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
Bob Barr to Stormfront: Drop Dead
One of the bigger media blunders the Ron Paul campaign made was its handling of endorsements from the bigots at Stormfront. White nationalists slithered around the fringes of the Paul movement, and Paul refused to return a donation from Stormfronter Don Black on the grounds that he'd rather the money be spent on the Paul campaign than spent by racists.
The Bob Barr campaign's taking a different approach to the same issue. Yesterday, James Buchanan posted a racist Barr endorsement at WhiteCivilRights:
A vote for Bob Barr would at least send a message to the Republican Party that conservatives and Whites won’t sit still as they are stuck with a liberal presidential candidate like McCain. Supporting Bob Barr might even pave the way for a Third Party to replace the increasingly repugnant Republican Party... If voting for McCain is a waste of time, since he’s never going to win (because conservatives hate him), then the best course of action may be a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. If Barr gets millions of votes, it will be a very strong sign that the neocons and their warmonger policies have failed and the Republican Party should change course and stop supporting wars for Israel.
Stormfront member "WhiteRights" posted the column in the site's message boards, which is where the Barr campaign found it. Barr campaign manager Russ Verney released this statement:
The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.
Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!
Barr consultant Steve Gordon sent me the statement and added: "We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody equally under the law."
Elemenope|6.2.08 @ 1:34PM|#
While I appreciated somewhat the ideological...purity of RP's approach to this issue, telling the racists to go fuck themselves might scrape some credibility together for the Lib movement. It's certainly better *politics*.
|6.2.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Good for the Barr campaign!
The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.
Good for the Barr campaign on this, too. It'll cost them votes with
the hardline fundies, no doubt, but I'm glad they said it
nonetheless.
|6.2.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the
backside on your way out!
What, what! Holla at your boy.
This rules so hard.
thoreau|6.2.08 @ 1:40PM|#
OK, Barr gets some points in my book for this one.
How long before somebody starts howling that he's a cosmotarian or
Orange Line Libertarian?
Episiarch|6.2.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for
every resident of our country regardless of race, religion,
nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open
arms
Hating haters is ok, though, right?
Taktix®|6.2.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Who wants to argue that Mary Ruwart would have made such a
strong denunciation?
Good job Bobby!
stephen the goldberger|6.2.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Although Ron Paul's position was logically correct, giving these
guys any visibility or having your name associated with them is far
more harmful than giving them their money back.
Glad to see Barr not bother.
thoreau|6.2.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Except that Paul's position ignored the fact that there is no such thing as free money, and once you accept somebody's donation that person is going to be baggage. So it was not consistent with reality.
Abdul|6.2.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Is telling Nazis to go pound sand really an act of political bravery in today's world?
|6.2.08 @ 1:47PM|#
There was nothing Ron Paul could do with $200 that would promote his cause, or stick it to people like Black, better than rejecting the donation in a highly public manner, and explaining why.
thoreau|6.2.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Is telling Nazis to go pound sand really an act of political
bravery in today's world?
In the world of fringe politics it would appear that the answer is
"yes, yes it is."
|6.2.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Good on Barr!! I may just have to throw some cash his way.
I have to admit that he is toeing the LP line nicely. It won't
happen of course but I'd be really interested in seeing what he
would do with the Presidency. Would he truly maintain the LP stance
or would he revert and become just another Conservacrat in the
Throne of Power.
|6.2.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Well, racists admire Bob Barr because he defended some KKK
nutjob on his gun charges. Back then they raised funds by touting
how they could get enough money together to hire King White Man bob
Barr as his lawyer.
As the Founder and Executive Vice President of Cosmotarian, I
welcome Bob Barr to the Orange/Pink side.
|6.2.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Well well, I am delightedly surprised to see Barr fulfilling his
promise as an adept and deft politician. He's on a roll from the
convention where he captured the nomination in the face of a
hostile opposition, pulling off a very tricky maneuver of taking
the high road, packaging himself as Libertarian through and
through, while deflecting assaults without returning fire. If he
keeps this up... well let's not jinx it.
The real test will be if he holds the Libertarian line and rejects
his conservative past when he's talking to that wider audience he's
suppose to deliver.
♪|6.2.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Bonus points for platitudes!
Is telling Nazis to go pound sand really an act of political
bravery in today's world?
In the world of fringe politics it would appear that the answer is
"yes, yes it is."
Based on what? Was Ron Paul a political coward for not giving the
money back?
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Big points to the Barr campaign for this one!!
I did like the response by Dr. Paul's campaign too. Nothing wrong
with what they did at all. I just prefer the Barr approach a bit
more.
Taktix®|6.2.08 @ 2:06PM|#
There was nothing Ron Paul could do with $200 that would
promote his cause, or stick it to people like Black, better than
rejecting the donation in a highly public manner, and explaining
why.
Who says he'd have to give it back. If I (or anyone else with half
a wit) was running and got $200 from Stormfront, I'd use the money
to light candles at a black church...
|6.2.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Barr consultant Steve Gordon sent me the statement and
added: "We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody
equally under the law."
Yes!! Down with all racism, from Steamfront bigotry to affirmative
action.
Invisible Finger:
What if I hate socialists? Am I allowed in then?
Well, hating socialism is a requirement.
|6.2.08 @ 2:12PM|#
While I suppose it would be ideologically pure to both keep
donations from neo-Nazis AND rip them a new a-hole like Bob Barr
did here, pounding them and absolutely refusing them to accept a
dime from them is WAY more satisfying.
And love the way he included sexual orientation in the list.
If Barr keeps this up, I'll finally be able to feel good about
voting for someone for president.
|6.2.08 @ 2:13PM|#
http://us.altermedia.info/images/mccain3.jpg
It's a fairly harmless-looking URL. Do yourself a favor and go
there.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Who says he'd have to give it back. If I (or anyone else
with half a wit) was running and got $200 from Stormfront, I'd use
the money to light candles at a black church...
Watch out! When the Socialists get to this thread you may be
accused of making an implied threat to burn down a Black
Church.
But seriously, I do not recall all of the denominations of Churches
that do the candle lighting donation stuff like the Catholics, but
I have not seen a predominantly Black church that did that. Then
again, the ones I remember visiting were Baptist.
|6.2.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Who says he'd have to give it back. If I (or anyone else with half a wit) was running and got $200 from Stormfront, I'd use the money to light candles at a black church...
Taktix,
That only works if the media is there to cover it. Hell, as of
right now Barr has gotten more mainstream media than Paul did in
his first six months of running. Though the picture would have been
priceless...
Camera pans wide. Ron Paul bends down, lighting the candle. Camera zooms in as he slowly stands straight up. He looks the camera square on and says "With the $200 that Don Black of Stormfront donated I purchased all the candles you see here plus dinner for the Pastor and his wife."
Of course, it would have to be scripted by a better speech writer
than I.
|6.2.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Okay Warty, I clicked and I am sorry I did.
Ignoring the adopted kid, what's with the one on the right? He
looks like Damien from the Omen. Is Stormfront really suggesting
that a black kid is WORSE than the spawn of Satan??
B|6.2.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Um, let's try that again:
Was Ron Paul a political coward for not giving the money
back?
No, just really fucking obtuse.
The odds of me giving Barr some money just went up
considerably.
jj|6.2.08 @ 2:20PM|#
How long before somebody starts howling that he's a
cosmotarian or Orange Line Libertarian?
What a cheap shot, Thoreau. As one of those "hard-line" fundies,
I'm ant-racist, and support the rights of drug abusers and
homosexuals, even though I disagree with them on some personal
points.
