Is Ron Paul Responsible for His Supporters' Views?

In a front-page story about Ron Paul's popularity among disreputable right-wingers, The New York Times draws a Venn diagram of the libertarian movement:

The libertarian movement in American politics has long had two overlapping but distinct strains. One, backed to some degree by wealthy interests, is focused largely on economic freedom and dedicated to reducing taxes and regulation through smaller government. The other is more focused on personal liberty and constraints on government built into the Constitution, which at its extreme has helped fuel militant antigovernment sentiment.

Why does the Times think it is relevant to note that libertarians who focus on economic freedom are "backed to some degree by wealthy interests"? Isn't that true of pretty much every political movement and organization, including Marxism and the Democratic Party? The implication seems to be that defenders of economic freedom are carrying water for special interests, who are in it only for the money.

Weirdly, the Times locates the scary militants in the part of the libertarian movement that focuses on "personal liberty," which includes not only the rights explicitly protected by the Constitution (such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures) but also such unspecified rights as freedom to engage in consensual sexual relationships, to marry people of either sex, to bet on games of chance, and to ingest psychoactive substances (or even raw milk). So according to the Times, the right-wing extremists attracted to Paul are a tolerant, cosmopolitan group that nevertheless harbors odious views about blacks, Jews, and gay people. Also note that the Times, perhaps unintentionally, says the Constitution "at its extreme has helped fuel militant antigovernment sentiment." All the more reason to be wary of defending this radical document.

In short, the libertarian movement consists of two parts: 1) self-interested tycoons seeking low taxes and minimal regulation in the name of economic freedom and 2) crazy right-wingers who take the Constitution too seriously and worry about personal freedom. I always thought the distinguishing feature of libertarianism was defending both economic and personal liberty, based on the insight that they are two manifestations of the same thing. But what do I know? I did not realize that the rule of law was a concept invented by F.A. Hayek until the Times explained it to me.

The article's main complaint, as expressed in the headline, is that "Paul Disowns Extremists' Views but Doesn't Disavow the Support." That is remniscent of the position Paul took during his last bid for the Republican presidential nomination, when he declined to return donations from white supremacists on the grounds that using the money to promote liberty was better than giving it back to people who might use it to promote racism. "If people hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with," a campaign spokesman told Dave Weigel, "and they give to us, that's their loss." This time around Paul offers a similar rationale:

If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say. It has nothing to do with endorsing what they say....I'm always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.

It surely is unfair to blame Paul for the opinions expressed by some of his supporters. “We understand that Paul is not a white nationalist," Stormfront's Don Black tells the Times, "but most of our people support him because of his stand on issues." Black likes Paul's views on the Federal Reserve, for instance. "I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews," he says. "Our board recognizes that most of the leaders involved in the Fed and the international banking system are Jews." Logically speaking, Black's anti-Semitism has no bearing on Paul's motives or the wisdom of his policy prescriptions. Does Paul nevertheless have a moral obligation to tell Black and likeminded supporters to fuck off? Or is it merely tactically wise to do so? Maybe neither. Discuss.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Whole lotta whitewashin'...||

    ...goin' on.

  • Collectivism Whitewash cycle||

    Agricultural city-Statists collectively:

    1. Collectively form government to Kill and drive off Non-State tribes and bands
    2. Collectively drain wet lands.
    3. Collectively pay taxes to build irrigation projects.
    4. Collectively pay taxes to build roads to haul product to collective living places called cities.
    5. Collectively form courts to take care of any disputes.

    And then, after the thieves divvy up what they took from the Indians, they call it a political system of "individualism."

    Whole lotta whitewashin'goin' on.

  • Universal ||

    • Universal access pollution. Check!
    • Universal access to asthma. Check!
    • Universal access to increasing birth defects. Check!
    • Universal access to health care? Collectivism!!!

    Whole lotta whitewashin'goin' on.

  • Wow, Fire And Brimstone!||

    Take it to a fucking church and preach it to the fawning blind believers....

  • Market Fundamentalism||

    ...is a religion.

    Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of “laissez faire religion...

    — Robert H. Nelson, REACHING FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH

    Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.

    — Robert H. Nelson, ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

  • Wow, Fire And Brimstone!||

    Thanks for citing beneficiaries of Government Taxes expropriated from the productive class who use those resources to condemn that same productive class.....

  • There is no Privation Property||

    ...without city-Statist collectivism and taxes.

  • Ok Pee-wee||

    I know you are....

  • There is no starvation||

    ... except in your beloved "original affluent society", White Imbecile.

  • The Black Plague||

    Who knew Europe was hunter-gatherer up through the 1800's? LOL Cool bit of knowledge there, Libertard.

    Agriculture greatly increases Famines, shit-for-brains.

    While Lee was in the Kalahari studing the bushmen, there was a drought.

    Bushmen were complaining of working 4 hours per day, double their normal, to feed themselves.

    Neighboring agriculturalists were dying.

  • Wow, Fire And Brimstone!||

    TURN control over your life to the COLLECTIVISTS, the most deadly of all Statists. Or else!

  • Ron Paul is a Collectivist||

    ...as are all agricultural city-Statists.

  • The Pee-Wee Herman defense.||

    I know you are but.....

  • Is Ron Paul for Band or Tribal||

    ...Non-State lifeways? If not, he's for agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)

    Meanwhile, he doesn't realize that "free state" is a contradiction.

  • So go vote for Obama||

    He's your guy....WAR/WELFARE/FREE STUFF.

  • City-Statists are PARASITES||

    Libertarians being one of the most parasitical. Which they try to whitewash with their individual responsibility propaganda.

    Meanwhile, they have zero individual responsibility to live a Non-State life-way.

  • Says the guy...||

    ... who is gullible enough to believe there were once oaks growing in the Sinai Peninsula - 3,000 years ago.

  • .||

    More likely cedars rather than oaks.

  • No, the White Imbecile...||

    ... said "oaks."

  • City-Statists are Destroyers||

    Even the Sinai which is located to the Southeast and the Negev, East of the present state of Israel, bear evidence of past, perhaps abundant forests. The 1960 investigations of Sir William Flinders Petrie into mining operations in the Wadi Nash area of the western Sinai desert, believed to date from the third millennium, BC, yielded unmistakable clues:

    "(Petrie) found a bed of wood ashes 100 feet long, 50 feet wide and 18 inches deep, and also a slag dump from copper smelting, 6-8 feet deep, 500 feet long and 300 feet wide. It seems that the adjacent area, now desert, must have borne combustibles during the period when the mines were operating. Similarly, in the Negev, copper smelting kilns of a highly developed kind dating from 1000 BC have been found in the now quite desert-like Wadhi Araba."

    Man and the Mediterranean Forest: A history of resource depletion. J. V. Thirgood. Academic Press. 1961.

  • Wow, Fire And Brimstone!||

    COLLECTIVISTS never lie, they are Government Employees, why would they lie?

  • KOCH Collectivist Pollution||

    ...with even better whitewashed individualism!

  • Paid $oros troll alert....||

    never a discouraging word about your patron, right?

  • Soros = City-Statist like Paul||

  • No.||

    $oros=documented war profiteer

    Paul=no

    Unless you believe a rock is a pillow.

    Rocks have been my pillow, Henry Townsend.

  • Paul = City-Statist in Denial||

    ...about how much war is necessary to maintain a city-State.

    Libertards whitewash the aggression necessary to their City-Statist ways.

  • Exposed||

    "Universal" exposed as member of Obama 2012 reelection committee!

    Continue the Welfare/Warfare State....

  • ||

    Most of the whitewashing happened before the whitewashing. The nomadic tribal-statists collectively suppressed the competing nomadic tribal-statists

  • Cite?||

    Liberards are so full of shit.

  • Ron Paul whitewash cycle||

    1. Write or endorse racist newsletters to racist constituents.
    2. Disavow racist newsletters.
    3. Libertarians can't be racist by definition!

    Are you washed in the blood of the lamb / Are your garments spotless are they white as snow

    "Beware the sin of forgiveness." ~Ayn Rand

  • Funny||

    It's trolling itself again.

  • ||

    goin' on.

  • AlmightyJb||

    Well if it donated any money to any politicians, I demand they return it since I disagree with it's worldview.

  • LilDebbie||

    i can only conclude white indian is the plaintiff from some lawsuit we're not supposed to talk about. i come from a website where even the article posting is controlled by users but we don't put up with this kind of crap. replying to your own threads?


    tell me, honky eejit, did shouting at trees get too boring?

  • Lil Debbie Snatch Cakes||

    I come from a website, not my mother.

