the Brown Peril" is much more of a racist sentiment than
anything in textbook libertarianism.
|1.15.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Damn you, Weigal! I have work to do today, and now you're forcing me to hang out in the comments section of your blog post! You're just as bad as Ron Bailey with his constant embryonic stem cell posts back in the day.
|1.15.08 @ 6:06PM|#
My faith in Reason and Cato I fear has been permanently
damaged. I am not sure that Rockwell has the answers either. I
honestly don't know what to do...
I wouldn't worry about it. Most of the people I know who
self-identify as libertarians wouldn't recognize either Lew
Rockwell or Nick Gillespie if they dropped dead in front of
them.
I suspect that's probably true of most Paul supporters as well.
They simply heard what he had to say, and liked what they heard. I
doubt they much give a shit as to whether he's a "pure"
libertarian.
Christopher Monnier|1.15.08 @ 6:08PM|#
> I personally think "Mexicans Out!" and "Build A Wall to
Protect Us from the Brown Peril" is much more of a racist sentiment
than anything in textbook libertarianism.
Obviously. Nothing about textbook libertarianism is racist.
|1.15.08 @ 6:08PM|#
Paul admitted to writing them in 1996,
Cite proof, please.
They also have personal details of his personal life in
them,
Ghost writers do that.
|1.15.08 @ 6:09PM|#
OK, you take your typical idealistic college student, who has
tons of gay friends, maybe likes smoking pot, has just finished
reading some Ayn Rand, and he's been supporting Ron Paul because
all his friends do and gee, some of his ideas sorta sound neat.
"Oh, so that's what a libertarian is! Cool!"
And then you run into evidence showing that Ron Paul seems to be
perfectly chummy with conspiracy nuts, race war fanatics, and is
very closely tied to a group that supports White Identity nitwits,
slavery apologists, and neo-Nazis.
You think they're going to hang around self-proclaimed
"libertarians" after this? Riiiight....I think we'll see a lot of
people backing away slowly.
Jerry|1.15.08 @ 6:10PM|#
@jp
So some editor copying a christmas wish of Paul into the newsletter
is proving what exactly?
|1.15.08 @ 6:11PM|#
alot of the Neo-Nazi's that support him do so not just because
of his racist past and NAU conspiratorial stuff with
"Mexicans"....its also the Foreign Policy. They hate Israel, Paul
would go along way to destroying it among other things. The major
media didn't report it but Cindy Sheehan had Neo-Nazi's marching
with her in Crawford during that stunt. Probalby for the same
reason they have been giving Paul a pass now.
the alignment of White Supremacist and Islamist has a long history,
going back to Hitler atleast and the Grand Mufti of Jeruslem. Jayna
Davis reported on the "Third Terrorist" in the Ok. City bombings
that the Govt. never identified and closed the case on as being an
Iraqi that McVeigh met in the first Gulf War. Interesting book,
something we'll never know the truth on, if there is any truth,
until decades from now. Much like the way Sen. McCarthy was
exonerated when the Venona Decrypts were declassified in the early
90's.
|1.15.08 @ 6:12PM|#
Rick Barton,
Matt Welch did a blog post about Dr Paul's 1996 comments a few days
ago. I'm too lazy to find a link, but at that time he basically
said the quotes were being taken out of context.
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Here's my attempt to merge threads and get 500 posts:
The racism in those newsletters show fascist tendencies. Because
fascism is inherently a phenomenon of the left, it therefore
follows that Ron Paul is a leftist, his free market rhetoric
notwithstanding. In this regard he is like Milton Friedman, who
showed himself to be a creature of the left by associating with
Pinochet.
And if you still haven't been baited into commenting, let me say
one more thing:
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND BAD FOR TEH CHILDREN!
Paul|1.15.08 @ 6:13PM|#
He may be a bad person in private, but I know he espouses
good principles in practice.
I remember something from the sixties... what was it... the
personal is the political or some such thing.
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Oh, and if anybody thinks that my previous comment is serious, then I think you should be allowed to take remedies for humor impairment, even if the FDA hasn't approved them.
|1.15.08 @ 6:14PM|#
alot of the Neo-Nazi's that support him do so not just
because of his racist past and NAU conspiratorial stuff with
"Mexicans"....its also the Foreign Policy.
I get it! If you don't support killing brown people, you're a
racist.
Egosumabbas|1.15.08 @ 6:15PM|#
I suspect that's probably true of most Paul supporters as
well. They simply heard what he had to say, and liked what they
heard. I doubt they much give a shit as to whether he's a "pure"
libertarian.
Whoops! the LP looks like it has a lot of purging to do for the
next generation. Can't have the LP getting more than 0.5% of the
vote now, can we?
|1.15.08 @ 6:16PM|#
Whatever kind of extra curricular activities RP has done I could
really give a shit. What's my agenda, screw godverments, all of
them, and political parties. They have been mans downfall from day
one. No mistype there.
The following are excerpts of writings from L. Ray Smith's web site
http://www.bibletruths.com/ that I frequent which are
philosophically as close to truth regarding religion/government as
I understand them to be. Yes religion too.
"Again, the DEVIL takes Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
shows Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and
says to Him, All these things will I give You, if You will fall
down and worship me" (Matt. 4:8-9).