I'll tell you when I start calling Barr, Paul, or anyone else a
cosmotarian: when they stoop to the people-group/gender/class
generalizations sadly seen on this board and in reason's
commentators. Until he becomes a bigot (racist, or anti-religious),
I won't be calling him silly names.
|6.2.08 @ 2:20PM|#
This suburban white boy is a bit shocked that people like the stormfront creeps still exist. It's fucking 2008, for christ's sake.
|6.2.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Who says he'd have to give it back. If I (or anyone else
with half a wit) was running and got $200 from Stormfront, I'd use
the money to light candles at a black church...
It would be pretty great if he adopted the Paul line of "why let
them spend it" and donated the money to, say, some charity helping
out in poor areas of New Orleans or something.
bluebeard|6.2.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Hating socialism is good.
Hating socialists is bad.
Hating religion is good.
Hating religious bad.
Sorry, scratch that. Only colored people shouldn't be hated. Go
ahead and hate religious people. It's not a skin color, it's a
choice. (Even when they chose not to harm you.)
BakedPenguin|6.2.08 @ 2:24PM|#
I still think Paul should have given Black's donation to the Wesley Snipes defense fund. He could have made the same point Barr just did, made Black look like an ass, and gotten some free air time to talk about the IRS.
Shylock|6.2.08 @ 2:26PM|#
As a Jew I wouldn't give back a cent donated to me by Stormfront. As people have commented before--less money for them to be hoods and matches.
|6.2.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Warty | June 2, 2008, 2:20pm | #
This suburban white boy is a bit shocked that people like the
stormfront creeps still exist. It's fucking 2008, for christ's
sake.
On the internet, nobody knows there are five of you.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Is this Mr. Black fellow supposed to be the Gen. Walker of the 21st Century or something?
|6.2.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Is there any point to being a white supremicist if you will vote for a black candidate over a white candidate because of the latter's political views? Oh I forgot, Bob Barr being black is a secret outside of Atlanta.
|6.2.08 @ 2:32PM|#
On the internet, nobody knows there are five of
you.
True dat. Stormfront and the various Christian Identity and militia
movements had their heyday in the early 1990s after Waco and Ruby
Ridge. Then a cat named Timothy McVeigh fucked it all up for them.
It's impossible to overstate how much Oklahoma City contributed to
the shrinking of such racist groups.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:34PM|#
It's impossible to overstate how much Oklahoma City
contributed to the shrinking of such racist groups.
Don't forget lobster rustling too.
|6.2.08 @ 2:34PM|#
We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody
equally under the law.
To some, this is racist. Look at the uproar over doing away with
affirmative action if you doubt me.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Is there any point to being a white supremicist if you will
vote for a black candidate over a white candidate because of the
latter's political views? Oh I forgot, Bob Barr being black is a
secret outside of Atlanta.
Seems there is a 'logic' there that is difficult for outsiders to
understand. Kind of like for a lot of the extreamists of different
stripes.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:39PM|#
[uber-dooper Leftist voice]
To some, this is racist. Look at the uproar over doing away
with affirmative action if you doubt me.
You Libertarian fascist bigot!
Some people need affirmative action to be equal! And don't call it
quotas! It is not quotas! We need to count percentages to make sure
everybody is being treated equally!
Only a KKK member would disagree!
[Howard Dean scream]
[/uber-dooper Leftist voice]
|6.2.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Ah, the "Affirmative Action" dodge.
"I'm not a racist; I agree with Don Black about affirmative
action."
"I hate racism! The blacks get all the breaks!"
Hacha Cha|6.2.08 @ 2:40PM|#
sorry but racists didn't make up the majority of Paul's contributors. Barr will be lucky to raise a quarter of what the Paul campaign did for the PRIMARY.
Ayn R. Key|6.2.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Barr consultant Steve Gordon sent me the statement and
added: "We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody
equally under the law."
Wow, Barr denounces Barr.
Unless he
renounces earlier positions that he currently refuses to
address (and has followers tell us we are wrong to ask those
questions).
|6.2.08 @ 2:47PM|#
How clueless is stormfront to not know Bob Barr is african american. Barr would show great courage by coming out and talking about his heritage instead of denying it. Barr could use this position to show how ridiculous stormfront is. He can say by the way I am african american. You were supporting me because you didn't know that. That shows how pointless stormfront is.
|6.2.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Serious question for H&R
readers/posters:
Debate in the newsroom this morning: Was it racist for the United
States to round up Italians and Italian nationals in the U.S.
before the outbreak of World War II?
Because many Italians were detained in Missoula, Montana, where I
live.
Naga Sadow|6.2.08 @ 2:49PM|#
As an occasional viewer of South Park, I have good advice to give Stormfront and others of that ilk. Whoever neo-nazis vote for will lose, so they should back Obama. Neo-nazis get publicity, for them the black guy gets defeated, and I have laughs long after the election. Gonna be good times if they take my advice.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Jamie,
Technically that was bigoted. Italian is not a race.
BTW, exactly which "newsroom" had this 'debate'?
Taktix®|6.2.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Camera pans wide. Ron Paul bends down, lighting the candle.
Camera zooms in as he slowly stands straight up. He looks the
camera square on and says "With the $200 that Don Black of
Stormfront donated I purchased all the candles you see here plus
dinner for the Pastor and his wife."
I mean actually igniting the $200 in front of cameras with a LP
Yellow and Blue Bic lighter (which I would start calling the
lighter of justice) and lighting the candles that way.
For the symbolism...
|6.2.08 @ 2:51PM|#
reading such articles and comments which are supposed to be good
"reasoning" make me wonder if basic reasoning is near to
extinction?
here is a question:
shouldn't the candidates then dig and return all the donations of
"wife beaters", "rapists" and everyone else who are immoral in the
society?? shouldn't we screening every donor for their moral
standing?
Just repudiating a particular donation, only because it has come to
the light, otherwise "i don't give a hoot" attitude is again for
the people who pander for the power with pseudo-principles..
I hate people who cannot 'reason' some simple principles. ohh..
should my donations be returned now because I am a hater? who is
looking into it??
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Taktix®,
I would use it to light my big fat Cuban cigars while adjusting my
monocle.
|6.2.08 @ 2:52PM|#
2 percent is not realistic. If Barr got one million votes which
would be a libertarian record it would still fall short of 2
percent.
Turnout could be 140 to 150 million.
2 percent would be 2.5 million votes. With a voter registration
base 10 percent of that I don't see how that is possible.
Barr is not a household name like Ron Paul.
Paul would have gotten 2 percent easily.
All those polls which show Barr at 6 percent just remember in 2004
those polls had nader at 6 percent and he got a half of
percent.
They don't poll the name the poll the party.
Besides Barr's goal isn't to get 2 percent nationally.
Barr's goal is to cherry pick swing states in the mountain west
where he can flip the states from McCain to Obama. Barr will be
Obama's wingman in those states. You watch Barr will camp out
there.
In 2004 a lot of money was paid for the recount to flip ohio from
bush to kerry even though it wasn't possible.
This shows the only goal for Barr is to help get Obama elected.
|6.2.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Was it racist for the United States to round up Italians and
Italian nationals in the U.S. before the outbreak of World War
II?
Of course. Assuming you can judge someone to be a threat or a
traitor because of their ethnic background is obviously
racist.
Now, noting that people who are loyal to Mussolini and may pose a
threat are more likely to be named "Cressitelli" than "Jones," so
it might be worth putting some extra effort into doing legwork in
the Italian neighborhoods, is just common sense, but making the
leap to concluding that being of Italian extraction makes one a
security risk is undeniably racist.
|6.2.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Who wants to argue that Mary Ruwart would have made such a strong denunciation?