  • Wow, Fire And Brimstone!||

    All go to hell. Except the self-appointed ultra-pure purgers of the sinful.

  • Lazy Sinful Indians got purged||

    ...by you puritanical agricultural city-Statists.

  • Thanx, Mr/Ms Ultra-Pure||

    Yearning for mass death, for others?

  • American Indian Holocaust||

    Libertarian City-Statists slaughter 90,000,000 Indians.

    Libertarianism is a Death CULT.

    Montesquieu’s philosophy of Social Darwinism (survival of the economically fittest), Libertarian politics, and Libertarian economics were imported to America by Pierre Samuel DuPont, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison thereby establishing America as the first Libertarian state.

    The principal functions of America’s new Libertarian government were two:

    #1. To protect private property.

    #2. To force men to act economically.

    All day-to-day political decisions became economic decisions.

  • Says the guy...||

    ... who is gullible enough to believe there were once oaks growing in the Sinai Peninsula - 3,000 years ago.

  • City-Statism is a Holocaust||

    Even the Sinai which is located to the Southeast and the Negev, East of the present state of Israel, bear evidence of past, perhaps abundant forests. The 1960 investigations of Sir William Flinders Petrie into mining operations in the Wadi Nash area of the western Sinai desert, believed to date from the third millennium, BC, yielded unmistakable clues:

    "(Petrie) found a bed of wood ashes 100 feet long, 50 feet wide and 18 inches deep, and also a slag dump from copper smelting, 6-8 feet deep, 500 feet long and 300 feet wide. It seems that the adjacent area, now desert, must have borne combustibles during the period when the mines were operating. Similarly, in the Negev, copper smelting kilns of a highly developed kind dating from 1000 BC have been found in the now quite desert-like Wadhi Araba."

    Man and the Mediterranean Forest: A history of resource depletion. J. V. Thirgood. Academic Press. 1961.

  • ||

    They need to ask if the Obama administration is responsible for the militant Hamas and Fatah donors that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign.

    Actually no, they need to die in a fire. Fuck the New York Times.

  • Almanian||

    +57 states

  • ||

    We may be entering a new time, Almanian. A time of peace between warring factions. A time when the brave foot soldiers of sworn enemies were able to lay down their arms and embrace their common ancestry and shared outlook. A time when they could look across the border and smile at what they behold.

    A time when we can replace this
    with this. And fight a common enemy. A scourge on mankind known as the Southeastern Conference.

    The love is now being extended until after the bowl games.

  • ||

    Hey! Those pictures got reversed. Anyway, you get the point.

    And in case any of you SEC gomers want to come on and say anything, compare this to this.

    How a major conference can have multiple third tier schools is beyond my comprehension. Their special ed departments must be massive.

  • robc||

    B1G is a pussy conference too.

  • robc||

    If they were a real conference, at least 1/3 of the members would be private schools.

    Standard: arbitrary, but still accurate.

  • ||

    Give me an example of a "real" conference that is relevant in a major sport.

  • robc||

    ACC, basketball and lacrosse. And football, depending on definition of relevance.

    4 of 12 current members are private. 5 of 14 after next expansion.

  • robc||

    ACC can stand toe-to-toe with B1G in academic standards too.

  • ||

    Shit, I forgot BC was a private school. And yes, the ACC can go toe to toe with the BigTen (I hate the new logo, fucking hate it) if they cut back to 10 schools and tell FSU and NCSU to go away.

  • robc||

    They can do it now.

    FSU and VT (I think they are below NCSU) pull things down, but the top more than makes up for it. And Nebraska isnt helping the B1G at all.

  • robc||

    I was wrong about VT. I think the USN≀ rankings are stupid, but that is a side issue, here are the ACC and B1G ranks:

    10 Duke
    12 Northwestern
    25 Virginia
    25 Wake Forest

    28 Michigan
    29 North Carolina
    31 Boston College
    36 Georgia Tech
    38 Miami
    (is B1G even trying at this point?)
    42 Wisconsin
    45 Illinois
    55 Ohio State
    55 Maryland
    62 Purdue
    68 Clemson
    68 Minnesota
    71 Iowa
    71 Michigan State
    71 Virginia Tech
    75 Indiana
    101 Florida State
    101 North Carolina St

    101 Nebraska

    I could add up the numbers, but I think the results are obvious. Pitt and Syracuse and 58 and 62. They would be right in the middle of the B1G, but they pull the ACC down.

  • tarran||

    Your post, sloopy, is a refreshing drink after crossing the desert that is the trollfest up-thread.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    The love is now being extended until after the bowl games.

    Nah. Fuck Michigan.

  • ||

    Don Black showed up at a Ron Paul campaign event, and got a picture shaking Ron's hand, without identifying himself. Barack Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers' living room. As distasteful as Don Black's opinions are, has anyone ever shown any evidence that he's committed any acts of terrorism?

    -jcr

  • o3||

    try radio entertainment where humor like this gets moar yucks.

  • ||

    I'll take that as a "no". Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

    -jcr

  • Lester Hunt||

    As a great man once said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." At least we've made it to stage three.

  • Are you a Bolshevik? ||

    They made it to stage 4.

  • ||

    Yeah, but the Romanovs had their shit out of order. First they laughed at them. Then they fought them. Then they ignored them, allowing them to win.

  • chris||

    lol!

  • robc||

    I couldnt find the Venn diagram in the link. A bunch of text isnt a fucking diagram.

  • Mike M.||

    Great, now Stormfront is chiming in with their brilliant two cents.

    *Sigh*, obviously this issue is never going to go away. Oh well, it hardly matter all that much, as he never had a real chance to win anyway, but still.

    The moral of the story is pretty clear: never under any circumstances allow someone else to write something under your name. A lesson for all of us to remember.

  • Never endorse racism...||

    ...with your signature if you crave political power over a multi-racial nation.

    P.S. When you sign a contract, do you get to say you didn't read it?

  • robc||

    Ask the people suing banks over "fraudulent" mortgages.

  • Was Ron Paul defrauded...||

    ...by the people who stuck the newsletter under his pen?

  • robc||

    "name" is for name.

    Not the opening clause, fuckwit.
    reply to this

  • robc||

    There is a crappy cut/paste job if I ever saw one.

  • When your NAME is on a letter||

    ...do you get to disavow it?

  • robc||

    "name" is for name.

    Not the opening clause, fuckwit.

  • When you fuckwit...||

    ...dis...could you ever disavow it?

  • ||

    The yellow fever. I think I've caught it.

  • yonemoto||

    holy crap, I don't usually like asian chicks, but that picture is amazing.

  • chris||

    I lived in a complex beside a Filipino family. Four daughters, between the heights of five ten to six foot one. They were incredible.

  • .||

    That's incredible alright - incredibly tall for Filipinas.

  • Bill||

    Yes, if you never read it or signed it. Then you can say the truth that you never read it or signed it but that you should have paid more attention to things that came out with your name at the top. I don't know if he is telling the truth and neither do you, but if he is, then he should be doing exactly as he is doing. Short of committing actual or political suicide, I'm not sure what else he can do.

  • juris imprudent||

    I think the Stormfront panties are more bunched up about JOOOS then blacks - and that's why the love for doing in the Federal Reserve. You'd still get that even if the newsletters never existed.

  • chris||

    If I was Bernanke, I'd slip them money to say exactly the things they say. Wait a second . . .

  • Juice||

    I'll bet the Mossad are in on this!

  • chris||

    That's what agitators do for a living, buddy.

  • ||

    Freedom is a Many-Splendored Thing.

  • Almanian||

    Derka derka! Mohammed jihad! Derka Derka!

    That is all.

  • ¢||

    Is Ron Paul Responsible for this Puddle? It Looks Like Texas

    Reason Janitor | December 28, 2011

  • When you sign a contract...||

    ...do you get to disavow it if you didn't read what the contract writer wrote?

  • robc||

    "name" is for name.

    Not the opening clause, fuckwit.

  • The question isn't who...||

    ...is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me.

    ~Ayn Rand's raised eyebrow

  • robc||

    "name" is for name.

    Not the opening clause, fuckwit.

  • Polly wanna [white] cracker?||

  • Mr Whipple||

    Should someone refuse to sell their goods and services to those who might be considered to have extremist views? I suppose if a large number of customers threatened a boycott that person would have to, in order to stay in business. But that doesn't make him the villain. It makes the people who applied the pressure, the villains.

  • Kim Jong Un||

    Sell to me; besides, I privately own a whole country. Isn't that a libertarian concept -- concentration of endless wealth into higher, righter, and tighter hands?

  • Mr Whipple||

    Your knowledge of libertarian philosophy is impressive.