Let's notice a few things overlooked by most Sunday school teachers
(and most of the world's greatest theologians as well). Ready? Are
you sure? Okay, here goes: ALL THE NATIONS OF THE ENTIRE WORLD
BELONG TO SATAN THE DEVIL!!! Heaven and Earth are God's
possessions, however, God has delegated the nations to Satan. Satan
could not offer all these kingdoms of the world to Jesus if he did
not possess them to offer them in the first place.
|1.15.08 @ 6:16PM|#
as reported by THIS BLOG:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
Paul admitted back in 1996 to writing the "RON PAUL Political
Report". He is currently contradicting himself and if the media
weren't giving him a pass, he'd be on the fast lane to
retirement.
And its not just the Portion about his Wife and grandchildren,
there are several other portions that have personal details.
that said, I don't doubt at all that Lew Rockwell also wrote
portions of them and that Paul knew exactly what he was writing
over decade long period.
|1.15.08 @ 6:16PM|#
thoreau,
You forgot to tie in abortion, stem cell research, and TEH GAY. Has
the weed of the halflings clearly dulled your mind?
KipEsquire|1.15.08 @ 6:16PM|#
What's the value been of having Ron Paul in Congress?
Precisely. What exactly has "Dr. No" really achieved as a (not quite) "libertarian politician"? In twenty years in Congress, has Paul ever won over a single colleague to his cause? Does he ever try, for example, to discuss his views on banking (let alone homosexuality) with Barney Frank over lunch? Does he initiate calm, quiet dialogues about farm subsidies with Collin Peterson or Dave Obey? Does he even know who Jeff Flake is? Or does he just sign in, vote "no" on some spending bills, sponsor some anti-gay bigotry measures, secure some "libertarian earmarks" for his (favored) constituents, and call it a day -- all the while patting himself on the back for his "commitment to principles"?
|1.15.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Devils Advocate,
You don't seem to have considered the possibility that the Father
of Lies was lying.
|1.15.08 @ 6:24PM|#
jp
alot of the Neo-Nazi's that support him do so not just because
of his racist past
What racist past? You didn't cite a source for your previous
bullshit.
Paul would go along way to destroying it (Israel) among other
things.
Oh right. If our government quit giving our money to the Israeli
government and other mid-East states as Dr paul advocates, Israel
would just implode!
|1.15.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Did Paul need the racist remarks to raise the money in
1996?
If the racist remarks had been left off, how much would have been
lost? How much would he have raised if he just stuck with nonracist
apocalyptic, conspiratorial goldbuggery?
I am not persuaded that this was about building a donor list for
Paul's comeback in 1996.
Some people wanted Paul to run for President in 1992, and instead,
they went with Buchanan.
I think this was about Rothbard's strategy of rebuilding the "Old
Right." There was going to be a mass movement of blue collar,
somewhat homophobic, semi-racists who would fight the federal
government. It never happened.
Just like Rothbard imagined in 1969 that the New Left was going to
overthrow the Federal government and that the libertarians should
be on the revolutionary side of the baracades, it was one of those
crazy fantasies.
The racist newsletters are an artifact from a strategy that
failed.
I think it is entirely possible that everyone involved saw it as
propaganda. But not just for a fundraising list. To build a mass
movement.
Contrary to what many have said, I think it is entirely possible
that Paul didn't read "his" newsletter.
|1.15.08 @ 6:27PM|#
crimethink,
As we are all guilty of. In his day Galileo was declared a heretic
by the chief priests and scribes. With the threat of being racked
and gutted he himself denounced his discovery that the world was
round. To condemn another out of fear, you condemn yourselves.
dodsworth|1.15.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Hale:
Fine, he should explain more fully. More to the point and more
helpful for libertarianism, however, his ad campaign should
confidentally go the offensive in pushing an end to the drug war,
pardons of offenders, pushing civil liberties and the Bill of
Rights (not just "the Constitution") and attacking the Iraq War. If
he does this, and does it agressively, the newsletter issue will be
more or less forgotten.
Egosumabbas|1.15.08 @ 6:28PM|#
"Again, the DEVIL takes Him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and shows Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the
glory of them; and says to Him, All these things will I give You,
if You will fall down and worship me" (Matt. 4:8-9).
Let's notice a few things overlooked by most Sunday school teachers
(and most of the world's greatest theologians as well). Ready? Are
you sure? Okay, here goes: ALL THE NATIONS OF THE ENTIRE WORLD
BELONG TO SATAN THE DEVIL!!!
Amen brother! Even the Good Book has libertarianism in it.
What exactly has "Dr. No" really achieved as a (not quite)
"libertarian politician"? In twenty years in Congress, has Paul
ever won over a single colleague to his cause?
Uhhhhh, ever heard
of the RLC? Also, a shitton of folks are considering going into
office on a libertarian plank, using the republican party or the
democratic party as a jumping board. Hell, the LP may even get some
more YOUNG due-paying members now.
highnumber|1.15.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Is "Kochtopus" code for "Jew"?
No, I think it's code for "cosmopolibertarian."
|1.15.08 @ 6:31PM|#
"What racist past? You didn't cite a source for your previous
bullshit."
the racist, homophobic and Conspiratorial newsletters in the "RON
PAUL political Report" that went out for over a decade and that
when questioned in 1996 he admitted to writing. WHich claiming he
didn't write and didn't know the content of them for well over a
decade is beyond beleif anyway. especially from something he
profited from.
politics of fear and paranoia and For Profit.
|1.15.08 @ 6:31PM|#
I thought The D O N D E R O founded the RLC in his living room (in between thrusts with Mexican whores, probably).
|1.15.08 @ 6:32PM|#
jp,
The racist and homophobic stuff was limited to 1990-1994. Trying to
lump in the mildly kookish --but not bigoted-- stuff that spanned a
longer period is intellectually dishonest.