Nah. She would have gone to their forum and signed their petition.
Oh wait, that was the 9/11 Troofers, not the Stormtroopers...
|6.2.08 @ 2:55PM|#
BTW, exactly which "newsroom" had this 'debate'?
Guy,
Jamie Kelly works for the Missoulian (the local rag
for Missoula, MT).
|6.2.08 @ 2:56PM|#
I don't understand why Barr is hiding his african american heritage. He should be proud of it. I am african american. It shows a flaw in his character to hide it. I will still donate money to his campaign because I want Obama to win. We are raising a lot of money for Barr at Dailykos. Barr will take votes from conservative dems that would have gone to McCain and never to my candidate. Barr will help Obama get elected. Thank you Bob Barr for being Obama's pit bull.
|6.2.08 @ 2:56PM|#
shouldn't the candidates then dig and return all the
donations of "wife beaters", "rapists" and everyone else who are
immoral in the society?? shouldn't we screening every donor for
their moral standing?
There's a difference between personal moral failings and political
ideology. Don Black wasn't a guy who locks his doors when stopped a
light in a black neighborhood, or even someone who was mean to his
black neighbor when he passes them on the sidewalk.
|6.2.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Stormfronters are fools.
Barr is 50 percent african american just like Obama.
I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they find out.
What fools.
|6.2.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Barr is not a household name like Ron Paul.
On the other hand, Barr has been in a Genuine Hollywood
Movie, whereas Ron Paul has only been in a direct to video
"documentary" by
Alex Jones.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Jamie Kelly works for the Missoulian (the local rag for
Missoula, MT).
One would think someone in that newsroom would know what
racism actually was. Or perhaps the argument was between those who
know the difference between racism and other forms of
bigotry?
I once heard a stupid argument where one person was speaking ill of
a fellow's effeminite behavior and the other called him a "racist".
Ugh, that was in the early 1980s too.
|6.2.08 @ 3:05PM|#
One would think someone in that newsroom would know what
racism actually was. Or perhaps the argument was between those who
know the difference between racism and other forms of
bigotry?
Well, OK -- but I've gotten emails from readers arguing that it
wasn't even bigoted -- just a policy adopted by the United States
in a time of war, for national security.
T|6.2.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Was it racist for the United States to round up Italians and
Italian nationals in the U.S. before the outbreak of World War
II?
Yes, as I understand racial attitudes of the time. Italians, Slavs,
and other such swarthy folk were not considered to be white like
good Anglo-Saxon folk. Check out some of the 20s and 30s eugenics
stuff for references.
Because many Italians were detained in Missoula, Montana, where
I live.
Damn. That's harsh. From sunny Italy to freakin' Missoula? Talk
about a change of climate.
|6.2.08 @ 3:06PM|#
It's about time the rethuglican reptiles got overthrown (no offense to the decent conservative human beings).
|6.2.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Well, OK -- but I've gotten emails from readers arguing that
it wasn't even bigoted -- just a policy adopted by the United
States in a time of war, for national security.
It can be both.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Well, OK -- but I've gotten emails from readers arguing that
it wasn't even bigoted -- just a policy adopted by the United
States in a time of war, for national security.
Well, now that is a bunch of pretty silly readers too. Rounding up
the Japanese in the West was a policy in time of war, but it was
certainly a bigited one.
|6.2.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Here is a letter to the editor, running in tomorrow's
newspaper:
Please inform Jamie Kelly that the policy of internment was not
"racist", but a common sense national policy critical to the
survival of the United States in time of war. To interject this
incorrect, biased personal view gratuitiously in the second
sentence of a front page news story does little promote the
public's understanding of history.
Discuss.
stephen the goldberger|6.2.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Wait, I didnt know Bob Barr was half-black. He looks so pasty.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Sounds lik you have a lot of Socialist apologists out there in Montana, Jamie. Is that the new militia movement these days?
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Wait, I didnt know Bob Barr was half-black. He looks so
pasty.
What difference does it make?
Elemenope|6.2.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Jamie Kelly, what is there to discuss? The epistolist is a risible tool. You are right, they are wrong.
|6.2.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Sounds like you have a lot of Socialist apologists out there
in Montana, Jamie.
Missoula is a great mix of a) college hippies, b) blood-red
conservatives, c) bull dykes, d) organic farmers, e) burnt-out 60s
radicals, and f) drunks and drug users.
stephen the goldberger|6.2.08 @ 3:16PM|#
What difference does it make?
Cause i'm a mega racist.
I just think its interesting, could explain why he took such a
hardline against Stormfront, and may lead to interesting results if
hate groups consider supporting him.
|6.2.08 @ 3:19PM|#
People who lock their doors because they're stopped at a traffic
light in a black neighborhood think it's as common sense reactionm
too - a reaction to the very real threat of violent crime. Violent
crime actually does happen.
Racists rarely fear that the object of their fear is going to harm
them in some manner that doesn't actually exist on Planet Earth.
Taking precautions against car jacking is common sense. Taking
precautions against sabotage and espionage during wartime is common
sense.
Taking pre-emptive action to defend against a threat from a
particular person, when you only assume that person poses that
threat because of that person's ethnic background, is a racist
act.
|6.2.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Most modern newspaper editors believe that no view, if held by at least one letter-writing reader, can ever be entirely "wrong."
T|6.2.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Missoula is a great mix of a) college hippies, b) blood-red
conservatives, c) bull dykes, d) organic farmers, e) burnt-out 60s
radicals, and f) drunks and drug users.
Shit, sounds way more interesting than Great Falls. Maybe I should
go there next time I get to Montana.
|6.2.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Shit, sounds way more interesting than Great Falls. Maybe I
should go there next time I get to Montana.
The rest of the state got together and collectively kicked Great
Falls out. We're hoping Canada will adopt it.
|6.2.08 @ 3:26PM|#
So he's running on the love everyone hippie platform? Oh man, he's going after Obama votes! Meanwhile, kill the dirty dark-folk in the middle-east. They earned Barr's hate. It's different.
|6.2.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Most modern newspaper editors believe that no view, if held
by at least one letter-writing reader, can ever be entirely
"wrong."
I just talked to the editorial page editor. She apparently has
received about half-a-dozen such letters. She plans on running two
of them. "After that, I'm cutting the kooks off," she said.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 3:28PM|#
In college I heard that there was something odd about the VFW or
AmVets club in Missoula, MT, but forgot what it was. The younger
brother of a gal I knew in Knoxville had gone there near the time I
met him and he was going off to the Air Force.
Was back around 1990ish.
|6.2.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Guy,
I was in the VFW hall in Key West about a year ago and struck up a
conversation with a random barfly. Turns out he'd been active in
the LP up in Cleveland two decades earlier when I'd been active in
the LP in Columbus.
"You worked on the Goetz for Governor campaign, too?!!"
I figure the chances were about 1 in 300 million. Small world.
|6.2.08 @ 3:34PM|#
In college I heard that there was something odd about the
VFW or AmVets club in Missoula, MT, but forgot what it
was.
There is an AmVets bar downtown, and it's a gay bar. Every now and
then, some old veteran or young military folks from out of town
will wander in there.
They do a pretty quick about-face, forward march.
Orange Line Special|6.2.08 @ 3:34PM|#
What a brave decision by Barr, considering the hundreds - maybe
even one or two thousand - who support Stormfront. And, this will
certainly help inoculate him against attacks from the left,
right?
Well, not really, since I have a feeling that Barr would wilt when
faced with the opportunity to denounce less overtly racist but much
more powerful groups like the one that
McCain's going to speak to and which - unlike Stormfront -
receives federal funds.