  • anon||

    Hmm, I strangely can't find any evidence of a single owner of North Korea. Perhaps you own dumbfuckistan, resident population: 1?

  • Hans-Hermann Hoppe||

    I disavow that Kim Jung Un has read my diatribes against evil democracy, and my advocacy of libertarian monarchy.

  • Kim,||

    If you ask that question, you don't understand the question.

  • Hans-Hermann Hoppe||

    I disavow that Kim Jung Un has read my diatribes against evil democracy, and my advocacy of libertarian monarchy.

  • rsi||

    When Barry Goldwater was running for prez there was the incessant demand that he disavow the John Birch society (The attendant publicity is what made the JBS).

    "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

  • Depends on how you define...||

    ...liberty.

    "Thou shalt own thy neighbor as thyself."

  • Some might say,||

    do unto others as you would have them do....

    of course, to others, liberty is slavery.

  • The Germans though they were..||

    ...free. Libertards are just as hoodwinked.

  • Eitan||

    "I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews."

    Don't worry about us. We'll do just fine in a free market too!

  • Howard Stern||

  • ||

    Just the ones that count. ;-)

  • robc||

    Yeah, I dont get it.

    I dont think the stormfront people can do math. Even if every member of the federal reserve was a jew, that would still be a tiny percentage of the jewish population.

  • Name Nomad||

    Of course that quote came from a man who, as a white supremacist, has the surname "Black." I don't think they understand lots of things including irony.

  • anon||

    You're obviously a holocaust denier.

  • well||

    inb4 900+ comments

  • ||

    To answer the title question: Hell no!

    This doesn't even pass the WTF test.

  • SIV ||

    Easy for Sullum to say. He lives in a city with a climate of hate so strong it killed JFK.

  • ||

    Sullum lives here in Dallas? Do you think I could get invited to some swanky cosmo New Year's Eve party if I asked real nicely?

  • ||

    Dallas get-together at Jacob's house!

  • ||

    That dude is so full of himself, I am surprised his head doesnt implode!

    www.privacy-surf.tk

  • Max||

    Jesus Christ, this fucking turd Ron Paul for years published a newsletter that promoted racism, homophobia and antisemitic cpnspiracy theories. You might think all this has something to do with the support he draws from racists, homophobes and antisemites. But, no, the dodderong old fuck is--mirabile dictu--a victim of a smear by the liberal press. Not only does the pinko NY Times smear poor Ron fucking Paul, but even has the temerity to suggest that maybe the movement he has so closely identified with has a wing that might have some racist, homophobic and paranoid cosnpiracy tendencies. Unbelievavble.

  • The Angry RPh||

    I guess you're just expressing your profound disappointment since you were going to proudly vote for Ron Paul until you heard about teh noozledders.

  • ||

    Hey, it's Max. Max is here, everyone! How ya' doin', Max?

  • Watoosh||

    Look at it this way. In Europe the far right is statist as fuck. They want progressive taxes, bank regulation, high tariffs, cultural spending (for classic art, not degenerate trash) and a big welfare net (except for the niggers, arabs and Jews). When a progressive politician promises to tax and regulate the bankers, the neo-nazis cheer. Just because their interests overlap, progressives don't need to take responsibility for anti-semitism.

    In the US the far right has a bigger anti-government component to it (though never as consistent as with libertarians), so it's natural for white supremacists and other freaks to lean towards the only candidate that's consistently against the same government programs as they are (in Paul's case, the Fed, welfare for illegals and affirmative action).

    Murray Rothbard's outreach to the bigots was wrong and a strategic mistake, but that does not discredit libertarianism. The post-NLRB labor unions have always supported protectionism and closed shops and haven't shied away from racist "Dey tuk r jaahbs!" -rhetoric while at it. Doesn't mean the left is as a whole mired in racism and xenophobia.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Watoosh,

    so it's natural for white supremacists [...]


    White supremacists are not particularly minarchistic, Watoosh.

    Murray Rothbard's outreach to the bigots was wrong and a strategic mistake,


    He never did. You simply call paleo-conservatives "bigots" and then conclude that Rothbard was cavorting with bigots.

  • Robert||

    They're not fundamentally minarchistic, but that's the tendency they've been drawn to in the USA for path-dependent reasons. That's because they're a rxn to big gov't such as the Great Society, and they tend to cluster in low popul'n density areas (away from blacks, but also because they're drawn toward a rustic lifestyle), and would like to pursue secession from larger units of gov't. There is a great deal of overlap between them and radical libertarians in both political and cultural spheres. Part of it is also the general affinity that all extremists, even those with opposing goals, have for each other, largely because the mean pushes out the extreme.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    Broken promises. That is what Max is good for - broken promises.

  • anon||

    Are you mad dude?

  • Tony||

    All of the ideas go together, be they about the Fed or swift-footed black men. They're all simplistic, paranoid, and all about the victimization of the white man. It's all the same bullshit. Racism does not come from evil intentions, but ignorance. Ignorance informs everything Paul and his supporters believe. One thing regular Republicans and libertarians all share in common is a need for the world to be much simpler than it is.

  • ||

    Guess you need a Derivatives Party. Would that be complex enough for you?

  • Sevo||

    Naah.
    Shithead needs to grow out of adolescence.

  • Derivatives Party||

    How to screw thy neighbor and call it free enterprise.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why make the world more complicated, Tony?

    Needlessly, at that?

  • .||

    Why make it more complicated?! Why, so there will be more wiggle room for dishonest prevaricators, of course!

  • ||

    Hey, it's Tony. Tony is here, everyone! How ya' doin', Tony?

  • .||

    Yes, it's Tony. One of you guys must have kicked over a rock again.

  • ||

    That was a truly fascinating example of gratuitous package-dealing on your part, Tony. Utterly absurd, but still fascinating.

    The Fed is a gang of counterfeiters, aided and abetted by the government. I know they put a great deal of effort into obfuscating that simple reality, but it's still the truth.

    What I don't get is why a left-wing nutjob like you supports the fed in the first place. Don't you know it was inflicted on us by Rockefeller and Morgan, to benefit the banks at the expense of everyone else? Do you actually approve of a private cartel controlling something as vital as the money supply?

    -jcr

  • o3||

    how can the feds be "counterfeiters" when treasury prints the money & M2 is stable at ~3% growth?

  • o4||

    dont bother him o3 when he's on a roll like bluto

  • .||

    How can they be counterfeiters when M2 is stable at 3%? Mm, probably the same way hot check artists are still thieves even if their output of checks grows by only 3%.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Of course he does. Team BLUE tells him that if the Fed were to be abolished it would be TEH END UV DA WURLD!!!!!!11one1!!, so he supports it.

    It's very simple with Tony. If Team BLUE approves, so does he. If they disapprove, so does he. He's a fucking parrot.

  • Tony||

    The fact that you believe something is sufficient to reject it by non-cult people.

    Silly golden age longing bullshit, but what problem has ever been solved by reverting anything to the 19th century?

  • Mike M.||

    Ha-haaaah, this is pretty rich coming from a guy who's obsessed with choo-choo trains.

  • TOnee,||

    Let's not say a word about the ugly race-baiting Obama DOJ, shall we?

  • Ahhhh...||

    ...but lest we IGNORE the irony here: that left-wing statists, in their inherent abhorrence of IGNANCE, support the unchecked-or-balanced power of a group of private interests to control an enormous nation's money supply without any responsibility to DISCLOSE ITS ACTIONS TO THE VOTERS (which could potentially lift us ALL out of IGNANCE), preferring to accept the utterly simplistic idea that really, we don't need to know what they're doing, because the gubmint says, "never you mind, citizen; they're here to provide safety for the little guy."

  • flacid tuna||

    Someone did this thing in the 90s where they sent to checks to the various presidential campaigns from fictional organizations with names like "Pedophiles in Support of Pedophilia" and such. All the checks were cashed.

    Campaigns don't care where money comes from. There isn't any black list.

  • MrPlow||

    Incorrect, FT. The joke was played by Michael Moore, who sent checks to Dole, Buchanan and, if memory serves Forbes and Keyes. Everyone returned the checks EXCEPT the Buchanan campaign.

  • white racist gamboling .....||

    I donated moneys to the rubublican party and thier candidates because I dont like having a colored president running the free white world..........that doesnt make the republican party and its front runner candidates RACIST does it???? white powder!!!!!!

  • Mortimer Duke||

    Do you really believe I would have a nigger run our family business, Randolph?

  • anon||

    You quoted a movie! You fucking racist!

  • ||

    Dear lord, are the trolls still drunk from last night? It seems too early in the day to have them in full force with this level of stupid.