Bored with this already|1.15.08 @ 6:36PM|#
Can there possibly be anything left to say about this topic that
hasn't already been said?
Perhaps someone can just scream hysterically like Reverand
Lovejoy's wife in The Simpsons,
"Won't someone please think of the children" and then we can all
forget about it.
|1.15.08 @ 6:36PM|#
JP,
Where in the link you cite does Ron Paul admit to authoring the
offensive passages in the newsletters?
|1.15.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Instead, they'd be concentrating on selling anti-CFR,
anti-NAFTASuperhighway
I wonder if i can get a t-shirt that says "Privatize the
NAFTASuperhighway"?
|1.15.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Bored,
I believe you have the positive liberty of being able to skip over
topics you're not interested in, like I do with comic strip and
prog rock posts.
|1.15.08 @ 6:39PM|#
and recently taking donations from Neo-Nazi's, a group
universally considered Evil, being called on it by the media then
refusing to dissaciate himself from those donations. Combined with
budding up with Alex "The Jews did 9/11" Jones on his radio
show.
of course there is Bill White's claim that was brought up last
month and the pics with Neo-Nazi's....there is alot here to just
keep ignoring.
Check out Alex Jones trailer for 'Endgame'
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pkgGOFXuYPw
certifiable Crackpots.
|1.15.08 @ 6:39PM|#
joshua corning,
Are you crazy? We don't want the evil corporations taking over our
continent's precious superhighway!
anon|1.15.08 @ 6:42PM|#
"Paul's done that, and he was able to do that, in part, because
of hateful right-wing populist bigotry that grew his fundraising
lists."
That's some poor drafting. I'm certain you mean to still be
speaking of the 96 race but the sloppy writing now makes it look
like you are suggesting that Paul's fundraising success in this
presidential campaign was in some material way due to these
newsletters. That defies any rational look at the evidence.
Probably inadvertent on your part, but I'd fix that phrasing.
dhex|1.15.08 @ 6:42PM|#
ALL THE NATIONS OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BELONG TO SATAN THE
DEVIL!!!
sounds about right to me.
oh.
oh, it's a baaaaaaaad thing.
sorry.
Can there possibly be anything left to say about this topic
that hasn't already been said?
yes.
is "cosmopolitan libertarian urban jew" code for "jew jew jew jew
jew"?
|1.15.08 @ 6:43PM|#
jp,
He disassociated himself from those people, if not the money
itself. He has a good point in saying that he'd rather use the
money for promoting liberty via his campaign rather than give it
back to Black to use in spreading hate.
And I'll take being associated with crackpot Alex Jones over
crackpot Sean Hannity any day of the week, sir.
|1.15.08 @ 6:43PM|#
I am a gay man and the fact that he supports the Constitutional
right of White Supremists to voice their opinion lets me know that
he will support MY Freedom of Speech as a Gay American as
well.
The newsletters actually make me support Dr Paul MORE, not less. He
will support the Freedom of Speech of blacks, hispanics, asians,
jews, christians, hindus, muslims, gays, straights, transgendered,
tall, short, fat, skinny, old, young, republican, democrat,
libertarian, ALL AMERICANS.
He stands up for his principles and the principles of the
Constitution and I stand up for him. I will continue in my work as
a Precinct Captain for Dr Paul and spread his message of truth,
equality, and freedom for all Americans.
|1.15.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Here is just a couple places in Matt Welch blog:
Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
"Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the
newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment
Thursday. "
May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:
"Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was
not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns.
He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid
misrepresentation. […]"
-----------
now he is stating he never wrote the newsletters and not only that
did not know the content of what was going out under his name for
over a decade and that he was profiting from!
then factor in the several sections that have personal details
included.
SIV|1.15.08 @ 6:45PM|#
There was going to be a mass movement of blue collar,
somewhat homophobic, semi-racists who would fight the federal
government. It never happened.
Something like that was happening in the early 70s.Arthur Bremer
stopped it with a bullet.
|1.15.08 @ 6:46PM|#
ALL THE NATIONS OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BELONG TO SATAN THE
DEVIL!!!
That brings up a good question, though: do libertarians support the
Prince of Darkness' right to private property? Or are pure spirits
just as ineligible for holding property as nonhuman animals?
|1.15.08 @ 6:48PM|#
I don't ever want to see any more criticism of Democrats for associating with FORMER racists, ever again.
|1.15.08 @ 6:50PM|#
joe,
Not until you agree not to criticize us for associating with RP.
And you can't do it under a bogus alias like "Banned in Boston"
either.
Mr. X|1.15.08 @ 6:51PM|#
For the record, Dr. Paul first denied writing the newsletters in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly. To say that he claimed authorship in 1996 and just denied it during this campaign is dishonest and wrong.
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 6:52PM|#
do libertarians support the Prince of Darkness' right to
private property? Or are pure spirits just as ineligible for
holding property as nonhuman animals?
Well, your mention of animals reminds me that the Prince of
Darkness is often portrayed as having the head of a goat. I guess
the responses would depend in part on whether the libertarian
answering is also a Furry.
Ferrets might also factor into this.
Of course, if Satan rules over Hell, then his monopoly on the use
of force in hell technically qualifies him as a government.
Bingo|1.15.08 @ 6:53PM|#
I do, I want to see more criticism of Dems associating with
former racists.
More pls.
|1.15.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Of course, if Satan rules over Hell, then his monopoly on
the use of force in hell technically qualifies him as a
government.