In fact, I'm going to send off yet another email to Gordon asking
whether they'll be opposing that and similar groups. As with the
other emails, I expect it to be unanswered.
|6.2.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Guy Montag, I'll see your pedantic assertion that bigotry
against Italians is not racism and raise you with the pedantic
assertion that Caucasian, Africans, and Asians are not really
different races.
Sheen, I think a ittle "basic reasoning" would reveal that there is
a useful distinction between someone who is a rapist and an
organization of rapists who have banded together to advance the
cause of rape.
|6.2.08 @ 3:42PM|#
I think Ron Paul's is the better response. The trouble with
repudiating the support of "hate groups" is that you have to define
what you mean by "hate", which gets you into all kinds of disputes
over political correctness. Are those who support, for instance,
The Defense of Marriage Act, subscribing to "hate"?
When Ron Paul said that he would not return anyone's money based
upon their political pronouncements he stated that he did not
thereby associate himself with their pronouncements, but rather it
was they who wished to associate themselves with his
pronouncements, and he had no control over that. Once you fall into
the trap of disassociating yourself from one person who "supports"
you, the questions will never end as to why you don't do the same
with others. See what happened to Barack Obama, once he played the
game of affirming or repudiating everything his pastor said.
Candidates should insist that the media can question them about
anything they say or print (such as Ron Paul's lamented
newsletter), but they will not comment on anyone else's comments,
now matter how outrageous they are. It's not only a good principle,
but it also saves you a lot of headaches. Those who aren't
satisfied with this answer are those who aren't likely to support
you anyway.
Guy Montag|6.2.08 @ 3:42PM|#
There is an AmVets bar downtown, and it's a gay bar. Every
now and then, some old veteran or young military folks from out of
town will wander in there.
They do a pretty quick about-face, forward march.
Yea, that's what it was! I knew it was something that just did not
quite match the typical AmVets experience.
CN,
I ran into an instructor pilot I knew from 1985/86 in the Champps
bar close to the Pentagon a couple of months ago. Was the first
time we had run into each other since the 1980s. He was in the firs
set of factory-trained Apache instructors and was my boss' Apache
instructor back in the day.
|6.2.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Some years ago there was a titty bar in Missoula out by the interstate across from a truckstop. When the dancers stampeded the stage with cowbells and cankle bracelets, we figured it was time to leave.
|6.2.08 @ 3:48PM|#
William Dalton,
I hear what you're saying, but Stormfront is some pretty
low-hanging fruit.
|6.2.08 @ 3:52PM|#
They were attached to the batterypack for the backup beeper as near as I could tell.
Mike Laursen|6.2.08 @ 3:57PM|#
How clueless is stormfront to not know Bob Barr is african
american. Barr would show great courage by coming out and talking
about his heritage instead of denying it.
I don't know that much about Barr. Has he actually denied that he
is part African-American? Or do you just mean that he doesn't talk
about it?
|6.2.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Some years ago there was a titty bar in Missoula out by the
interstate across from a truckstop.
That's called Fred's.
Good place to go to watch semi-retarded locals show you their
snatch.
There's a much nicer place called the Fox Club. Nice out-of-town
porn stars and whores there.
True story: My wife and I had our first date there.
|6.2.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Are those who support, for instance, The Defense of Marriage
Act, subscribing to "hate"?
Of course they are. That's pretty obvious! Next question?
B. Gengridge|6.2.08 @ 3:59PM|#
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. We should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
|6.2.08 @ 4:08PM|#
We should understand that racism will endure until we stop
thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of
individual liberty.
Desegregation, including its affirmative action variety, is an
effort to accomplish precisely that. I suppose we could just hope
that chanting nice platitudes - nice ones, ones I agree with - is
going to do the trick, but the world doesn't seem to work that
way.
Was Martin Luther King a racist? He talked about "little black
children" and "little white children." He also led the first
affirmative action movement, and provided the intellectual
foundation for subsequent efforts.
The way you get people to look past racial categories and relate to
people as individuals isn't to get an all-white social group to
agree that they're going to pretend not to know what a black person
is. It's to get some black asses in the chairs next to their white
asses, so they can actually get to know them as individuals and
relate to them that way.
|6.2.08 @ 4:08PM|#
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)-and then complained about slow service. What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."
|6.2.08 @ 4:24PM|#
R C Dean:
To some, this (denouncing anybody who doesn't want to treat
everybody equally under the law) is racist. Look at the uproar over
doing away with affirmative action if you doubt me.
Only to the very confused or hypocritical.
|6.2.08 @ 4:28PM|#
I was also wondering if Ron Paul did or didnt endorse Barr? How does Paul feel about the Barr Root ticket. How does Paul feel about Wayne Root.? Did Paul endorse or oppose Root? IS Paul thinking about a vp spot with Barr? Ive been looking everywhere for this info. Can find it. They have a couple of videos at www.BarrRoot.com but nothing about Paul. The Barr/Root ticket is going to fail without paul. I read an article about Ron Paul maybe being a vp or vice ( veep ) on the libertarian ticket? Would this mean the LP will drop Root and run Bar and Ron Paul? Its a pretty good article but I dont know how true it is. Here is the Link www.BarrRoot08.com
Freedom4America Group|6.2.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Citizen Nothing | June 2, 2008, 4:08pm | #
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks
to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The
"poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since
there were no deliveries)-and then complained about slow service.
What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would
have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting.
But they were paid off and the violence subsided."
===================
Even reports from the media, back then, were written in the same
language of what you just wrote from Dr. Paul's newsletter.
By the way, if what was in those newsletters was so bad then how
come NOT one of his subscribers contacted Dr. Paul in
outrage.
It was NOT until Dr. Paul was running for office that his opponent
brought those newsletters into public eye.
For an article explaining the Conspiracy against Dr. Paul read what
Heavy Fed wrote about. Heavy Fed was a part of the Smear until he
found out it was the NAZI Bill White that presented TNR with these
newsletters.
Heavy Fed even suspects that Bill White may have even penned a lot
of what was in these particular newsletters. Bill White hates Dr.
Paul because of the Jewish people that Dr. Paul is connected
to.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_heavy_fe_080216_conspiracy_against_r.htm
ONLY A Doctor WILL HEAL Our Country,
Freedom4America Group
|6.2.08 @ 4:40PM|#
"Bill White may have even penned a lot of what was in these
particular newsletters. Bill White hates Dr. Paul because of the
Jewish people that Dr. Paul is connected to."
Now THAT'S comedy!
|6.2.08 @ 4:40PM|#
So which one is Martin Luther King, Rick?
"All of God's children ..."
Clearly, joe, King wanted atheists put to death.
;-)
|6.2.08 @ 4:42PM|#
So which one is Martin Luther King, Rick?
On a tangential note, did you see that episode of "The Boondocks" wherein MLK was still alive?
|6.2.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Barr is playing a controversial political contribution with the skill of Bill Clinton. I understand that this might play better in the media and hope it works for Barr, but I still don't believe it is likely that a guy can switch his moral compass from thinking it is a good idea to imprison 1 million non-violent blacks in a drug war...to all of a sudden becoming a good libertarian in a couple years. Has he said he is sorry for helping to stick the parents of one million children in drug jail? has he shown any remorse over this? he still has a lot of kidnapping and blood on his hands in my opinion.
|6.2.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Bill White was probably in middle school when those newsletters
came out. It's hard to keep trac but that was probably when he was
a commie ( before he became a "libertarian nazi" or 800 different
labels he's embraced).