  • Bill||

    Come on, these are all fake trolls.

    Max, Tony, Shrike all on the same thread?

  • Chad||

    What am I, Santorum?

  • ||

    There are a lot of conservative Bircher types who attack the "Jew bankers" and the Federal Reserve out of ignorance.

    The fact that they glom onto Libertarians is incidental. Calling someone a racist is not a way to defeat their insane ideology.

    I won't stoop to it and I will be voting for Ron Paul in our open primary mainly because the other Republicans suck so much.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    There are a lot of conservative Bircher types who attack the "Jew bankers" and the Federal Reserve out of ignorance.


    Attacking the Federal Reserve is a demonstration of ignorance, Shriek?

  • ||

    In terms of ending it like Ron Paul vows to. You do realize Fed Governors serve 14-yr terms, right? RP might sneak one Bircher onto the board - if that.

    And Congress would never allow legislation to end the Fed to pass. His "big idea" on economics is dead in the womb.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    In terms of ending it like Ron Paul vows to.


    You DO realize that the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional, don't you?

    RP might sneak one Bircher onto the board - if that.


    You're sure a goddamned liar, shriek. What makes you think that Ron Paul would put a "bircher" as a Fed chairman, or that he is even linked to the JBS? Just because Maxipad says it does not make it so.

    Besides this, you sound like a paranoid neo-con by repeating this canard about the JBS. Who cares about the JBS?

  • ||

    Unconstitutional? Tell the Supremes that. You don't need RP as president to challenge that 98 year old law.

    Again, he would have no effect there as he might get one appointment to the court.

    If you are wet dreaming on end to the Fed if RP is elected you will awaken sorely forlorn.

  • ||

    Unconstitutional? Tell the Supremes that.

    That's a rather royalist view on your part. The constitution isn't written in sanskrit, and anyone can read it for themselves. It grants no authority for a central bank, and the tenth amendment prohibits the federal government from assuming any powers not granted in the constitution.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Fair - but the Supremacy Clause outranks the 10th Amendment. Congress exercised its power in 1913.

    The only two remedies? A new amendment or new legislation from Congress. So the president is just an accessory in those cases - which is my point.

  • Juice||

    The Supremacy Clause doesn't say that anything Congress does is supreme. It says that the Constitution is supreme over any law enacted by Congress.

    And the Supremacy Clause doesn't "outrank" the 10th amendment. WTF?

    If anything, the 10th amendment is an amendment, which is usually understood to supersede any previous contradictory language (even though there is nothing in the Constitution that spells this out).

    Fuck. Christ the Constitution sucks.

  • ||

    The Supremacy Clause doesn't say that anything Congress does is supreme.

    That is exactly what it does. Congress is supreme over the states.

    The exception would be if Congress violated the Bill of Rights - which is a judicial issue and NOT a state issue.

  • Juice||

    That is exactly what it does. Congress is supreme over the states.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...

    No, the Supremacy Clause doesn't say that anything Congress does is supreme. It must be constitutional to be supreme.

    And care to explain what you meant by the supremacy clause "outranking" the 10th amendment?

  • ||

    I added in my prior post that a law Congress passes must be Constitutional as determined by the Court.

    But barring that - Congress has Supremacy over the states. Congress stepped all over the states with the Civil Rights Act.

  • ||

    "... an amendment, which is usually understood to supersede any previous contradictory language (even though there is nothing in the Constitution that spells this out)."

    It certainly did in the case of the 16th.

  • ||

    the Supremacy Clause outranks the 10th Amendment.

    The supremacy clause only pertains to powers granted to the federal government, not to any powers they usurp beyond those given in the constitution.

    Congress exercised its power in 1913.

    No, congress exceeded its power in 1913. The federal reserve act is unconstitutional, and therefore not a law at all.

    -jcr

  • ||

    How does a supremacy clause that establishes the constitution as the law of the land outrank the 10th amendment?

  • ||

    You don't know what the Clause does.

    Go back to START.

  • Chad||

    How does a supremacy clause that establishes the constitution as the law of the land outrank the 10th amendment?

    By the Libertarian Judicial Overlords saying so.

  • ||

    Exactly. Which is why we are going to replace a portion of the Senate and the House at our next opportunity -- as well as the president.

    Might not be this time, but don't worry. It will happen and we will not rest until it does.

  • juris imprudent||

    Unless you are saying a President Paul would dissolve the FRS via Executive Order - shrike is right. You won't get Congress to pass that legislation.

  • anon||

    Unless you are saying a President Paul would dissolve the FRS via Executive Order - shrike is right. You won't get Congress to pass that legislation.

    Yeah, and watching the fed laughing at the theoretical executive order would be entertaining too.

  • Andy Jackson||

    It wouldn't laugh for long, since the executive branch has the police power to enforce its orders and the Fed has squat.

  • Maxxx||

    Maybe president Paul will put the NDAA to good use.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Spoof. The real shrike hates Ron Paul.

  • yonemoto||

    "Our board recognizes that most of the leaders involved in the Fed and the international banking system are Jews."

    Someone should tell the stormfront guys that Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises were Jews.

  • Lone Starr||

    Funny, they don't look Druish.

  • juris imprudent||

    The Sheriff is [ding].

  • Robert||

    Roy Childs used to joke that Murray should run for mayor, because he'd get the Jewish vote because he's Jewish and the black vote because he's anti-semitic.

  • yuletide sam||

    Hey everyone, that weasel Jamie Kirchick will be on the radio at 2pm on WRKO in Boston.
    http://www.wrko.com/

    Listen and call in at 617-266-6868.

  • ||

    The interviewer is totally on this guys side. Good luck getting on.

  • ||

    Seriously, fuck this interviewer.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why are we even discussing this? Isn't Paul's racism implicit in his desire to cut federal spending?

  • flacid tuna||

    You nailed it!

  • anon||

    Nah, there are too many white people on welfare now. It's class warfare, not racism.

  • juris imprudent||

    You could even tack on "speciesism" - since that would be bad for parasites.

  • .||

    I like specie. I like the way it glints in the sunlight, the way it jingles in my pockets. The weight of it in my hands.

  • SPECAL MATTER||

  • Old Mexican||

    The article's main complaint, as expressed in the headline, is that "Paul Disowns Extremists' Views but Doesn't Disavow the Support."


    Which is obviously an extraordinary complaint, as Obama never disavowed the support he received from leftist radicals and black supremacists. Not that he had to or something, and neither does Paul.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Which is obviously an extraordinary complaint, as Obama never disavowed the support he received from leftist radicals and black supremacists. Not that he had to or something, and neither does Paul.

    Except the whole double standard thing on behalf of the media; of course Paul will have to jump hurdles that Obama never had to. To expect any differently is naivete of the highest order.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: mad libertarian guy,

    of course Paul will have to jump hurdles that Obama never had to.


    And I agree. Now tell me that people really trust the news outlets that much especially after these asserted the Tea party was composed of old white racist radicals.

  • anon||

    Holy fuck, it's the trifecta of trolls: Tony, Shrike AND White Indian. The world is truly ending.

  • ||

    Actually it's the four Trolls of the Apocalypse. Max popped his head out too. Now where's the Whore of Babbling?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Derider's back, too.

  • Brian||

    Since the NYT published interview material with the leader of Stormfront, does that make them racist too?

  • flacid tuna||

    The transitive property. It's a bitch.

  • Colin||

    Our old friend Dondero has a piece up on how Paul won't shake hands with gay people. And, while staying at the home of a gay supporter during a campaign spot, Paul wouldn't even use the guy's bathroom.

    People really want to make this racist homophobe the face of libertarianism?

    Really?

  • Junior High School Girl Colin||

    Oh yeah, well I heard from Lindsey that Ashleigh told her that Kelsey saw Jennifer totally kissing Chad behind the bleachers. OMG what a slut.

  • anon||

    Shit, what's Jennifer's phone number again?

  • ||

    That's what's known in rhetoric as a baldfaced lie, and I'm surprised that even Dondero would stoop that low. He should know that Kent Snyder, Ron Paul's campaign manager for many years, was gay.

    -jcr

  • tarran||

    and I'm surprised that even Dondero would stoop that low.

    I'm not.

  • ||

    Yeah, Ok. I didn't really mean that.

    -jcr

  • .||

    Donderoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  • veemee sashimi||

    Well if Eric Dondero said it, it must be true.

  • ||

    Of course it's true. If you can't believe an unemployed starving dude who would take a job in politics for a dollar, who can you trust? A doctor??

    We all know lawyers *and* doctors are scum. Right?