I thought Adam and Eve created Hell with their original sin. That
would make all of us co-owners, with Satan just a permanent manager
of sorts.
shecky|1.15.08 @ 6:56PM|#
I can't wait until this whole goofy episode makes it's way into the next revision of Doherty's book.
|1.15.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Here is just a couple places in Matt Welch blog:
Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
"Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for
subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. "
May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:
"Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was
not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they
should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid
misrepresentation. […]"
I don't care if they find bodies in his crawl space. At this point,
I supporting him merely out of malice and spite.
He may not keep the greatest of friends, but damn!, he's sure
making all of the right enemies!
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 6:59PM|#
I thought Adam and Eve created Hell with their original sin.
That would make all of us co-owners, with Satan just a permanent
manager of sorts.
Ah, in that case the real problem isn't our continued sin, but
rather our refusal to reform employment law so that we, as the
owners, can fire Satan.
Damn demon unions!
|1.15.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Of course, if Satan rules over Hell, then his monopoly on
the use of force in hell technically qualifies him as a
government.
So wait...as libertarians we would not support Satan owning
property except in very limited instances.
SIV|1.15.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Off-topic but what the hell:
I do, I want to see more criticism of Dems associating with
former racists.
More pls.
"The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my
state did, and I'm real proud of it."
Hillary Clinton's chief campaign spokesman William Jefferson
Clinton on notorious staunch segregationist J. William
Fulbright.
Is it any wonder they reach for the "race card" in smearing Barack
Obama?
Jerry|1.15.08 @ 7:04PM|#
@jp
That was during the 1996 campaign. It might have been politically
difficult to explain at that point that Paul was actually not the
editor of the newsletter.
thoreau|1.15.08 @ 7:05PM|#
Ali-
Well, we'd have to give him a severance package. He can feast on
the souls of some politicians or something, but he can no longer
fill our minds with wicked thoughts.
However, as long as we're on the subject, what about when Jesus
expelled the money changers from the Temple? I know that Jesus was
a duly authorized representatives of His Father, but if His Father
had signed a rental contract for them to use space in His house,
then how can Jesus break that contract?
|1.15.08 @ 7:07PM|#
is "cosmopolitan libertarian urban jew" code for "jew jew jew
jew jew"?
No...it is code for "jew libertarian jew international
banker"
I don't know where you got the extra "jew".
Is """ code for "jew"?
|1.15.08 @ 7:09PM|#
some of them have Paul's name at the bottom and listed as THE
EDITOR
don't be naive, of course he's behind these things. If you were
personally profiting from a political newsletter for over a DECADE
and they had your NAME attached at the top and SOLITITATION LETTERS
went out with your letterhead and Signature....Do ya Think, just
maybe, he was knee deep in it? paticularly with all the other
evidence.
and the point is Paul is given a pass by the media, big time. With
his past statements saying he WROTE them which contradict today,
paticularly given the content. If he wasn't repeating Moveon.org
talking points he'd be history long ago.
SIV|1.15.08 @ 7:11PM|#
And I'll take being associated with crackpot Alex Jones over
crackpot Sean Hannity any day of the week, sir.
Crimethink:
Kinda tough choice there but, if forced at the point of a gun to
chose, I'd rather be associated with Hannity.
Ron Paul is associated with both of 'em.
|1.15.08 @ 7:13PM|#
If he wasn't repeating Moveon.org talking points he'd be
history long ago.
Thanks for revealing your reasons for attacking Dr Paul. I guess
anyone who wants to stop killing brown people must be a racist.
|1.15.08 @ 7:13PM|#
crimethink,
I've never criticized you fring lunatics for associating with Ron
Paul. As a matter of fact, I've written very nice things about the
man. I don't get the "Banned in Boston" reference, and the only
time I ever posted under another name to hide my identity, it was
on a drug thread.
|1.15.08 @ 7:14PM|#
I'm sorry, this is OT, but how do we let the H&R writers
know about a news story we have found, and deemed worthy of
H&R?
I've emailed the news story to hitandrun@reason.com.
However, I'm not entirely sure this is the best place to give them
a heads up. Would it be better to contact one of the regular
contributors directly by email?
btw, here's the story if interested, reason writers.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html
|1.15.08 @ 7:16PM|#
SIV,
Ron Paul is associated with Sean Hannity the same way that Stephen
Colbert is associated with George Bush -- he had to appear with him
to get some screen time, and their relationship is a hostile
one.
And, given the fact that Dr Paul dissed Hannity after the last
debate by not showing up for a 1-on-1 with him, it would seem he's
broken that association.
Ali|1.15.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Thoreou,
I would think the last place Satan would like would be Heaven.
Can't we fire him by sending him to heaven? But then wouldn't all
the bad people end up in heaven as a way of punishing them? But,
you see that is the thing, is it safe to assume that you and I are
good people? You haven't done anything bad, now, have you? So we
wouldn't end up in Hell, right? Hence, we can't fire Satan. Those
who end up in Hell love Satan and would rather keep him. See I
always new those statists would have to end up in Hell!! Not only
that, they will love Satan so much that they will not want to
overthrow him and send him in heaven. QED.
|1.15.08 @ 7:18PM|#
I don't get the "Banned in Boston" reference, and the only
time I ever posted under another name to hide my identity, it was
on a drug thread.
That's exactly what I would say if I were posting under
aliases.
|1.15.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Thoreau
However, as long as we're on the subject, what about when Jesus
expelled the money changers from the Temple? I know that Jesus was
a duly authorized representatives of His Father, but if His Father
had signed a rental contract for them to use space in His house,
then how can Jesus break that contract?