Those newsletters were online years ago. I remember as a new
Libertarian and first hearing about Ron Paul and other "libertarian
heroes" I researched the whole libertarian race issue and came
across those things as well as news stories from 1996. I also
remember finding that Murray Sabrin's campaign manager was a nutjob
white supremacist, and a lot of other Libertarian candidates had
ties to a lot of fringe racist militia groups, among other
things.
I remained a Libertarian, but i made a point of not embracing those
individuals. The Newsletters turned a lot of people off Ron paul in
2008, but knowing about them in 2000 kept me from ever embracing
him. ( and if not for the newsletters there were genuine policy
disagreements- frankly I don't consider Paul a libertarian).
You know why no "subscribers" complained? Because the Newsletters
were TAILORED to the subscribers. How many racist paranoid
survivalist militia men are going to complain about racist
newsletters? Just like Gary North and the y2k scam artists,
LR/RP/MR were targeting paranoid nutjobs for cash.
Taktix®|6.2.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Are we going to have to start typing Ron Paul in L337speak to prevent the Paulbots from dropping their electronic turds on the threads?
|6.2.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Not planning on voting for Barr, but props for his quick denunciation of racists. I'm very glad to see that he won't tolerate that kind of hateful behavior from anyone.
|6.2.08 @ 5:09PM|#
I don't think Paul was being all that obtuse, unless you mean it
was obtuse to think the media would give him a chance to explain
why he kept the money.
Barr is going to find the problem with returning money to bigots
when complaints are raised: *Virtually everybody* is a bigot in
somebody's opinion. You return Stormfront's money, and the next
thing you know people are asking you why you're not returning money
from this group, and that group, and THOSE people who donated are
Masons.... You're always going to be wasting your time explaining
why you drew the line THERE. Might as well draw it in a principled
place, and keep the money.
The very fact that he returned this money means that they can use
any money he doesn't send back as an implicit endorsement of
whoever sent it to him. Paul chose to short-circuit that idiocy
before it began.
Sean Scallon|6.2.08 @ 5:10PM|#
So political bavery in this day and age is now reduced to
denouncing Nazis and other white nationalists? Or in other words,
beating one's chest to denounce what in Cosmoland is a required act
of faith which is constantly proving you're not a racist in our
multicultral word?
Spare me the phony morality plays. The only people who think that
the nation under threat from racists and Nazis are the cosmos
themselves.
Ron Paul was refreshing that he wasn't going use a non-existant
threat i.e. Nazis, KKK, white nationalists, etc. to proclaim his PC
bonafides. Since nothing either Ron Paul said or did was remotly
racist in any way shape or form (and don't start with the
newsletter crap)why was it necessary spend even a minute of time
denouncing basement dwellers? Does one have to do this in order to
prove something or receive some sort of stamp of legitimacy from
the cosmos? What if Barr just ignored the crap one sees on
Stormfront like most normal people do in everyday lives? Does that
make him less of candidate because he refuses to waste time with
such nonsense?
Once again the cosmos play their little guilt by association games.
They basically run Obama out of his own church because some guest
preacher said some weird things Obama wasn't even a party to.
Candidates are excorated for their supporters' controversial
statements. Ron Paul is blamed because white nationalists hung
around his campaign because of their own free will. I thought that
was libertarianism is all about, letting people exercise free will.
It's not as if RP sought their endorsement. There wasn't much he
could do about it.
But the PC games continue on I guess so long as the cosmos continue
to need their validation stickers to stay a part of the
establishment.
|6.2.08 @ 5:17PM|#
constantly proving you're not a racist
OK, people get too hung up on race sometimes, but Bob Barr did
exactly right in this instance. If it makes the white nationalists
question why nobody wants to associate with them, it might do some
good*.
*probably not, though. Extremist groups often seem to like feeling
like outsiders.
|6.2.08 @ 5:19PM|#
joe:
Desegregation, including its affirmative action variety, is an
effort to accomplish precisely that.
That's the equivalent to saying that punishing violent criminals,
including torture, is an effort to accomplish the former-True, but
it doesn't justify torture.
|6.2.08 @ 5:24PM|#
This episode shows us that the Bob Barr campaign knows how to play the political game (pandering to idiots and those who let their emotions cloud their judgment). But playing the game only works when you are part of the two party system - since you have no chance to win, why worry about getting the mouth-breather vote? When you are a third party, you have to appeal to your message, not play political games. Ron Paul did the right thing to keep any and all donations sent to him. Bob Barr wants folk to believe that he does a background check on every person who gives him money, to ensure that they don't have any improper views regarding inequality. I wonder if it's ok to know that the average black IQ is lower than the average asian IQ...
|6.2.08 @ 5:27PM|#
joe:
So which one is Martin Luther King, Rick?
Are you sure that he favored government enforced quotas, joe? If
so, I say Dr King was hypocritical cuz he was too smart to be
confused on the issue.
|6.2.08 @ 5:39PM|#
This isn't about courage, it isn't even about racism. It's about
Barr being able to play with the big boys. Being associated with
supremacists is death to a campaign. You have to shake em loose,
and you can't make a big scene out of it or get too nuanced with
it, or you'll just give the story legs. Barr's backhand "don't let
the door hit you" smackdown, was deft and correct.
Bitchslapping Stormfront:
1 Kills the story, and moves the media that much closer to taking
you seriously
2 Is exactly what everyone from the Union Members to the Bible
Thumpers in Middle America wants to hear.
3 Is exactly what the inside-the-beltway, Park Ave, and Hollywood,
power-brokers need to hear.
4 Is completely consistent with even the most ultra-pure expression
of Libertarian principal.
Barr also scores bonus points with the "Haters need not
apply".
"Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every
resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality
or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms."
Now that's Libertarian. The right message, from a messenger who's
looking better every day.
Antiglobalism|6.2.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Racism is stupid, but nationalism makes sense. I think what these bigots are trying to say is what Malcolm X was trying to say long ago: cultures don't mix. We need independence if we want to protect our uniqueness, not some uniform globalist system for slaves.
|6.2.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Telling Nazis to go screw themselves is not exactly risky. But will they actually denounce everybody who doesn't want to treat everyone equally? Will they equally reject any Religious Right person who might endorse them because of that person's refusal to treat gay people equally? That will be far more interesting that take a swipe at Nazis.
|6.2.08 @ 5:56PM|#
cultures don't mix.
Yes, let's create separate countries for Democrats, Republicans,
people that listen to country versus people that listen to
rap...culture is not formed strictly along racial lines or any
other lines that I can think of. So when people try to narrowly
define culture.
And let's face it, post-NOI Malcolm X was way better than NOI
Malcolm X.
I don't have a "nationalistic" identity. I identify with America,
because she has the good grace to get me Outkast albums and good
non-fiction. But mostly, it's because it's where my family, friends
and stuff is.
What I'm trying to say is: I heart immigration and I heart the free
exchange of ideas between individuals and entire groups. It's
usually ignorant people who are xenophobic.
|6.2.08 @ 6:03PM|#
Many racists seem to be bitchen ill informed.
One came on a thread here a while back and attacked David Weigel
for being Jewish. The bigot made an even bigger fool of him/her
self cuz David's not Jewish! Haha... (I understand that Weigel is a
German name.)
|6.2.08 @ 6:05PM|#
"Bitchslapping Stormfront:
1 Kills the story, and moves the media that much closer to taking
you seriously"
But that's just the point. It doesn't kill the story. It kills the
Stormfront episode of an ongoing story that's going to keep coming
back over and over and over. Think there aren't enough scumbags in
Barr's donor base to bring this story back every week with a new
donor for Barr to denounce or be assumed to agree with?