  • Fluffy||

    So Dondero tells a story where he admits that Paul spent three days hanging out and campaigning with a gay supporter and his lover and had a grand old time, but then claims that during this three-day trip Paul said something homophobic TO HIM AND ONLY HIM?

    Dondero, the genocide advocate and former primary challenger to Paul?

    Please name one Republican or Democrat in 1988, other than Barney Frank, who would have campaigned for three days in the company of an openly gay couple.

  • anon||

    Our old friend Dondero has a piece up on how Paul won't shake hands with gay people. And, while staying at the home of a gay supporter during a campaign spot, Paul wouldn't even use the guy's bathroom.

    1: How does he (or you) know that those people he does shake hands with aren't gay?

    2: Do you take dumps at other people's houses you don't know that well?

    3: http://articles.businessinside.....r-spending lol

  • Juice||

    Here's Paul leaning in for a warm embrace.

    http://2.images.theweek.com/im.....it-the.jpg

  • Mensan||

    Hell, I wouldn't get that close to Frank. It's nothing to do with him being gay; it's because he spits everywhere when he talks.

  • ||

    Dondero has other things to say about Mr. Paul

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....14883.html

  • anon||

    This just in! Ron Paul opposes yet another adventure in military interventionism!

    Alt note: Believing the CIA might have known something is hardly a conspiracy theory. Hell, we thought Pearl Harbor was going down 3 days beforehand and still did jack shit. Government inaction does not suggest collusion.

  • ||

    The Taliban government refused to hand over Al-Queda after the 9/11 attacks. Not sure if that is an act of war, but definately a causus belli.

  • ||

    "This just in! Ron Paul opposes yet another adventure in military interventionism!"

    About time someone recalled the good old days when Ron Paul was "obviously" a left-wing crypto-hippie creep.

  • ||

    Dondero's lucky that Dr. Paul is too much of a gentleman to tell us why he fired that asshole.

    -jcr

  • robc||

    The Weekly Standard is having to dig deep if they are quoting Dondero.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The shemale prostitute story behind it will be my next comic.

  • veemee sashimi||

    He was probably fired for writing the newsletters.

  • RyanXXX||

    If you read the article, you see that Paul kind of repudiates Rothbard and Rockwell at the end.

    He says he can see why some people would want him to disassociate with them, but others would blame him for switching and associating with Cato, an incrementalist, compromise-is-key type organization

  • Robert||

    BTW, a rotation thru obs-gyn is a considerable turn-off for sex. When you actually practice it, though, I guess you get used to it.

  • Lil Debbie Snatch Cakes||

    mmmmmmmmmmm

  • anon||

    Suddenly the fingerbang song came to my mind.

  • Sterling Archer||

    Countess von Fingerbang.

  • vaginas abused by Ron Paul||

    The bastard has the same MO everytime he stuck his hand in...he would say this might hirt a little...bastard.
    -true story

  • Average Liberal||

    Why is everyone so surprised? Don't you know that ideas are contagious diseases, and that as soon as you share common ground with a group of people you are immediately infected with their ideas and are thus just as guilty as they are?

    Looks like you've all had a bit too much to think!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Actually, this is EXACTLY how many liberals think. I suspect it's because all they understand is groupthink.

    A friend of mine has blamed my libertarianism on my "militia neighbors" here in KY. He doesn't get that one can desire individual autonomy and liberty without aid from others.

  • Tony||

    Why does libertarianism gain support the closer it gets to the militia types? If it's just an idea about freedom, shouldn't it be proportionately distributed through all population densities?

  • tarran||

    Why don't you know the difference between anecdotes and data?

    Shouldn't a chemist have been taught that at some point as an undergrad?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Guess left-wing versions of militia types don't count, eh?

  • BigT||

    Tony a chemist? Impossible. No logic. No basis in observation. No respect for empirical data. An alchemist maybe - charlatan, phony, cultish.

  • .||

    Chad is the chemist, if I recall correctly.

  • ||

    What does it tell you about the establishment media spin going on that they need to highlight the alleged support of a tiny "white nationalist" group and use it to imply a smear of Ron Paul and the larger political movement supporting him? Don Black and his group may have their reasons for supporting Dr. Paul's libertarian agenda--or maybe they don't. It isn't relevant. Dr. Paul isn't in any way endorsing racialism (and has in fact called it "collectivist"), and his agenda is liberty, peace, and sound money. That is it. No more. No less.

  • o4||

    so how much LESS coverage is required to NOT be a smear?

  • ||

    Guilt by association arguments (or smears) by definition are weak, and if you followed the campaign four years ago, you would know this isn't new, and such support isn't relevant to the political agenda Dr. Paul is advancing. And let's be clear: the media knows this.

  • o4||

    so ANY media coverage constitutes a smear?

  • LilDebbie||

    because teh J00Z!21111!1! control the media, duh.

  • ||

    Let me know when Obama refuses to take money from Goldman Sachs employees.

  • ||

    OBAMA JUST REFUSED TO TAKE MONEY FROM GOLDMAN SACHS.

    And HOLDER just brought all those assault rifles back from Mexico, himself. In an unarmored van.

    And Gingrich just donated all the $1.6 million he got from Freddie Mac to a charity that houses owners whose houses were foreclosed upon.

  • Juice||

    Wait a minute.

    A dude is a white supremacist and his name is Black?

    That's gotta be made up.

  • protefeed||

    Maybe his parents thought that him getting beat up by skinheads while growing up would make him tough.

  • ||

    "A Boy Named Black." Coming soon from Resistance Records...

  • ||

    Also, a comment on the MO of the New York Times piece--everything is conflated with each other to give a very misleading picture. A couple of decades of libertarian history is compacted in this 3 page article when the subject instead demands a lot reflection and nuance. The Rothbard/Rockwell people, whose view isn't really represented, feel, among things, that in the 1980's the libertarian movement became elitist, and that it was obsessed with certain issues like drug legalization, while many other important issues were being ignored. Further, they complain of the excessive influence of the Koch brothers (many on the left of course also now complain about the Koch brothers and allege they effectively control the tea party)and wanted to take the movement in different, more populist direction. Perhaps, that didn't work out with "paleo-libertarianism", but that was only a phase in an evolving movement that for a decade was leading the fight against all the warmongering and abuses of civil liberties that followed 9/11.

  • you speak like a communist||

    apologizing for communism's failures

  • ||

    Ok, how so?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Don't expect that it's arguing from a position which contains any sense of intellectualism.

  • Yeehaw||

    I think you mean "them readin' smarts."

  • Contrarian P||

    I agree the libertarian movement needs much more space and words to give it an adequate history, but it's not realistic to expect the NYT to devote pages and pages to a full libertarian history lesson. Most of its readers wouldn't be interested in the past petty struggles, rather they are much more concerned with what is happening with the Paul campaign in specific and likely began reading the article for that reason. Maybe some of them will be interested enough to do additional reading on their own...the information is certainly out there.

  • Contrarian P||

    I actually thought the New York Times article was well written and presented a fairly balanced view, which was strange considering I was fully expecting to read an attack piece. It was much more balanced and fair than Reason's own "Paul storms out of CNN interview" piece.

  • ||

    I agree it isn't all bad--if you actually read through it. The problem is most people I bet will look at the title and this stuff with Don Black in the beginning and take that as the story. Louis Farrakhan obviously is a controversial figure, but when he and his people strongly supported Obama in the 2008 election I didn't see the media try to imply Obama or the larger political movement that supported him had the same controversial views as Farrakhan.

  • Mensan||

    Does Sean Hannity count as the media? He definitely tried to push that association.

  • o4||

    entertainment media like rush

  • ||

    and racists are overwhelmingly against racial preferences/affirmative action ... it doesn't mean those of us who oppose same are racist

    however, many reasonoids will play the race card vis a vis illegal immigration (since they are for open borders vs. the AA debate since they are against AA) . sure, racists tend to oppose illegal immigration, it doesn't follow that those who oppose it are racists.

    people play these games when they can. it's sad, but ALL sides do it

  • celebs4truth||

    Help this pro-Ron Paul Denver Conspiracy Examiner news article go viral! Send it out all over the internet and social media outlets! "Support the troops by supporting Ron Paul!" http://www.examiner.com/conspi.....g-ron-paul

  • Max||

    Eeven the gay and lesbian troops? In his newsletter, Ron Paul claimed that there was a homosexual conspiracy to cover up the AIDS threat. How do we know gays haven't infiltrated our armed forces to do damamage to our troops. Ron Paul wants gays back in the closet, not in the army. Israel and the gays are cookinf up new conspiracies while blacks keep mugging white people. It's all part of that illuminati business.