Miner clarification. The contract was broke by the residents of the
house. For your viewing pleasure
http://bible-truths.com/lake10.html
|1.15.08 @ 7:19PM|#
If politics ends at the water's edge, it certainly ends at the gates of Hell too.
|1.15.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Ah, in that case the real problem isn't our continued sin,
but rather our refusal to reform employment law so that we, as the
owners, can fire Satan.
I have a no cut/no trade clause in my managerial contract. I'm
running Hell until 16,497 AD.
Paul|1.15.08 @ 7:22PM|#
Miner clarification. The contract was broke by the
[...]
These look for gold, those look for silver.
|1.15.08 @ 7:24PM|#
"Thanks for revealing your reasons for attacking Dr Paul. I
guess anyone who wants to stop killing brown people must be a
racist."
huh?
|1.15.08 @ 7:25PM|#
OK, crimethink, whatever.
This is good for you, because there's no way for me to prove a
negative.
Congratulations, you've finally figured out a way to start an
argument with me and not get beaten.
I post under my own name, with my own email address, and have been
doing so for about six and a half years. Believe me, don't believe
me.
Whatever.
TGGP|1.15.08 @ 7:26PM|#
I'm sure you could argue that policy papers and research and
training from the Reason-Cato-IHS "Kochtopus" has done more to move
libertarian ideas from the ether into practice than having a lone
libertarian vote in the House.
Have they actually accomplished anything? I believe that there have
been multiple times where there was one deciding vote in the House
during Paul's tenure, but I don't know if I can lay anything at the
feet of the aforementioned institutions. I remember reading Brian's
"freewheeling" history of the libertarian movement where his boasts
of its victories largely consisted of the number of jobs for
"professional libertarians" and the proposed reform of Social
Security which was dead on arrival and was still questionable
as a marginal improvement.
Mr. Blather|1.15.08 @ 7:27PM|#
--Neither of those guys, and none of the mainstream libertarain
think tanks, have drawn more than 100,000 people to donate money or
inspired thousands of people to camp out in snowy primary states,
going door to door talking about libertarian ideas. Paul's done
that, and he was able to do that, in part, because of hateful
right-wing populist bigotry that grew his fundraising
lists.--
Ummm, this is just wrong. Paul's fundraising has had almost NOTHING
to do with his fundraising lists. I personally donated based solely
on his opposition to the war and quixotic desire to return us to
some semblance of constitutional law. I'd never received even an
email from the Paul Campaign before that.
It's been interesting to watch this election from Japan. The
Democrats/liberals express support for Ron Paul's opposition to the
war, but in the end they'd rather watch thousands of people die
than give up a single handout. They don't seem to realize that a
Democratic president would escalate the war and then use it as an
excuse to stop even more handouts. (I'd love to give you universal
healthcare, but we have to end this endless war first...)
Reason, CATO et al, who finally outed themselves as nominal
libertarians at best, would rather watch people die in Iraq than
appear to support beliefs they consider to be out of the
mainstream. The worst hit jobs I've seen on Ron Paul over these
newsletters have all come from so-called libertarian sites.
The Republicans long ago (7 years-ish) became Democrats and chose
to start nation building wars, increase the size and invasiveness
of government and drive the country bankrupt by dropping the notion
of "pay as you go" and leaving out the "tax" part of "tax and
spend".
But, hey, Ron Paul wrote, or didn't write but supported some
occasionally racist newsletters a decade or so ago. Let's get rid
of him and send even more Mexican- and African-Americans off to war
to die. That's not racist at all.
...(Sigh)|1.15.08 @ 7:28PM|#
way to try and cover your own back, Weisel. perhaps you can link
to Tom Palmer's blog, in the spirit of fairness and balance..
KipEsquire: funny stuff, keep it up. i'm joking, of course.
LevStrauss|1.15.08 @ 7:30PM|#
The question of support is irrelevant. First and foremost
somebody has to come out and say who wrote those newsletters. There
has been a few rumors and it seems some people are inferring that
it is right, that Lew wrote the majority of those letters and that
Ron is lying to protect a business associate, an adviser, and a
friend. If they are friends to the movement, revolution, or
whatever you want to call it, they will provide full
disclosure.
Are you willing to look like a damn fool when something else comes
out, probably worse, on the day of the money bomb. How can you
trust Ron, he hasn't been very forthcoming? I've seen him explain
policy, I know he is capable. MLK Day? That will open a bigger can
of worms. That could get really ugly. For Zeus's sake, they
originally leaked the story to coincide with the New Hampshire
Primary. Anybody, Ron, Lew, Reason, has to come out and tell us who
wrote what and give us a detailed explanation of how this
newsletter operated and what else is out there.
|1.15.08 @ 7:31PM|#
"As we are all guilty of. In his day Galileo was declared a
heretic by the chief priests and scribes. With the threat of being
racked and gutted he himself denounced his discovery that the world
was round. To condemn another out of fear, you condemn
yourselves."
Everyone in Galileo's time (and for several hundred years before
that) knew that the world was round. Galileo was on trial for a
related but very different issue, whether the Earth revolved around
the Sun. He was, of course, correct, but he actually went beyond
the scientific evidence of his time, which was more
inconclusive.
|1.15.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Ha! I guess Paul is still gaining supporters! Richard Viguerie
has launched a web
site on his behalf!
If that doesn't get the hankies a-wavin' around here, I don't know
what will!