If there aren't, they can always pay some scumbags to donate...
Blogger smash libertarianism!|6.2.08 @ 6:11PM|#
One can imagine that Warren's wonderful list would look a little sparse if Barr came out against Beltway-approved far-left groups like the NationalCouncilOfTheRaza. They're less overtly racist but they have much more power, and Barr would be smeared from one end of the country to the other. And, considering that he's just a mainstream hack playing on the far-left's field, he'd have no effective way to counter their attacks.
|6.2.08 @ 6:14PM|#
"It's to get some black asses in the chairs next to their white
asses, so they can actually get to know them as individuals and
relate to them that way."
Maybe, but giving them someone else's chair probably ain't gonna
make things better.
Affirmative action has a couple of things wrong with it imo.
1. It has a faulty presumption that since many blacks were or are
disadvantaged by racism and some whites benefited, that all blacks
should get this de jure advantage over all whites. Many whites
recieve little advantage due to their skin color, and many blacks
in recent times get some advantage (I mean societal).
2. While its goal is what joe says, to increase racial mixing which
should increase racial tolerance, it misses the idea that in
creating real and percieved favortism for that guy sitting next to
you it breeds as much resentment as it does tolerance.
3. It is, in fact, discrimination in reverse. Perhaps you can argue
that it is justified to serve some social goal (like lessening the
effects of past or present discrimination) but to the invidual
discriminated against it's still a pretty horrible wrong. Using
individuals as a means to an end strikes me as immoral (as Kant
said).
|6.2.08 @ 6:16PM|#
And since I'm addressing joe I can think of another bad thing about affirmative action: it is an easy wedge issue to be used against the Democratic party. It's hard for poor whites and blacks to stand in some kind of unity when one is getting real or percieved advantages for a reason that can't possibly be meaningful to them (you can't say "hey, they deserve these breaks because they are disadvantaged" to a white disadvantaged person)
|6.2.08 @ 6:25PM|#
Democratic candidate: "I will stand for you. I know it is hard
for the poor, for the disadvantaged. I want to expand student loans
so that your children can get the tools to pull themselves into a
higher class."
Poor white person: "That sounds good."
Democratic candidate: "But, if your child, whom you love, has
scores similar to your black neighbor's child, whom you've always
gotten along with and see as "Dave from across the street" and
otherwise a comparable other, then I will make sure to give your
child's slot to Dave's kid. Sure, your kid, whom you love and want
the best for and who has never had a racist idea in his life (who
in fact loves playing with Dave's kid), will lose his slot, but his
loss has furthered the goal of racial tolerance in America."
Poor white person: WTF?
I defy anyone to explain to me how that message is EVER going to
sell...
|6.2.08 @ 6:45PM|#
I love globalism. I hate the idea of global government, but that's a differen thing. I love a world where goods and services flow across borders freely. If I want to hire a Mexican to roof my house, it's none of the damn JBS' freaking business! If Dobbs really wants something to scream about, get him a bit closer to my steel toed boot...
Blogger smash libertarianism!|6.2.08 @ 7:08PM|#
UPDATE: I've completely changed my mind.
Now I say that Barr showed
"intense, heroic bravery".
I hereby commend Barr for his extreme courage.
official scorer|6.2.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Yes, please do keep us updated, Lonewacko. Everyone here really, really cares what you have to say. Seriously. Sure, every shred of evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion, but you've never been too concerned with reality - why start paying attention to it now?
thoreau|6.2.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Barr did the right thing. I'd like to say that doing the right thing isn't something that should require courage, especially when the topic at hand is racial bigotry. However, it appears that no good deed will go unpunished, given the alleged libertarians coming out of the woodwork to criticize Barr over this. So perhaps it did take some courage, since it appears that an element of his base is upset over it.
|6.2.08 @ 8:21PM|#
For someone who supposedly takes votes from McCain, Barr goes to
extraordinary lengths to court the Obama vote.
Ha ha -- wouldn't it be a shock if a neocon pretended to be a
libertarian so he could get the LP presidential nomination and
undermine the non-neocon presidential candidate?
|6.2.08 @ 8:31PM|#
"Barr goes to extraordinary lengths to court the Obama
vote."
Denouncing white supremacists and not taking their money is going
to "extraordinary lengths"? WTF?
|6.2.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Ah, the "Affirmative Action" dodge.
A new name for racial discrimination? You bet it's a dodge. The sad
thing is, when Kennedy coined the term, he directed federal
agencies to take "affirmative action to ensure that race is not
a factor in federal hiring." The pinkos fucked it up after he
was murdered.
-jcr
|6.2.08 @ 8:53PM|#
I can't find any fault with either Barr or Paul's response to
donations from nazi pukes. Barr told them to fuck off, and Paul
told them (indirectly through the media) that he didn't like them
and they weren't going to get their money back.
-jcr
|6.2.08 @ 10:08PM|#
Apparently they haven't noticed that Bob Barr is part black as
the following link shows:
http://wonkette.com/390469/bob-barr-has-a-jeremiah-wright-problem
No Name Guy|6.2.08 @ 10:21PM|#
I like Bob Barr, but at the end of the day hes not a serious candidate. This is, and will remain, a two-party system until the plurality first-past-the-post system of electing candidates is changed. A vote for Barr will be a vote for Obama. Don't kid yourselves. Half a conservative is better than a full-on liberal.
Elemenope|6.2.08 @ 10:24PM|#
Half a conservative is better than a full-on
liberal.
Not when the half being offered is the stupid half. That is, the
half that believes tradition trumps liberty, might makes right, and
is fucking terrified of the world beyond our borders.
der fuhrer\'s face|6.2.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Don't worry Brett, Barr will only have to return contributions
that Reason bitches about. Hit&Run is the new
intellectual vanguard, comrade!
Barr is going to find the problem with returning money to
bigots when complaints are raised: *Virtually everybody* is a bigot
in somebody's opinion. You return Stormfront's money, and the next
thing you know people are asking you why you're not returning money
from this group, and that group, and THOSE people who donated are
Masons....
Eric Dondero|6.2.08 @ 10:44PM|#
Fantastic. The more you get to know Bob Barr, the better he
gets.
Kudos to Russ Verny and Stephen Gordon too.
Bob Barr for President 2008! Off to a great start indeed.
|6.2.08 @ 10:44PM|#
yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's all relative! There's no such
thing as evil ideologies (Nazism) and silly-yet-harmless practices
(Masonry).
I'm astonished to find absolutists such as Nazis and their
supporters to be such rank relativists.
"Everyone's a bigot to someone!"
Cram it, losers.
|6.2.08 @ 11:31PM|#
Barr may get my vote yet (I still like Obama best, but am prepared to be disillusioned by the next 6 months). I have nothing but respect for the man.
Ayn R. Key|6.2.08 @ 11:33PM|#
Barr consultant Steve Gordon sent me the statement and
added: "We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody
equally under the law."
Barr denounces Barr. *snicker*
Orange Line Special|6.2.08 @ 11:45PM|#
As if his current supporters weren't stoopid enough, the scale
has practically fallen through the floor as Insty links to this
post, saying "Well, good".
Don't get used to it however: in another month he's going to enter
full-on GOP hack mode and he'll end up using Barr's actions today
against him, probably in a concern troll fashion (example: "Does
BobBarr have a donor issue?" or similar).
If you haven't already, see this post for
what's wrong with how Barr did this.