  • ||

    The playbook of the establishment is create a lot of diversions so we DON'T have a real debate about the issues and how they screwed up the country (and other countries too!). It's super-cowardly, but they are super-cowards.

  • Max||

    You refer, of course, to Ron Paul and his racist collaborators.

  • ||

    You talk about "racist collaborators". Do you think the people trying to resurrect this line of attack are Mother Theresas? Do you understand what the Weekly Standard and National Review are about? Do you have any idea what their plans are going forward? It will make the Bush-Cheney years look like models of tolerance and enlightenment.

  • ||

    I didn't, but I am starting to see now. THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT.

    Danny

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: George,

    Please don't play with the pet yorkie (Max) George. He gets riled up and then impossible to shut up unless you whack him with a rolled up newspaper.

  • ||

    Donderooooo put together an article that is fairly fair on Paul but of course goes bonkers when it comes to foreign policy.

  • flacid tuna||

    Somehow an Israeli centric foreign policy is sane. Seriously, WTF?

  • Max||

    I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they ‘came out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?” -Ron Paul June 1990

  • flacid tuna||

    That will doom him with the GOP.

  • ||

    I guess that is a quote from the newsletters. The argument is certainly pretty un-PC by today's standards (I'm not so sure though circa 1990). I don't agree with it personally, but I do kinda respect the rawness of the argument and importantly this is just meant as an observation, it didn't necessarily refer to policy.In contrast, William F. Buckley and many others on the Right around this time were complaining about homosexuals and the AIDS epidemic and Buckley, for instance, wanted AIDS patients to be tattooed.

  • ||

    and that has to be understood in context to what many libs/progressives were doing vis a vis AIDS. (as extensively documented in and the band played on by shilts, etc.) In San Fran, despite good evidence that public bathhouses etc. were rapidly spreading this deadly disease, the politicos in San Fran REFUSED to issue any kind of emergency order closing them and it's pretty clear that their (lack fo response) contributed substantially to the AIDS epidemic spreading.

    there were even advertising campaigns promoting the message that "anybody can get AIDS" iow spending more time being peecee and promoting the (false) idea that AIDS was equal opportunity vs. getting out the message that certain actvities are FAR more likely to pass along AIDS than others./

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    By the way, there's not one writing, quote, video or speech coming from him that comes even close to saying that, so imputing it to him is defaming him, pet yorkie.

  • ||

    Who was that written by, Justin Raimondo?

  • Gojira||

    So which is it? I hear people in the same comments thread both declaring that Reason posts unthinking defenses of RP (as in the previous article), and others claiming that Reason is part of the Koch hit-man team trying to take Paul down.

    People are reading the exact same stories and coming up with two polar opposite ideas about what is trying to be communicated.

    What say you?

  • Mensan||

    I depends on the particular article. There are articles that could be seen as hit-pieces, and others that could be seen as defenses.

  • ||

    and like many of these debates, it depends on one's POV.

    consider that many reasonoids constantly complain about the mainstream press being uncritical kneejerk supporters of the police, whereas most cops i know consider the mainstream media to be largely hostile towards police.

    how can such widely divergent perceptions exist? because based on perspective etc. that's how subjective perception work.

    most people who are not RP supporters would probably find Reason's articles on RP to be very supportive, whereas many RP supporters (not all) consider even the mention of the newsletters to be proof that that article is hostile to RP

  • tarran||

    I see these threads as a battle between the tards and the not-tards with interesting discussion between the not-tards.

    Phase 1 is getting the paultards and posipaultards annihilate. Then we'll get around to taking care of the residue from any asymmetry.

  • Sevo||

    Gojira|12.26.11 @ 5:02PM|#
    "So which is it? I hear people in the same comments thread both declaring that Reason posts unthinking defenses of RP (as in the previous article), and others claiming that Reason is part of the Koch hit-man team trying to take Paul down."

    How 'bout neither one?
    Pretty sure Reason (qua Reason) never 'endorses' a candidate, but the those who write for Reason can make their choices known.
    Seems most of them don't find the news letters cause to abandon the guy, but some really wish he'd be more forthcoming and less defensive about them.

  • Csonka||

    "Freedom makes strange bedfellows."

    Apparently, opposing statism is something both racist assholes and good-hearted people can get behind. That's a statement on how large and expansive the state has become, it infringes on you and your dickhead neighbor alike, whee!

    I'd go with that, and also "Fuck the Times." Someone here made a great point about Obama and the $ from Hamas and Fatah. Oh yeah, and then there are positions on actual policy, and fidelity to the Constitution. And stuff. The newsletters are nasty, but the more I hear about them, the less I give a fuck.

  • ||

    The piece by Sullum above is good. No complaints. I felt the same way when I saw this piece this morning.

  • Max||

    Gee, I think it's a piece of shit like everything else Sullum writes. Nobody tops Doherty for head-the-ass Paultard worship, though. In the Middle Ages Doherty would have been either a whiny serf or a guy looking for heretics.
    I really wonder if Ron Paul himself is a closet gay. Maybe he's taking it up the ass by that Don Black guy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who you voting for, Max? Obama? One of those fucktard Republicans?

    The CPUSA candidate?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    I really wonder if Ron Paul himself is a closet gay. Maybe he's taking it up the ass by that Don Black guy.


    You just left stains in your mom's carpet, pet yorkie... You should've used a Kleenex.

  • .||

    His father should have used a condom instead of a Kleenex.

  • Sevo||

    Max|12.26.11 @ 6:07PM|#
    "...I really wonder if Ron Paul himself is a closet gay. Maybe he's taking it up the ass by that Don Black guy."

    Max, ol' buddy, do you have a slight bit of a problem with your, uh, 'identity'?
    Look, there's nothing wrong with it, but projecting really doesn't help you.

  • ||

    You ranting away like a little kid. Do you have a point to make?

  • Tony||

    It's not statistical noise that the members of all these groups are overwhelmingly white and male. I think not having a demographically diverse makeup is direct evidence of, if nothing else, flawed politics. At the fringes of a racially uniform movement will be those motivated by racism. Paul shouldn't have to answer for them except if he, say, were to append his name to their ugly racist bullshit.

    The question few seem to be asking is "why do I share economic beliefs with stupid racists?" How did they, of all people, stumble upon the one true economic philosophy?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.26.11 @ 6:30PM|#
    "I think not having a demographically diverse makeup is direct evidence of, if nothing else, flawed politics."

    Shithead, you don't "think" anything.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He forgets "libertarians don't use government to bribe people to vote themselves more goodies", which is par for the Tony course.

  • Sevo||

    I don't think "forgetting" is any part of shithead's problems.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Conveniently forgetting". Lie by omission, IOW.

  • Sevo||

    "Conveniently forgetting"
    Bingo!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Statistical Clueless,

    It's not statistical noise that the members of all these groups are overwhelmingly white and male.


    "These groups"?

    I think not having a demographically diverse makeup is direct evidence of, if nothing else, flawed politics.


    Aren't you just tired of being plain wrong, sockpuppet?

  • The Derider||

    How is this any different from Reason going to Occupy LA, and highlighting the crazy, anti-semitic fringe elements?

    Discuss.

  • ||

    I am not familiar with your specific example, but I agree with the point. There are problems with some of the socialistic aspects of the Occupy movement, but I think it is wrong to use fringe elements to characterize the broader movement.

  • Sevo||

    "How is this any different from Reason going to Occupy LA, and highlighting the crazy, anti-semitic fringe elements?"

    Because the person shown is a *member* of that "movement" as opposed to someone who happens to support a candidate and has whacko views.
    But I'll bet you knew that and were hoping your false equivalence would fly.

  • The Derider||

    What's the difference between a political candidacy and a movement? Shit, Ron Paul thinks he's leading a R3V01ution!

    False equivalency is the evil twin of false dichotomy.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|12.26.11 @ 7:43PM|#
    "What's the difference between a political candidacy and a movement?"

    Proof is left to the student. Sorry, I'm tired of educating ignoramuses.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Revolutions" are usually violent, you stupid cunt.

  • The Derider||

    I remember seeing a blimp with ron paul's name on it with the word "revolution". Was this also the work of nefarious crypto-libertarians with no link to the Ron paul campaign?

    YOU STUPID CUNT

  • The Derider||

    I remember seeing a blimp with ron paul's name on it with the word "revolution". Was this also the work of nefarious crypto-libertarians with no link to the Ron paul campaign?

    YOU STUPID CUNT

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|12.26.11 @ 8:14PM|#
    "I remember seeing a blimp with ron paul's name on it with the word "revolution". Was this also the work of nefarious crypto-libertarians with no link to the Ron paul campaign?"