UltimateRonPaul.com
|1.15.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Let's get rid of him and send even more Mexican- and
African-Americans off to war to die. That's not racist at
all.
I see this argument being made a lot. And Paul's promises to end
the drug war, too.
I didn't realize "disparate impact" theory was so popular among
right-libertarians.
Ed|1.15.08 @ 7:35PM|#
fuck you reason. how can you try and assassinate the best chance at spreading our libertarian views. Racists are collectivists, to say because Ron Paul had a racist work on his newsletter invalidates everything he has actually said and done on race issues is a collectivist view and an argument built on logical fallacies. Ron Pauls newlsetter is the product of more than one person to say that what one person wrote in the newsletter invalidates it is bullshit. WE know Ron Paul isn't a racist because if you look at what he has said and how he has voted in the past proves to us Ron Paul the individual is not a racist. I am not a racist but I have had friends who were, but to say I'm a racist because I associated with such fools is no argument against how I myself act as a person. No one is perfect and some people are just really stupid, I think Ron is foolish for being a christian but it isn't relevant. I'm voting because Ron Paul votes the way he says he will and that is almost unanimously pro liberty always. So fuck the traffic baiting and fuck the holier than thou bullshit. We know he isn't a racist and we know I'm probably some stoned or drunk person who can't write a comment.
|1.15.08 @ 7:40PM|#
James Kabala,
Correction noted. The point remains valid.
To condemn another out of fear, you condemn yourselves.
Not Here To Help|1.15.08 @ 7:45PM|#
Among that evidence is that they don't even sound like Dr
Paul.
They don't sound like Lew Rockwell, either. But the purpose of a
witch hunt is to invent a witch.
It's obvious whose writings the condemned passages do
strongly resemble, but there's no profit in outing him, as he's
already roundly dismissed for reasons that render this flap
redundant. So it won't happen.
Paul and Rockwell won't give him up, probably as a matter of
personal honor, and the Reason-led pile-on is only about
disowning libertarianism's image among leftists as an ideology of
white male rurality, and distancing themselves from those who don't
give a fuck what leftists think of us, not about finding out what
actually happened.
Paul|1.15.08 @ 7:46PM|#
To condemn another out of fear, you condemn
yourselves.
I fear Hillary Clinton...does that count?
|1.15.08 @ 7:54PM|#
It's obvious whose writings the condemned passages do
strongly resemble, but there's no profit in outing him, as he's
already roundly dismissed for reasons that render this flap
redundant. So it won't happen.
Are you talking about Eric Dondero or Gary North?
Because the latter has a writing/grammar style totally different
from the one utilized in the newsletters.
What's more, Gary has been writing and selling his own newsletters
for ages. It doesn't make sense for him to do someone else's and
make them different from his while still doing his own, does
it?
|1.15.08 @ 8:02PM|#
How exactly would that "actually" worsen the cultural
climate for minorities? Wouldn't the target for the material have
already, you know, been racist?
Can we assume every subscriber was a racist before subscribing?
Some people probably knew Paul as a prominent libertarian, signed
up because they were interested in libertarianism.
If, as some Paul groupies insist, Paul himself had no knowledge of
the racist content in his eponymous newsletter, why should we
assume that every subscriber had that knowledge before
subscribing?
|1.15.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Paul,
No man/woman has divine power. Fear is a state of mind used to
subvert mankind. After all, there is only one to fear.
|1.15.08 @ 8:11PM|#
If you squint just right, some Reasonoids look to be playing the part of the Shiites from Islam's Shiite/Sunni split.
cosmoprozackian|1.15.08 @ 8:12PM|#
what about when Jesus expelled the money changers from the
Temple?
Jesus was an anti-Semite neo-Nazi. After all, you can't expect
someone who rants about "money changers" to be very
cosmopolitan!
Sulla|1.15.08 @ 8:25PM|#
Apropos of nothing, if you click on the link, you'll see another take on the issue, with Something Awful's Ron Paul Political Report: Kidz Page. I apologize if this has already been noted elsewhere, but it looks like it just came out.
Sulla|1.15.08 @ 8:26PM|#
I mean, of course, click on my name in the post above, for the link therein (so to speak).
|1.15.08 @ 8:30PM|#
the Reason-led pile-on is only about disowning
libertarianism's image among leftists as an ideology of white male
rurality, and distancing themselves from those who don't give a
fuck what leftists think of us, not about finding out what actually
happened
I see the "pile-on" as an honest debate over political principles.
For some of us, promoting bigotry and race war runs counter to
basic libertarian principles and warrants strong rebuttal,
regardless how it affects the short-term interests of one
politician's campaign.
Thought experiment: If some politican developed a new spinoff
ideology called "stalinolibertarianism" and ran for president,
would we have this chorus of "don't criticize a fellow libertarian,
don't air dirty laundry, he says he didn't write all that stuff
about reeducating class enemies in concentration camps anyway"? Or
would we want open debate about where libertarians should stand on
the concentration camp issue? That's how some of us feel about the
race war and culture war rhetoric in those Ron Paul
newsletters.
reading is fundamental|1.15.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Gary North The newsletter wasn't promoting race
war, it was predicting one, and condemning those who were promoting
one.
Q|1.15.08 @ 8:43PM|#
Reason has to be PC and throw Paul under the bus because they put his face on the cover of the mag. Any newcomer to the website will see that picture and wonder if Reason supports this "racist" man. Then they'll look at some of the H&R posts and be like "oh, even THEY don't like him."
Eric Dondero|1.15.08 @ 8:48PM|#
You won't believe the very latest. DailyKos uncovered a list of Michigan Ron Paul campaign coordinators. On the list as Midland Campaign Chairman is the local KKK Grand Wizard.
|1.15.08 @ 9:26PM|#
Eric, you won't believe the latest: you're a loser who needs to get a life and get over the fact that Ron Paul has made more of himself than you'll ever become.
Robert|1.15.08 @ 9:58PM|#
What's the value been of having Ron Paul in Congress? I'm sure you could argue that policy papers and research and training from the Reason-Cato-IHS "Kochtopus" has done more to move libertarian ideas from the ether into practice than having a lone libertarian vote in the House. ...am pleased that the next generations of libertarian-minded legislator-the John Campbells and Jeff Flakes-are pragmatic and removed from the old Rothbard mud-wrestling matches.
I've been saying that for years. Ron Paul's a great guy and all, but casting 1 alienated vote in the House just doesn't do much per se. I don't know how much of the ample and generous following he's had for decades owes to his having been elected, but I suspect that had he spent fewer terms in Congress and more terms practicing obs-gyn and coin dealing, his following would've been just as strong and as influential or maybe more so. Meanwhile Jeff Flake in recent times and good ol' "Individual Man" from Calif. (name I keep forgetting) show how to have more influence in Congress while eschewing the Dr. No role.
Robert|1.15.08 @ 10:00PM|#
What's the value been of having Ron Paul in Congress? I'm sure you could argue that policy papers and research and training from the Reason-Cato-IHS "Kochtopus" has done more to move libertarian ideas from the ether into practice than having a lone libertarian vote in the House. You could argue that Paul's career has been a net negative for libertarians, although I don't think Wilkinson is going there. Personally I like having Paul in the House, was thrilled when he entered the race (thinking he'd raise around $1 million and get a few votes in New Hampshire then pack it up), and am pleased that the next generations of libertarian-minded legislator-the John Campbells and Jeff Flakes-are pragmatic and removed from the old Rothbard mud-wrestling matches.
I've been saying that for years. Ron Paul's a great guy and all, but casting 1 alienated vote in the House just doesn't do much per se. I don't know how much of the ample and generous following he's had for decades owes to his having been elected, but I suspect that had he spent fewer terms in Congress and more terms practicing obs-gyn and coin dealing, his following would've been just as strong and as influential or maybe more so. Meanwhile Jeff Flake in recent times and good ol' "Individual Man" from Calif. (name I keep forgetting) show how to have more influence in Congress while eschewing the Dr. No role.
And now I got the paras. separated right.
Robert|1.15.08 @ 10:05PM|#
What's the value been of having Ron Paul in Congress? I'm sure you could argue that policy papers and research and training from the Reason-Cato-IHS "Kochtopus" has done more to move libertarian ideas from the ether into practice than having a lone libertarian vote in the House. ...am pleased that the next generations of libertarian-minded legislator-the John Campbells and Jeff Flakes-are pragmatic and removed from the old Rothbard mud-wrestling matches.
I've been saying that for years. Ron Paul's a great guy and all,
but casting 1 alienated vote in the House just doesn't do much per
se. I don't know how much of the ample and generous following he's
had for decades owes to his having been elected, but I suspect that
had he spent fewer terms in Congress and more terms practicing
obs-gyn and coin dealing, his following would've been just as
strong and as influential or maybe more so. Meanwhile Jeff Flake in
recent times and good ol' "Individual Man" from Calif. (name I keep
forgetting) show how to have more influence in Congress while
eschewing the Dr. No role.
And now I got the paras. separated right FOR REAL! NO NEED NO
STINKIN' PREVIEW!!
|1.15.08 @ 10:07PM|#
"""And then you run into evidence showing that Ron Paul seems to
be perfectly chummy with conspiracy nuts, race war fanatics, and is
very closely tied to a group that supports White Identity nitwits,
slavery apologists, and neo-Nazis. """"
People that understand freedom, understand that it applies to
everyone equally. I don't see why this should be a problem for
freedom loving people.
I think it's people who like to discriminate who are really
complaining about Ron Paul's alleged discrimination. Of course I
expect the 24 hr news channels to make it a bigger story than it
deserves.
KKK|1.15.08 @ 10:20PM|#
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/15/17443/1121
BREAKING: Ron Paul's Klansman Kampaign Koordinator
by phenry
Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:36:42 PM PST
As voters in Michigan go to the polls to vote in today's primary,
volunteer coordinators for the Republican and Democratic
presidential candidates are working hard across the state. One of
these is Randy Gray, a 29-year-old resident of Midland, Michigan
whom the Ron Paul 2008 Michigan Campaign Web site lists as the
Midland County coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign. Gray's
campaign profile page, a cached version of which can be seen here,
doesn't go into much detail; there's a picture of Gray with the
candidate, along with Gray's statement that "I support Ron Paul
because he is in the fight for freedom." The page contains no
mention of one of Gray's other roles: organizer with the Knight's
Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan
libertreee|1.15.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Reno Nevada is where I live, and it is close to where the Donner
Party cannabilized itself.
Much like we see on these RP posts.
I have a friend who is half Mexican. He works as a health care
provider, drawing blood. But, he believes strongly in alternative
medicine.
He lives with a woman who has a hispanic name as well but doesn't
like illegal immigrants. She was formerly married to a black man in
the military who beat her sometimes. Their black teenage daughter
had a child early on and even though they are pushing sixty, they
take care of the baby.
They both drink a little too much but believe pot should be
legal.
He was a libertarian city councilman in a town of about 50,000
people from 1990-1994.
They both listen to Alex Jones and love Ron Paul.
People are not easily definable. Leave these cosmotarians to stew
in their own incestuous juices. Freedom is a universal right that
means accepting people for what they are, not what they think some
of the time.
Go Ron Paul!
|1.15.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Anatomy of a smear campaign: A look at how the beltway
libertarians tried to ruin RP...
http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/
And more on why these so-called libertarians seek to undermine Dr.
Paul as they depend on the income tax that Ron Paul seeks to
abolish:
http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/january-8-2008/
|1.15.08 @ 10:51PM|#
How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just
observed an improbably simultaneous media attack on Ron Paul the
day of the New Hampshire primary? A remarkably successful attack
that made him plunge from 14% in the polls to an 8% actual vote?
After weeks where we heard little about Paul from the mass media
and beltway "libertarian" bloggers? TNR from the left, Fox News and
talk radio from the right, and piling on from beltway
"libertarians" who made a point of loudly repeating the TNR smears
and dumping Ron Paul on the day of the primary. Your eyes and ears
did not deceive you, all this happened. It is not the result of a
criminal conspiracy, but if one uses "conspiracy" as a metaphor for
social networks and economic incentives, there is a strong sense in
which conspiracy theories accurately, if metaphorically, explain
what happened.
The reality behind the conspiratorial metaphor is the social
networking between denizens of the Beltway, who sport a wide
variety of political labels but are, relative to the rest of the
country, a monoculture. I lived there. I went to these parties.
These denizens range from the journalists who report the mass media
news to various think tank and university scholars at the Cato
Institute, George Mason University, and so on. They study Ayn Rand,
then marry Andrea Mitchell and testify against tax cuts. Vast
amounts of federal money, that stuff that is taken out of your
paycheck with such automatic ease, flow into the Beltway area.
Directly and indirectly, almost every person who lives in or near
the Beltway depends on the very income tax that Ron Paul declared
he would abolish - with no replacement!
Many of these paycheck vampires call themselves "libertarians" and
inspire us with their libertarian rhetoric to support them with our
attention, our blog hits, and our tuition money as well as the tax
money that already funds them or their friends. But at the first
sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway
"libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage. Now
they can rest easy that they will still be invited to the parties
thrown by their lobbyist and government employee and contractor
friends, who for a second or two got worried by all those Google
searches that Ron Paul might have some influence, resulting in some
of them losing their jobs (end the income tax with no replacement?!
The guy is obvioiusly a kook, and we don't invite the supporters of
kooks to our parties!). Now everybody around the Beltway can go
back to partying at the taxpayer's expense. All the money will keep
flowing in, hooray!
The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned from our
mass media and our beltway "libertarians"? Libertarian
electioneering is futile. Voting is futile. Democracy is futile.
It's hip to be "libertarian." But anybody who actually wants
liberty is a kook, as can be proven by their association with
kooks. Beltway wonks posing as "libertarians" are happy to write
things to inflame your hopes for liberty that they don't really
mean. Then they make sure that we elect the politicians their
friends want - the ones that will enslave your future to pay for
full social security for Baby Boomers. The ones that will send you
off to foreign lands to kill and die. Not only the journalists who
hang out with the government bureaucrats and lobbyists, and not
only the politicians who talk sweet while they drain your paycheck
and kill your fellow human beings, but even the beltway
"libertarians" are happy to let a whole new generation of
libertarians go down the tubes in order to keep their Beltway
friends happy.
http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/january-8-2008/
Sam Grove|1.15.08 @ 11:00PM|#
What is the biggest obstacle to Ron Paul getting elected?
The same obstacle the the LP has to deal with.
Electability.
Will's argument about electability has frustrated libertarians for
a long time.
Why, if we had a vote for everytime someone had said: "but you'll
never get elected/you don't have a chance", we'd be in charge by
now.
Brandybuck|1.15.08 @ 11:37PM|#
Why do people keep assuming survivalists and "militia types" are
racist? Some were, but I suspect the vast majority were not.
I recall those days. There was talk of a race war, but it wasn't a
war to be started by blacks, but by communist infiltraters and
"insiders". (No, I didn't believe in that crap, but that was what I
was hearing). There were race problems, and they didn't seem to be
getting better. The Rodney King riots seemed to foretell a time of
mindless rioting over race. As near as I recall, those riots WERE
about race.
Belief that there might be a race war isn't racist, it's merely a
belief that other people who are racist might start one for their
own nefarious purposes. Nutty to be sure, but not necessarily
racist.
Lots of things drew people into the survivalist movement: the cold
war, economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, imminent
totalitarianism, etc. A "race war" was just one of the reasons. For
militia types, it was almost universally about imminent
totalitarianism.
From my perspective, they were nutbags, just like the Truthers
today are nutbags. But they weren't necessarily racist. That all
right wing fringe groups are racist is a myth promulgated by the
SPLC and other leftist groups.
Just my perspective.
tsehov|1.16.08 @ 5:11AM|#
>With the threat of being racked and gutted he himself
denounced his discovery that the world was round.
The issue was earth rotating around the sun and not vice verse.
This reminds me a story by a friend of mine about his students in a
Chicago university, who actually believed that Columbus discovered
US in the 18th century. For long I thought American ignorance to be
a stereotype created by the European liberal media, but...
Lew Rockwell is Dirt|1.16.08 @ 10:32AM|#
How About This? Lew Rockwell should be chucked out on his ear. His evil racism makes us all dirty. He's got to go.
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