What was wrong with his actions wasn't featured in this post or
most of the comments because, well, that would require being
familiar with how other groups operate, it would require opposing
those groups, and it would also require thinking things
through.
|6.3.08 @ 1:05AM|#
John C. Randolph:
The sad thing is, when Kennedy coined the term, he directed
federal agencies to take "affirmative action to ensure that race is
not a factor in federal hiring." The pinkos fucked it up after he
was murdered.
Interesting. Thanks, jcr
Curious Hussein George|6.3.08 @ 1:07AM|#
This didn't take political courage. Barr knows all the racists are voting for Hillary anyway.
|6.3.08 @ 2:08AM|#
Yeah, and with the shameful way she's been running her campaign, she's earned their votes.
Mr. Music|6.3.08 @ 2:17AM|#
Rock on Barr. I hope the Barr campaign does well and the neocons (McCain) get their asses handed to them.
Plumb Bob|6.3.08 @ 7:52AM|#
Doesn't anybody see the victory for the scolds of the hard left,
here?
The left has been working overtime for decades to erase the moral
foundations of Western civilization and replace them with the moral
foundations of social progressivism, whose moral foundations are
chosen, not by what is intrinsically right, but by what makes them
look more moral than their neighbors. One of the means they use is
shunning; they shun anybody who does not conform to their view of
morality, and they insist that everybody else shun the same
people.
I'm not a racist of any sort, nor am I a white supremicist, nor do
I care to have anything to do with any such people. However, such
people are enfranchised deliberately. They have a right to involve
themselves in public debate, to support the candidate of their
choice, to vote, to assemble, to run for office. The morals implied
by our Constitution say they've a right to be involved. It's the
morals of the self-righteous progressives that says "Because you
don't believe what we believe, you have no right to
participate."
What Bob Barr has done here is announce to the world that he's
swallowed the moral preening of the hard left, hook, line, and
sinker. And all of you here are announcing that you have,
too.
Rescuing Western civilization from the rot of progressivism will
require the moral courage to stand up to their shaming and
screeching and say "You do not have the right to dictate your way
of thinking to the entire culture." We must do this even on the
matters where, by coincidence, their morals happen to coincide with
ours.
I didn't like Ron Paul -- he was absolutely loony on foreign
policy, and knew nothing -- but he was correct about the
contributions from fringe groups, and I respect him for it. I'm
disappointed in Rep. Barr, and in all of you.
John|6.3.08 @ 8:44AM|#
I wonder if he will publicly apologize for his 1999 efforts in th U.S. Congress to ban all Wiccan religion and practices from the military. A man who conducted his own little inquisition in violation of the Constitution should have some serious explaining to do as a candidate for president.
JC Denton|6.3.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Plumb Bob you are closer yourself to not knowing anything than
Ron Paul ever was or will be. He is the most read candidates out of
all of them. Which other candidate, 'republican' or otherwise is so
well read on the issues? Start paying attention and you'll notice
he even mentions his sources when it comes to blowback (CIA) or the
sources he uses to formulate his foreign policy (founding fathers
and his studies of the enemies of America). You might even remember
the reading list he presented to Giuliani.
Oh and Barr a libertarian?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html
Taktix®|6.3.08 @ 9:14AM|#
Ron Paul did the right thing to keep any and all donations
sent to him. Bob Barr wants folk to believe that he does a
background check on every person who gives him money, to ensure
that they don't have any improper views regarding
inequality.
Jesus Christ on a Crutch, giving back a white supremacist's money
is tantamount to background checking everybody?
I'm a libertarian, and it looks like libertarians are crazier than
I thought. You only have two options here:
1. Make a vague, principled point and keep the money, which no one
will bother to understand and will associate you with
racists.
2. Disavow a group that 99.99999% of America finds appalling and
give it back.
It not like we're debating whether the NAACP is racist or
something:
ITS A FUCKING WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUP. A GROUP OF SELF-DECLARED
RACIST, NAZI-WORSHIPING CHRISTIANS WHO ARE TOO DUMB TO REALIZE THAT
HITLER WAS GOING AFTER CHRISTIANS ONCE HE GOT THE JEWS OUT OF THE
WAY.
I mean, fuck. Ron Paul was asked only two questions in the national
media: Why won't you stop running? and, Why don't you give the
Stormfront money back?
Does anyone want the racist tag haunting yet another candidate,
just so he can keep maybe four additional supporters? There are
some battles that simply aren't worth fighting. A Pyhrric Victory
would be an overstatement.
Is it really that hard to follow? I feel like I'm taking crazy
pills.
P.S. Besides, those fucking idiots at Stormfront will probably
concoct some conspiracy, like "Barr just has to tell that to the
Jewish-run media" and support him anyway.
Taktix®|6.3.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Plumb Bob,
First of all, fuck you. If denouncing a white supremacist group is
to "announce to the world that he's swallowed the moral preening of
the hard left, hook, line, and sinker," then I'm fucking Woodrow
Wilson.
Anyone who thinks denouncing racists is a position only befitting
the "hard left" (whatever the hell that means) needs to check into
a psycho ward.
They have every right to publicly be idiots, and we have every
right to call them out as such. The 1st Amendment doesn't
make every act of free speech valid.
JC Denton,
If you like Ron Paul so much, why are you linking to the blog of
the guy that basically torpedoed his campaign?
Racism is the cause of violence against innocents, and anyone who
advocates violence against innocents is no libertarian, nor is
he/she a decent human being.
|6.3.08 @ 10:11AM|#
Stormfront is "hateful" because it's mainly whites who wish to
be with other whites.
If it were blacks who wish to be with other blacks, they'd be
called a "church." (See Trinity.) And they'd get tax-exempt
status!
But since Stormfront is not for blacks, they get called
HATERS.
The double standards required on matters of race today are obvious,
but we continue to ignore them, at our own peril.
As we encourage blacks and Hispanics toward ethnocentricity, and
yet punish whites for it, we are creating a MONSTER that SOMEONE is
going to have to deal with!
|6.3.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Did Bob Barr ever put out a newsletter? Are we going to have listen to these contemptible hypocrites from (anti-)Reason parse every article he ever wrote, too? Sheesh. What a bunch of power-groupie, wanna-be pests. Ron Paul did more for liberty in a few months than these Reason(-hating) schmucks have accomplished in decades. Now these gutter scum are going after Barr. Impotent, incompetent, repulsive saboteurs. Ignore them and their no-effect rags. They'll rot on the statist vine like the poison fruit they are.
good for the goose|6.3.08 @ 1:04PM|#
OK then...
Democrats must denounce La Raza(the Race),
Republicans must renounce apartheid Israel,
pro choice-pretty hateful to unborn children
so on and so on
slippery slope stalinist PC nonsense
Plumb Bob|6.3.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Taktix demonstrates his level of intellectual development, first
by hurling the only insult uneducated nincompoops can think of, and
then by demonstrating he doesn't understand the liberty he
enjoys.
The problem, Taktix, is not that Barr denounced the group; I did
that, and so did you. So does everybody.
The problem is that Barr implied they don't have a right to
participate in the political process. The reason given for this is
that their ideas are not PURE enough, not ORTHODOX enough, to pass
muster in our political system. This is the approach taken by
leftists who are enemies of free speech. The left is regressing us
to domination by priesthood and orthodoxy, using mob rule as the
means of enforcement. You're going right along, and so is
Barr.
My point was not that all ideas are of equal merit; to interpret my
comment as saying that is to prove you're not smart enough to
understand clear prose (which we already inferred from "f... you".)
Rather, the point is that no group can be, or should be, denied
access to political processes, no matter how vicious or stupid we
think their ideas are. We don't have to endorse racism in order to
protect enfranchisement, but we do have to endorse the rights of
racists to participate -- even while we're denouncing their ideas
-- or political liberty cannot be sustained.
|6.3.08 @ 2:04PM|#
"The problem is that Barr implied they don't have a right to
participate in the political process."
For someone so condescendingly dismissive of others' reading
ability, you're pretty bad at reading comprehension yourself, Bob.
Barr did not in fact say (or imply) that they don't have a right to
participate in "the political process." He said they don't have a
right to participate in _his own campaign_. It's a very important
and not very subtle difference.
There's nothing keeping them from participating in the political
process through a wide range of avenues, including running their
own candidate if they choose. Barr just happens to have this wacky
idea, which you apparently find very offensive and "leftist," that
it's up to him to decide who he wants to associate with.
JMR|6.3.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Look how much respect it got him
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2008/06/03/open-thread#comment-627987
from big government neocons!! Yay!!
Actually, I think it's a good move, but not much different so far
from what Paul did, since there's no money involved. If Paul was
going to use the racist's money, he needed to separate it from the
main campaign and pull a media stunt designed to get publicity
while infuriating the racists, and he failed at that due to lack of
imagination from his handlers, who almost-certainly got the idea
from more than one person.
JMR
|6.3.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Heh, they could call the South Carolina Chapter
"Stromfront."
That wasn't one of your best, joe.
JC Denton|6.3.08 @ 5:16PM|#
@ Taktix
Why wouldn't I link to the site? It is naive to think Ron Paul
didn't get the nomination b/c of those past newsletters. If stuff
like that stopped people from getting nominated no President would
be re-elected. The article I linked to
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html) is not even
written by lew. Had it been, the arguments (Barr is no libertarian)
conveyed in it would still be valid.
|6.3.08 @ 7:12PM|#
There's pro black organizations
There's pro Jew organizations
There's pro every organization except for when it comes to white
people. It is THEN that it's racist.
I do like what Ron Paul said about individualism, instead of
groups. I suppose all racial groups like that message..and
supported that view..
|6.3.08 @ 8:05PM|#
When the PC crowd decides to condemn LaRaza, NAACP and other purely raced based groups as haters they may have a leg to stand on. Otherwise this is strickly BS and I am dismayed by all the memes here. Libertarin party stands for what again?
|6.3.08 @ 8:37PM|#
White people founded this country; it is inevitable and just that they will ever be its aristocracy. There is no instance in history of an imperial power (take Rome or Britain as examples) in which other races than the founders' received preferential treatment - except America. That we, white males, have been coerced to believe other races deserve such treatment is a testament to the power of the fallacy that "every man is created equally." It is time that we disregard this semitic ideal and be more realistic. Our race deserves more privilege, not less. If we have any pride left in the achievements of our race, we must once and for all abolish affirmative action and other politically correct "equality" (read: favoritism)-based initiatives.
|6.3.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Yowzah. Judging from the last few posts, the real bottom-feeders
have arrived (especially Kowalczyk; I can only hope that's meant as
parody).
Hey, Kowalczyk, nice to see ya! Thanks for stopping by, you can go
back under your slimy rock now, thanks!
|6.3.08 @ 9:24PM|#
I can see (T)reason is still all upset that Ron Paul had done, and continues to do, far more for the libertarian movement, both domestically and internationally, than they have, or will ever, do. The Beltway libertarians need to be read out of the movement.
Orange Line Special|6.4.08 @ 1:09AM|#
Hey, Adolph, I concur! Kill those Polacks and hunkies (a lot of
'em are illegal, too). Oh, yeah, and don't forget the
beaners.
WhitePower!
|6.4.08 @ 2:15AM|#
Last time I checked, the "inferior Slav filth" molested the Third Reich. Of course, J.V.D. "Stalin" wasn't even Slavic, but that's another story...
|6.4.08 @ 7:56AM|#
While true conservatives produce such gems as:
"The neocon motto seems to be: Endless war in the Middle East, Asia
for Asians, Africa for Africans, Mexico for Mestizos, Europe for
Arabs, and the U.S. for Everyone."
Or describe the neocon ideology so fittingly as "Invade the World!
Invite the World!"
The "respectable", electable among them with neocon approval say
things like:
"Back off haterz, ur harshing my buzz."
|6.4.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Two. One to change the lightbulb, the other to lament that t3h jOOZ caused the filament to break.
Brad|6.4.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Glad to see someone standing up and not being a douche, but it's
not exactly politically brave to denounce white supremacists.
And the campaign really ought to find a better term than "haters."
I feel like I'm reading Paris Hilton's myspace page.
|6.4.08 @ 3:09PM|#
This is the same Barr who called a security officer at an airport a nigger because he slowed Barr down getting on a plane. Barr also like to lick whipped cream off of prostitute's chests. Get candidate choice libertarians a former CIA guy.
|6.13.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Who is Bob Barr fooling?
On the surface, U.S. presidential candidate Bob Barr projects the
veneer of a true American patriot. He was born November 5, 1948, in
Iowa City, Iowa to Bob and Beatrice Barr, and in the mid 1990's
Barr was elected to Congress as a Republican representing the most
conservative parts of Northern Georgia. Congressman Barr was
popular in his party for his strong opposition to abortion,
advocacy of lower taxes and smaller government, and leading the
impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Sounds good so far, but between the 60's and the 90's there is a
mystery, a history that Bob Barr does NOT want you to know about.
You see, Bob Barr did some travels in his youth, to places like
Malaysia, Pakistan, Baghdad, Iraq, and finally Tehran, Iran -- all
Muslim dominated countries where radicalism and hatred of the West
is a way of life!!!
These were NOT quick social visits. Barr actually graduated from
high school in Tehran, Iran. That's right, who wants you to believe
he's a US-loving conservative, was educated in the heart of evil
itself!!! (I know this sounds crazy but it's true, you can check it
out for yourself)
On his return, Barr (of course) enrolled at the ultra-liberal
University of Southern California, joined the "Young Democrats of
America" ("YDA"), and rallied against the Vietnam War. -And yet
within a few months he suddenly changed his stripes and with
politically convenient timing joined the Young Trojan Republican
Club (more like "Trojan horse"!!!). From there, he took steps to
burnish his "conservative" credentials by getting a master's degree
from the George Washington University and a law degree from
Georgetown, then working for the CIA for nearly a decade and
serving as one of Ronald Reagan's US Attorneys, and getting deeply
involved in Republican politics.
Barr's political conversion is all too convenient. From attending a
Muslim high school in the heart of a wannabe Islamic empire to
joining a radical organization on a radical campus in a radical
time, suddenly Bob Barr would have you believe that he is a "true
conservative," that he is and always has been sincere in his
beliefs.. But you've just read that history reveals a Bob Barr who
is a chameleon with a deeper agenda, one that reaches back perhaps
to his visits to Malaysia, Pakistan, and Baghdad Iraq, and his high
school indoctrination in Tehran, Iran.
If that doesn't convince you, Bob Barr actually issued a press
release on June 10, 2008 flat-out announcing his desire to
capitulate to Iran. Barr warns America against attacking Iran and
says there's "no imminent threat," and echoes the left's call for
negotiations. He also participated in a publicity stunt in
Washington DC along with Ron Paul (of questionable mental balance)
and Lynn Woolsey (far-left Democrat), standing on the Capitol steps
and calling Iranians on a "red phone".
Let us all remain alert concerning Barr's Libertarian presidential
candidacy: the Presidency of the United States is too valuable to
fall into the hands of a one-time radical leftist antiwar activist
with connections to Islamic hotspots which can no longer be
ignored!!!!
With Sincerest Concerns,
A Patriot
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