    This is GREAT!
    "RP Campaign Now Accused of Using Blimps! Film at 11:00!"
    Way to go, TD!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I said "usually".

    Fucking read next time.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Well, Sevo... you know who else used inflatable lighter-than-air craft...

  • The Derider||

    What's the difference between a movement and a revolution?

    Still waiting for your moronic explanation.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|12.26.11 @ 8:41PM|#
    "What's the difference between a movement and a revolution?"

    Gee, that's tough.
    What's the difference between purple and a supernova?
    Got any other whacko questions this evening? They're amusing.

  • The Derider||

    What's the difference between a movement and a revolution?

    Still waiting for your moronic explanation.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    YOU figure it out, you pussy.

  • The Derider||

    Jesus Christ, Your moron cousin Sevo claims there is a difference, but no one can explain what the difference is.

    HELP!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Violence.

    There, I answered it for you.

    I do hope you feel sufficiently stupid now, because that's exactly the way to put it.

    YOU said "what's the difference between" three different things; therefore, I figured you would know the big, glaring difference between the first two options, and the third.

    Whatever Team you belong to, has a real winner amongst their ranks.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|12.26.11 @ 8:44PM|#
    "Jesus Christ, Your moron cousin Sevo claims there is a difference, but no one can explain what the difference is."
    There's a limit to the amount of time I'll spend educating ignoramuses. Sometimes you really have to do your own research.

  • The Derider||

    wow, that's a mean way of saying "I'm too stupid to argue my point"

  • Sevo||

    No, it's an intelligent way to express that you're an ignoramus too dumb for a detailed response.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Derider,

    How is this any different from Reason going to Occupy LA, and highlighting the crazy, anti-semitic fringe elements?


    What do you mean "fringe elements"? I thought all OWS people were equally nutty.

    I mean, who the fuck spends their time in uncomfortable tents being raped, robbed and used for days on end except really bat-shit crazy people?

  • The Derider||

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/10.....er-at-occu

    This is what I'm referring to.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yes, and she wasn't the only one to have that worldview.

    What's your point, cunt?

  • The Derider||

    There is more than one Ron Paul supporter who is also a white supremacist.

    That's my point, cunt.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So? I'd bet you there's at least ONE white supremacist-y Team Blue member, somewhere in the world.

    Hey! Quick question... what's the difference between voting for change, and killing for it?

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|12.26.11 @ 8:42PM|#
    "There is more than one Ron Paul supporter who is also a white supremacist.
    That's my point, cunt."

    Really! No kidding!
    How.......
    irrelevant.

  • ||

    Yeah, that piece doesn't really tell you anything about Occupy other than that lady in the clip has problems. I would question what she is doing as a public school teacher however.

  • Sevo||

    Sorry, it does.
    She is part of the "movement"; see above.

  • The Derider||

    Sorry, you're a moron.

    The only difference between a political campaign, a movement, and a revolution is semantics.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|12.26.11 @ 7:44PM|#
    "Sorry, you're a moron."
    If you were other than an ignoramus, that might mean something.

    "The only difference between a political campaign, a movement, and a revolution is semantics."
    The only difference between that statement and bullshit, is, well, nothing.
    Did you see a member of RP's campaign make those statements?
    Maybe you're stupid enough to believe your own bullshit; sorry I credited you with too much sense.

  • ||

    One individual out of how many Occupy protesters? If you did a poll that would be one thing and got the same sentiment that would be one thing, just shooting a video clip of some random individual proves nada.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Still posting your bullshit, Derider?

  • Sevo||

    George|12.26.11 @ 7:46PM|#
    "One individual out of how many Occupy protesters?"
    Dunno, you tell me.
    See anyone 'disavowing' her statements? See anyone claiming she isn't part of "this"?

  • The Derider||

    Yes, many members of the Occupy LA movement disavowed the comments. Reason didn't include them in this awesome video.

  • The Derider||

    Yes, many members of the Occupy LA movement disavowed the comments. Reason didn't include them in this awesome video.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|12.26.11 @ 8:16PM|#
    "Yes, many members of the Occupy LA movement disavowed the comments. Reason didn't include them in this awesome video."

    Nor did you in your claim.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Double-posting suits you, Derider.

  • ||

    "crazy right-wingers who take the Constitution too seriously and worry about personal freedom."

    You're kidding me, right?

    There is no "TOO" seriously. It is what it is. Either you paint inside the lines, or you don't. There is no TOO or "aww, dat's ok, you are just learning to paint..."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The Constitution just gets in the way of Team Red/Blue's endgame.

  • ||

    The geniuses who saw the mess the escaped overseas built an unsinkable ship in the Constitution.

    A place for everything, and everything in its place.

    Keep things ship-shape, and we can weather any storm.

    Start to turn an unsinkable ship into a pork and love yacht and you will get to see how you have ruined the greatest device of all time -- The Constitution.

    I suggest some of you rethink what it means to set some limits on yourselves. Many of your kids are probably out of control and poorly-behaved. And you know why?

    It's not because of the right-wing or because of big business or because the 1% is sitting on your back.

    It's because you don't know how to limit yourselves.

    You need a Constitution in your own homes. Each of you. To tell your kids what they can and cannot do. Since you obviously cannot control them yourselves.

    How's that for hitting home?

    Wake up, people.

  • BigT||

    Nice. The Constitution provides discipline for government, which has a tendency to get out of control due to human nature.

  • ||

    I wonder how history would have been different if past Presidents and candidates had been forced to pass the racial litmus test of today. Harry Truman almost joined the Klan, yet as President integrated the Armed Forces. Lyndon Johnson was an out and out bigot, yet passed all of the Civil Rights legislation in the 60's. Ron Paul's acquaintances have frequently been on the fringes, but as of now 20 percent of black Americans would vote for him solely on the basis of his position on the drug war, which arguably has damaged black families worse than anything the Klan ever did.(6500 lynchings between 1865 and 1965, yet millions of black men have served sentences for drug crimes). Something to think about.

  • Old Mexican||

    How different would history be if liberal Democrats praised ex-KKK members during their eulogies...

    ... Uh, except that they did:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....jCVcV-sNj8

    I just have to wonder how people like Tony and Maxipad rationalize these things after they show their false outrage about a few comments out of thousands of pages of newsletters. I guess that, for them, they would respect a racist that went all the way rather that one that only diddle-daddle around the edges... Oh, and that was a liberal Democrat.

  • Robert Byrd||

    LBJ was a candyass. Only a candyass would "almost" join the Klan.

  • Woody Johnson||

    Convicted Felons overwhelmingly support Barack Obama, but he has not publicly disavowed their support. Ditto for Viagra users supporting Newt Gingrich... and Drag Queens supporting Mitt Romney.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    [The Federal Reserve Act] Unconstitutional? Tell the Supremes that.


    The SCOTUS decided once that people were property. I don't understand what the FUCK you are trying to argue with this appeal to authority.

    You don't need RP as president to challenge that 98 year old law.
    No, just RP to challenge the monopoly status of the Fed, through eliminating Legal Tender laws. Like switching regular coffee with Folgers Crystals: Let's watch.

  • Old Mexican||

    Ron Paul Wins Despite Mainstream Media's Smear

    Herman Cain got secret service protection. Michele Bachmann has a big, fancy bus. Congressman Ron Paul isn’t like other Republicans, however. At least not like those who have chased the GOP’s bid for the 2012 election.

    The road to the White House is a bumpy one but Rep. Ron Paul is okay with that. So are his supporters in Iowa, apparently, who have come to appreciate the could-be-president’s lack of fleer while dismissing the mainstream media’s smear campaign against the congressman.

    To many, it isn’t the way the establishment — now terrified of Paul’s surge in the polls — portrays the candidate. It’s the way the congressman has stuck to his gut during his decades in public office.

    "He's the only consistent conservative out there," J.C. Weiand, a law student who attended a Paul rally in Fort Madison, Iowa, tells the Associated Press. "For 30 years, he's been preaching the same message. Now his time has finally come."

    Paul was pegged as a possibility for the Republican Party’s nomination since he launched his campaign, but only in recent weeks has his popularity finally propelled him to the top. While scandals cost Cain his campaign and Rick Perry’s poor public appearances have dragged him down in the polls after once being a frontrunner, Paul has only soared with support as of late.

    The mainstream media has attempted to take down the libertarian-leaning Republican in recent days by unearthing antiquated messages penned under Paul’s name. The congressman has dismissed allegations that he was responsible for the questionable material, but that isn’t keeping the establishment from attacking him over it. Fed up with repeated questioning, Paul walked off the set of a CNN interview earlier this week. Even without the support of corporate news, however, Paul is still finding positive numbers thanks to his ability to approach topics from an angle that his party competition won’t dare dig into.

    While other candidates have waged for increased military spending and weakening the Constitution to crush the civil liberties of Americans, Paul is trying to take the US out of foreign wars and reinstall freedom for every citizen. As America counties to be ripped by wars and the Pentagon is hemorrhaging money for the sake of executing civilians, Paul’s soft-spoken but solid ideas are finding an audience sick with the establishment.

    To others, Paul is simply bridging a gap their neither the left nor right can cover on their own.
  • Max||

    You are one fucking halfwit.

  • anonymous||

    What a riot. The crowd that argues with conviction that libertarians can't be racists now asks whether their beloved kook of a presidential candidate has a moral obligation to tell Nazis to fuck off. Here's the skinny, kids: telling Nazis to fuck off is always the right the thing to do. There is no moral question about it. The politics of it are simple too. The only concern you should have, when telling a Nazi to fuck off, is for your own personal safety, since Nazis fight dirty and they travel in packs. One on one they're not so tough, but fair warning.

  • Max||

    Let's hope the voters tell Herr Paul to fuck off.

  • .||

    (sniff, sniff) I smell commie - commie yip yap shit.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah! Let's put Obama back in office!

    /snark.

  • ||

    People can provide rational reasons why Paul doesn't HAVE to denounce wingnuts that support him all year long. But that's why Paul will never climb above his limited support.

    They can try to rationalize the issue all they want but there is a point where people just put them in the crazy column and never give them another thought.

  • NeoconsTasteLikeChickenhawk||

    Jacob, stop being such a schlameel and be forthcoming about where your allegiances lie. Why don't you tell us that a candidate like Ron Paul goes against everything you learned at the Akiba Hebrew Acadamy (Sullum was a notable alumnus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiba_Hebrew_Academy_(Merion,_Pennsylvania) ) Where surely they taught you that US foreign policy should revolve around Israel.

    The minute I saw the term "anti-semitism" I knew there was more than meets the eye here.

    You see Yacov, if you were honest (I don't presume you are dumb) you would recognize that Semitic speaking people includes Arabs (the entire Saudi Arabian peninsula, the horn of Africa, and all of Israel's neighbors). So to say that someone is anti-semitic, you imply that they hate all semitic speaking peoples.

    You see Yacov, there is no Jewish "race" henceforth it is not a racism issue. Why is it ok for the media to constantly frame Muslims negatively yet you do not claim that they are being Anti-Semite. Why do you not posit Israel and the United States have an Anti-Semitic foreign policy, one that essentially contains Palestinians in an eternal purgatory of an apartheid state.
    Why are the Jews immune from the same scrutiny placed on Arab Muslims. They are both "semitic" peoples.

    I have come to learn that "anti-semitic" is a clever buzzword to attract simple minded people to your cause. You frame your ethnic group as a perpetual "racial" victim.

    We are told every day that Muslims are conspiring to kill us, yet if someone points out that an over representation of Jews in banking and Government affects our financial system and foreign policy, then you are compared to Adolf Hitler.

    I used to think that way, but then the internet came along and I started to notice something. The same kind of thing that I noticed in just the past few days of hit pieces on Ron Paul.

    Lets recap
    Wolf Blitzer and Gloria Borger assail Ron Paul on bogus claims that he is racist. Clever video editing by CNN.

    David Frum writes a hit piece on CNN about Ron Paul, calls him a "crank"

    Dorothy Rabinowitz writes more than one hit piece on Ron Paul. Compares him to Hitler and Mussolini. Says of Paul “the best-known American propagandist for our enemies”

    Ruth Mantell writes for marketwatch "Ron Paul won't fully repudiate racists" in still another garbage hit piece.

    And more that I have forgotten..

    What do Sullum, Blitzer, Borger, Frum, Rabinowitz, Mantell, and others have in common?

    I will let you connect the dots.

    For reference, Jews make up 0.19% of the global population. What are the odds that this is all just a "coincidence"?

    And before you call me a conspiracy theorist, no, there is no more a conspiracy here than when Evangelical Christians are in positions of influence. They don't need to conspire with each other to espouse the same world view. It's naturally ingrained to have a sense of belonging, and consequently a sense of duty to your culture. This is why when black children go missing the media doesn't bat an eye. But when a little white girl goes missing they are on 24/7. Empathy is a lot easier to express when it is a person you can relate to.
    That's just human nature.

    And I see it expressed almost every day by Jewish journalists in the main stream media assailing ANYONE that DARE suggest that the US should reconsider its foreign policy surrounding Israel.

  • yawn||

    You are severely mentally ill if this blog post is a 'hit piece' in your estimation. Please go fuck yourself now.

  • Ron Paul||

    NeoconsTasteLikeChickenhawk|12.27.11 @ 7:09AM|#

    Would you like a job writing for my newsletter?

  • NeoconsTasteLikeChickenhawk||

    Only if you agree to pay me in Krugerrands.

  • ||

    The two groups in America that are most antisemitic by far are Blacks about 50% and Hispanics about 30%. Most of these anti-Semites are strong supports of Obama.

    Maybe Obama should give back half the money that Blacks contribute to his campaign and remove about 25% of all employees in his administration.

    The sad part is not the people who write this sheet about Ron Paul but the fact that way too many Americans are too lazy to find out the truth and wind up voting for people like Obama and Carter.

  • ||

    First the concept that libertarians harbor views against "jews, blacks" other groups illustrates a fundamental flaw in the story. Libertarianism is about individual rights. It doesn't focus on group rights; it doesn't favor special classes; it opposes the fixation on classes of people

  • Max||

    Yeah, right. The idea that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state is nonsense because basic reights were protected in the Soviet constitution. It's not a flaw in the story, moron, it's a flaw in you fucking racist shit bag hero.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You really miss the Soviet Union, don't you, Max...

  • ||

    Barrack Obama got like 97% of the black vote last election. How many of those voters were involved in undesirable activities like gangs, drugs and violence? It's a sad fact but a fact nonetheless that that demographic is plagued by those things. Does this mean that Obama supports gangs and drugs? By the logic applied to Ron Paul and his supporters, yes, it does.

  • Toaster802||

    Tell the racists to F@ck @ff?? You mean like Obama did to the ACORN and La Raza racists? Or the Nation of islam or BPP racists?

    You people need to unf@ck yourselves before reality does it for you.

  • Tony||

    Seems odd. The first meeting I went to for Ron Paul 2008 had a great cross section of Americans.
    anti-war folks, ACLU people and civil libertarians, Constitutional conservatives, Fiscal conservatives, Libertarians,, and people of all faiths.. If his supporters are any indication..His message just doesnt jive with the racists crap the media are hanging on him.

  • jimmy||

    of course ron paul has a moral obligation to disavow these statements. as long as he is a mere "constitutionalist" (hey, its ok you were thrown in jail for having sex cuz it was a state that did it instead of the feds) and not a true libertarian, his dedication to liberty is suspect. you can not be both a libertarian and a bigot.

  • aaaaaaaaaa||

    he should stress his support from more mainstream, less racist/radical beltway libertarians like Reason, who would never speak ill of him, write smear pieces or accuse him of racism constantly in media.

    obama is trying desperately to regulate investment banks, right? cuz that's what liberals do, and obama's a liberal; therefore, by the transitive property of liberalism, obama regulates banks, and they should hate him too much to give him [more] money [than any politician ever].

  • ||

    Why does the media examine Ron Paul and his supporters in such detail while practically ignoring the so called mainstream candidates and the sitting president?

    The others from what little we can gather from the required reporting, get their support from those that profit from the wars, bailouts, economic regulation, etc and so forth.

    Paul's support? From the people who do the dying in the wars and who suffer under an economic system designed for the benefit of insiders.

    We are supposed to focus a handful of racists that might not be FBI informants or undercovers because they too dislike being ripped off by the present monetary system while ignoring that Obama is bought and paid for by those profiting from the present system?

    But let's talk racism for a moment. What's more racist? Some guy writing and spewing racism or the person in the whitehouse promoting economic policies that have wiped out much of the wealth of minorities in this country?

    Think about it. Which is worse? Some guys who are ignored except within their own circles or those doing actual harm?

    Speaking of criminals, anyone bother to check whom Madoff and other convicted and yet to be charged wall street criminals supported politically? How about the drug cartels and street gangs? Both have a lot to lose if Paul is elected. It's a near certainty they've placed their money on Obama, Romney, Gingrich, etc.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement