Stephen L. Taylor has a thorough round-up of the Paul newsletters, if you’re interested (and, judging from the comments in last night’s open thread, many of you still are). His conclusion:
Really, the bottom line is this: absent an especially comprehensive and satisfactory explanation, the newsletters utterly disqualify Paul from the nomination, let alone the White House. Having spent a substantial amount of time researching, reading, writing, and arguing concerning this matter, I can reach no other conclusion.
Here’s the current status of notable Paul endorsers:
* Young Conor sorta-kinda withdrew his support on the 21st, but still felt the need to poop in the general direction of anyone wise enough to avoid endorsing Paul in the first place.
* EDK apologized to me and more-or-less withdrew his support on the 21st, though he still is looking at Paul as a protest candidate to win Iowa.
* Sully pretty much withdrew his support on the 24th.
The currently accepted position by these three seems to be that many of Paul’s ideas are OK, but he’s not qualified to be President. Now that Paul is a mainstream candidate, a new wave of press coverage is examining his next weakness: his wacko positions on the gold standard, and his views that we’re on the edge of apocalypse. I wonder how the still Paul-curious crew of commentators feels about that stuff.
burnspbesq
Paul = Haider.
Shun him and drive him from public life.
rikyrah
never had a hard time with Paul.
he’s a fucking, out -and-out, pure-D racist..
as a Black Person, that’s it for me.
EconWatcher
How can anyone in professional punditry claim to be surprised by the newsletters in this election cycle? This was fully aired in the 2008 cycle. I remember it quite well, and I don’t do this for a living.
Schlemizel
If I may paraphrase the Joker:
“Now you fellas have said some pretty mean things. Some of which *were* true under that fiend, Boss Paul. He *was* a thief, and a terrorist. On the other hand he had a tremendous singing voice.”
For some people there will always be that one issue that makes him preferable as long as he does not come after their group
Samara Morgan
hahaha!
did EDK apolo for scamming you and the majority of the juicitariat fo a year, mixie?
is Cole going to apolo for calling me a stalkerfreak when i was Cassandra to your Teucrians?
lololllolollol
BO_Bill
One thing that is disturbing to thinking people is when documents are demonized by third parties without allowing the target audience to read those documents in order to make their own judgment.
Here are the newsletters.
Snowball!
4tehlulz
Only Ron Paul can liberate us from the Nairobi/Jerusalem axis of fiat currency.
arguingwithsignposts
@Samara Morgan: you could be both, stalker.
MattF
It’s refreshing that Taylor actually read the newsletters and came to an evidence-based conclusion. Good for him.
As for the others, they endorsed a crackpot because they thought he was a troll. It’s just ridiculous.
EconWatcher
By the way, Ron Paul reflects a whole “school of thought” (if we can call it that) centered on the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, including such figures as Lew Rockwell. It’s really weird, combining hard-core libertarian Austrian economics with nostalgia for the Old Confederacy and thinly veiled white supremacy. I was and am completely baffled about how these things go together, but it’s for real. Look it up.
And fair warning: Daniel Larison, liked by some on this blog, is part of that crowd.
harlana
Holy crap, nobody is willing to admit that, aside from all the other problems with Paul’s candidacy, libertarians are scary as shit!
If a libertarian were elected president, that is when I would break down, go out and buy and learn how to use a firearm. Of course, I would also have pepper spray in my arsenal.
TheColourfield
Hey Samara,
Nobody gives a fuck what you think so why would they apologize.
Brachiator
As far as I can tell, all libertarians are not qualified to be president. The foundation of their beliefs deny the possibility of effective government and protraction of the rights of all citizens. Dig a little deeper, and you find a disdain for the Constitution. Ron Paul is not an outlier, with especially wacky or odious views, but is pretty much what to expect from this crew.
Samara Morgan
@arguingwithsignposts: hahahaha!
but iwasright iwasright iwasright iwasright!
so delicious to see how butthurt mixie and cole are at this point.
i drink your tears mixie.
;)
JPL
@harlana: Democracy is for the common good and to me libertarians believe in individual good. I don’t understand how the two theories come together.
edit..brach at 13 explains it better.
harlana
@EconWatcher: Funny that. I guess they conveniently forget how those white freemen of lower order were expected to tip their hats and defer to their “betters” – doesn’t smell like “liberty” to me. I guess they all assume they would have been kindly plantation owners, because they would, quite naturally, have been born “superior” to other human beings, because Atlas Shrugged, and blah blah blah.
Samara Morgan
@TheColourfield: if no one gives a fuck why the multiple bannings?
burnspbesq
Molly Ivins, may she rest in peace, warned us about Ron Paul in 1996.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html
BruinKid
As I wrote in the open thread earlier, after I wrote about Ron Paul’s racist newsletters and his dissembling over them (I think only Chad can actually access the link), my Ron Paul friend was compelled to chime in. As usual, this is their reasoning.
And then he links to a video of one black guy saying Paul isn’t racist, thereby “proving” that black people looooove Ron Paul, and so therefore he can’t possibly be racist.
The funny thing is in my original post to which he responded, I never said Ron Paul was racist. I can’t truly know what’s in his heart. All I said was basically, like Ricky Ricardo would tell Lucy repeatedly, that Paul has some ‘splainin’ to do.
But it’s interesting that his fans are taking it to mean I’m saying he’s racist, when that’s not what I said, nor what the link said.
I can’t reach these people. No matter what I say, there’s like this Ron Paul forcefield around their heads that acts as a barrier to any logical discussion about his past, or how his policies would actually affect poor people in the future.
Of course, these people also have money. They’re not in the top 1%, but they’re certainly in the top 10%. It’s a lot easier to be libertarian when you don’t have to worry about where your next meal is going to come from, or paying next month’s rent.
Brachiator
@Mistermix:
By the way, you missed an obvious thread title, The Pauline Epistles
rlrr
@burnspbesq:
She also warned us about George W. Bush…
Napoleon
@EconWatcher:
I thought that many think that Lew, who apparently is a friend of Paul, ghost wrote the newsletters.
Brachiator
Crap. In my post at 13, I meant to say “protection,” not “protraction.” Edit function and review fail. Apologies.
burnspbesq
@rlrr:
Hopefully we’ll pay attention this time.
BO_Bill
You too Samara? These Liberals are sure getting snippy about free expression and an open exchange of ideas.
I got banned for trying to explain Astronomy yesterday. The Left really is becoming the Catholic Church-1500s.
Kirk Spencer
@Brachiator: Depends on the “libertarian”, but mostly yes. To me the more accurate label is to say that libertarians are cooperative anarchists. To a large extent the various flavors of libertarianism boil down to how much government force should be tolerated.
For most flavors of libertarianism the underlying principle echoes “state’s rights” arguments of the 1800s. In simple, that the individual’s rights are supreme regardless of what the individual wishes to do. Social contracts are voluntary, and any agency that forces more contribution than the individual wishes to give is conducting some form of theft. In the case of government, it’s extortion – pay at the threat of force.
Samara Morgan
@burnspbesq: hahahahaha!
i dont think the Bush model will work ever again.
look at Rick Perry.
amk
Are paulbots hitting the bong this am ?
Fuck, this nutjob is crazy and SENILE. Get over it, you nutters.
Villago Delenda Est
@harlana:
Neofeudalists. That’s what they all are, and imagine that they will be the feudal lords.
As for his fans, well, cult leaders envy Ron Paul for his fans. They are thoroughly assimilated into the Paul collective. Ironing all over the place with these loons.
Cacti
@BruinKid:
Ron Paul cannot fail, he can only be failed.
harlana
@amk: they seem to be turning themselves into intellectual pretzels trying to reconcile their zeal to continue supporting him with the rather uncomfortable, inconvenient facts of his past.
terraformer
@EconWatcher:
ahh, thank you. I was wondering whether this stuff had been aired before, as surely this isn’t anything “new”. I suppose such things come to light only when Paul might actually upset preferred plans.
Samara Morgan
@Kirk Spencer:
localized mob-rule, aka states rights federalism, aka Distributed Jesusland.
illustrated in Wisconsin and Ohio.
that is why libertarians are largely racist– because black humans were property.
does n/e one know of any black libertarians?
sneezy
@Napoleon:
My assumption is that Paul wrote every word that appeared in his newsletters. As far as I know, he has offered no good reason to think otherwise. If he didn’t write them, then he needs to say who did.
4tehlulz
@BruinKid: It’s the right-wing “You’re the real racist!” argument, just proving that libertarians are wingnuts that wanna smoke weed.
Cacti
So when will we see the vetting of the Book of Mormon, i.e. the most sacred text of Mitt Romney’s religion?
Central to its narrative is the idea that white skin is a sign of divine favor and righteousness, and dark skin is “loathsome” and a curse from God.
Kirk Spencer
@Samara Morgan:
Yes, I do know some black libertarians. As I said libertarians come in different flavors with (as near as I can tell) the key difference being how much (or maybe what type is a better differentiater) of government interference should be tolerated
Napoleon
@sneezy:
I thought that it was pretty clear that he didn’t, which by the way in my book doesn’t make him innocent. It is not just a stray article that made it in but year after year of the stuff so that it is safe to generally ascribe what the newsletter says to Paul’s personal views.
lacp
I thought Paul was a nut even before these newsletters surfaced. Can’t say they’ve changed my opinion.
Brachiator
@Kirk Spencer:
The vast majority of libertarians are too conventional and socially conservative to be anarchists. They make a big noise about “voluntary associations” and rules and behavior based on private contracts (although how these contracts would be enforced without effective government is unclear). The vision of their ideal community always ends up looking like a frightened white enclave.
I once asked a bunch of libertarians why there was no history of them strongly fighting to abolish segregation laws, or laws preventing people from selling their homes to nonwhites. This would seem to violate libertarian principles. Never got a good answer.
The Moar You Know
Then these three are idiots who should not be allowed outside their front doors, much less be handed a platform to spew what they “think” about anything.
Stop helping them. They are stupid and their ideas are utterly without merit.
WereBear (itouch)
I hear this a lot; why is it never that they want to shoot heroin or drop acid? Paul wants no restraints on anything, ever, by government. However, a crew of private mercenaries are apparently peachy keen. Why do they give government the right to make murder illegal and outlaw abortion then?
I will give libertarians some credit for attempting to follow a logical line of reasoning better than wingnuts, who don’t even attempt it.
harlana
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the basic premise of libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. Ironic, since at least one newsletter obsesses about preserving “Christian morality” which was being assaulted by black bucks, welfare queens, and dirty liberals
and fuck that all to hell because it’s all about letting the weak and poor suffer for indeterminate periods of time until they die, it’s all about “me and mine” and fuck the rest of you if you can’t take it
4tehlulz
@WereBear (itouch): Heroin requires icky needles and acid creates hippies.
Also, funny you should mention outlawing abortion…
EconWatcher
@Brachiator:
Libertarians can point to genuine champions of liberty in the history of their movement. Look up Lysander Spooner, who is a hero to modern libertarians and was an ardent abolitionist, among other things.
But yeah, I also don’t recall any libertarian movement to fight restrictive covenants, etc. And the embarrassing truth is that, for example, in the 1930s, the only significant force fighting for racial equality in the South was the Communist Party. Can’t say much else positive about them, but there’s that.
BruinKid
@harlana: Yeah, the libertarians I know are mostly Muslims, who also love Ron Paul for his rhetoric on the Palestinians as well. Admittedly, he was good on freedom of religion when it came to that ridiculous “Ground Zero mosque” controversy last year. That just made them love Paul even more than they already did.
Linda Featheringill
@Cacti: #36
Really? I missed that. I did read the Book but that was some time ago and I may have forgotten.
Linda Featheringill
@harlana:
Exactly. This philosophy is actually pre-feudal. Feudalism arose in large part because of a need to gain some protection for farmers and butchers and bakers, etc.
David in NY
The Communist I knew best was drawn to the party for just this reason — it was the only game in town.
So far as I can see, the only “liberty” that libertarians really care about is the freedom to be uncaring and selfish.
ETA: Oh, this also: “libertarians are wingnuts that wanna smoke weed.”
Comrade Mary
Read the OTB comments under Taylor’s article, if you dare. It’s a neutron star of stupid and denial.
amk
billy fucking kristol whines.
Nah, begs the base. Pathetic.
FU trustafarian.
harlana
i guess that’s all well and good until you end up falling through the cracks and find yourself jobless, homeless, etc. it’s at that point, if you are a libertarian, that you have to look at yourself, perhaps even even look at your own starving children and say to yourself, “well, this is just how it is. i don’t have any right to expect help from anyone. my individualism is supreme to all other things. hm, too bad those kids have to starve to death and stuff, but my principles are just so high and mighty, i ACCEPT MY LOT.”
mhmm, right
Kirk Spencer
@EconWatcher:
Abolitionist, but approved of the states’ secession. (didn’t like the Civil war – but what he didn’t like was the US forcing the south to rejoin.)
Actually, Spooner is a magnificent example of libertarians basically being anarchists.
David in NY
@Samara Morgan: No idea why anyone would ban you, but in my experience, when invited to engage in discussion, you have been impervious to rational discourse — which is pretty much supported by every comment of yours this thread.
Also, it’s not all about you, my dear. Really it’s not.
4tehlulz
@Comrade Mary: My favorite: “Ron Paul is not a racist; he’s a nerd.”
It’s true; I can’t watch The Big Bang Theory because of its constant blathering about how Mossad did WTC.
Amir Khalid
@sneezy:
It doesn’t matter whether Ron Paul himself wrote those words; or whether he adequately supervised the actual writer, whoever that may be. They appeared in his newsletters, sometimes over a reproduction of his signature. People were led to think he actually did write them, and he was content with that. He also defended them words in public forums. Bottom line: regardless of actual authorship, he owns those words.
If he’s the writer, or even if he endorses these views, than he’s a bigot and unfit to be president. If he let them get published out of inattention, he’s a bad manager and unqualified to be president. If he’s trying to change his story now, as it seems he is, he’s a liar and, well, you know. Like Taylor says, the conclusion is inescapable.
The Moar You Know
@Linda Featheringill: That’s because it’s not there.
It’s a pretty weird book. Distinguished only by the horrific writing, makes Dianetics look like a work of Shakespeare.
David in NY
@Brachiator:
I thought that this strain of libertarianism would expire of embarrassment after Belle Waring’s exposition of them in the famous “and a pony” blog post: http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_were_.html
EconWatcher
@Kirk Spencer:
I did not know about the secession issue. I will read more.
harlana
@amk: ahh, Kristol’s bitter tears, like Erickson’s, sweeten my morning coffee :)
Benjamin Franklin
Just as the word ‘liberal’ became a derogation, ‘conservative’ has become a tainted identity. So, conservatives have taken refuge in ‘libertarian’ or even
(chuckle) Classical Liberal. Jeff Goldstein, or ‘Goldbrick’ as I call him, claims
that political designation, but he’s a corn-fed conservative.
Yevgraf
@Kirk Spencer:
I would say that it isn’t about them being anarchists, but instead about being chickenshit cocksuckers who are unwilling to endanger themselves physically or to negatively affect their social standing by stepping forward for genuinely downtrodden folks.
harlana
@EconWatcher: you know, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the individual, it’s when you pretend that you can balance the needs of the individual against the needs and aspirations of the many
Rand was captivated by a man whose individual need was to murder and chop up a young girl and then psychologically torture her father
The Moar You Know
@harlana: If dying because your employer won’t provide health insurance is wrong, Ron Paul’s former campaign manager doesn’t want to be right.
amk
@harlana: Hopefully the collective tears of these assholes will drown them permanently. Fucking fifth columnists all.
Seth Finkelstein
It’s this sort of pundit reaction that really makes you wonder about these people. Ron Paul’s racial proclamations are noooo secret (I won’t say “racist”, to avoid the persona-view/institutional-effect argument – but he has quite a history). He’s almost proud of them, in the appropriately coded language:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
“On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. …”
David in NY
@Brachiator:
Turns out, they aren’t qualified even to be town councilmen, etc. On rare occasions they have gotten voted into a job that requires them actually to make decisions for their community (turns out, BTW, that Congressman is not one of these jobs) and they are completely hapless.
Brachiator
@EconWatcher:
Good Wikipedia entry on Spooner. A complex man. An abolitionist who supported armed resistance against slaveholders, but who believed that the North could not coerce the South into staying in the Union.
An Anarchist whose ideas would make it hard for any society to function. And yet, he has supposedly been quoted in their opinions by both Scalia and Thomas.
Oh, and Spooner was for trade unions and joined the sozhul ist First International.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
I climbed out of the boat (no, I cannot explain why) and read the Sullivan semi-retraction. He has more comprehension problems than I understood, as among the things he still admires about Paul:
his support for minorities
WTF? That is hallucinated. How can anyone read any of Paul’s views as “support for minorities,” unless with that phrase you mean espousing crackpot ideas and encouraging people to endorse them, then supporting the minority of people who do.
Joey Maloney
@Brachiator:
You might say they have a different angle on it. :-)
Nix
Are you shitting me?
Paul has been insane for decades. He believes the War on Christmas is “real”, and that you can’t have morals unless you ‘re a Christian.
That is all I ever needed to know, and that he is a John Birch Society schmuck. Who founded the teabaggers again?
ROTFLMFAO!!!
Yeah… not so much…
harlana
@The Moar You Know: i know, could the flaws of Paul’s philosophy hit any closer to home, be any clearer, to anyone who is paying attention? oh well, he is nothing if not consistent – just because somebody was devoted enough to him to raise all that money doesn’t mean he deserved any special treatment nor reward for his hard work, not even reward but just basic human decency towards someone who has been a loyal and devoted worker! isn’t success related to hard work and achievement in their world? one would hardly describe being able to afford medical care and perhaps prevent your premature death as being related to success, but rather survival.
Paul didn’t even give enough of a damn about that guy to help him survive, much less make him a success, regardless of the efforts of this particular individual.
No thank you.
Kirk Spencer
@EconWatcher:
See the No Treason pamphlets:
1
2
6
(There is no 3, 4, or 5. They were “to be written later” and later never came.)
The Moar You Know
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I think the technical term for the kind of support Paul would like to give to minorities is “the gallows”.
sneezy
@Napoleon:
As far as I know, the only reason to think that is that he denies writing it. I think he’s lying. As far as I’m concerned, if he wants his denial to be given more credence, he needs to make it more credible, and that would start by naming the people who did write that stuff.
Unless he does that, I’ll continue to assume that he wrote every word.
gene108
The gold standard isn’t the 10 Megaton Nuke waiting go off, if there’s a President Paul. EDIT: President Paul can’t get us back on the gold standard by executive fiat.
It’s his desire to abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to a Jacksonian understanding of banking.
I don’t think the MSM really gets what would happen to the global economy, if the U.S. stopped having a central bank. I think the shear uncertainty of it would trigger a meltdown, that makes the current Euro mess feel like a warm April afternoon, after a long cold winter.
Would President Paul appoint a chairman to the Federal Reserve or would his desire to destroy the institution cause him to leave it unfilled? What about the other Fed positions he gets to appoint?
This is really the biggest issue of a Paul Presidency that gets overlooked.
Die hard Libertarians – not the Republicans, who can’t stand the religious-right, so they call themselves libertarians – but guys, who really believe in some sort of alternative to the status quo and have signed on to that Party’s position on abolishing the Fed need to have an answer for what’s going to happen, when they overturn the global monetary system.
So far the only answers I’ve gotten amount to a lot of wishful thinking.
harlana
@amk: still, i’d like to keep a lil bottle of some in the kitchen window for chuckles
Kirk Spencer
@EconWatcher:
If my #73 ever comes out of moderation it has links to the three “No Treason” pamphlets. You can wait, or go looking for yourself.
Kirk Spencer
@Yevgraf: Not really.
It’s not that they personally won’t provide that help — I know several avowed libertarians who do so. It is that they object vehemently to being “forced” to do so by the government.
harlana
@sneezy: Paul seems to be relying on Herman Cainism — deny, deny, deny – wasn’t there, have no knowledge of, blah, blah, blah
dude, your name was on the newsletters, do you seriously expect anyone with half a brain to accept that you knew nothing of its content??
PurpleGirl
@BruinKid:
They don’t always have money. I knew Sam Konkin (Samuel E. Konkin III) in college, when he was working on a Ph.D. in Chemistry at NYU. (He wasn’t really my friend but a friend of science fiction reading friends.) Besides calling himself a libertarian, he also said he was closer to be an anarcho-capitalist. He ultimately quit the Ph.D. studies when he worked it out that the only place he could work was for the government/some defense contractor doing weapons research. He moved to California, became a typesetter and founded a newsletter and some organizations. He died fairly young because he got sick and couldn’t afford the medical care. (Since I don’t know anyone who stayed in touch with him, I’d think he should have accepted it as par for course and in line with his philosophy of life.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III
sneezy
@Amir Khalid:
It does matter, in that he is currently claiming that he did not and I think he’s lying.
Note that I agree he’s responsible whether he personally wrote them or not. His denial seems to be largely accepted and I don’t see any reason why it should be. Reporters who question him on this need to ask, “OK, if you didn’t write it, then who did? And if you won’t name the person who wrote it, why should anyone believe you?”
Liberty60
Libertarianism is as radically a reinvention of human society as sochulism; its actually its mirror double.
Whereas sochulism denied the individual, Ayn Rand simply inverted that and produced a theory where the individual was elevated above all else.
There hasn’t really been any such society in the entire history of the human race, for obvious reasons.
So libertaarians have to live with the fantasy of a hypothetical world, much like late stage sochulists who couldn’t bear to look at the real world examples of it, so instead just wanked philosophical in order to construct something that matched their fantasies.
FWIW- Libertarianism as many have pointed out, is outright hostile to Christianity, so when you find yourself talking to someone who professes both, you can be sure you are just talking to a fringe Republican.
amk
@harlana: You meant ‘nein, nein, nein’, right ? Fits this racist mofo of a nutter.
David in NY
@Kirk Spencer: @PurpleGirl:
Just finding a few examples of libertarians who are principled is meaningless. The fact is that it requires government action, even “coercion,” in the modern world to provide a decent society. Child labor, for example, got eliminated when it was made illegal. It didn’t make so much difference to employers, but so long as it was legal, and it provided some competitive advantage, they had to take advantage of it to stay competititve; once it was illegal, it died without a whimper. Individual, voluntary action has produced almost no increase in the common good, ever. A good number, for example, of slave masters emancipated their “chattel.” Would that they all had. But it took a war to achieve it. Voluntary recycling hardly works — it takes a local regulation. And so it goes …
Libertarians are free, of course, to create voluntary solutions to pollution, bad working conditions, poisons in our food, and so on (without government intervention). What’s their record on these things? Zero. Just zero.
Woodrow/asim Jarvis Hill
@burnspbesq: Thanks for that link! It quotes a comment from someone on Stormfront that says exactly what I was saying last night from the POV of the kind of racist wankers that love Ron Paul:
Again, I don’t give a damn if Ron (or Rand) Paul is “racist in his heart”. Again and again, as that link and many others point out, Paul falls in with folks who’d see me pushed to the margins of society.
This is not isolated, nor incidental. This is wrapped up in the Ron Paul mystique, and thus 1000% privy to analysis and critical processing/reporting. Those who think he should get a “pass” because others of his political views are congenial to their own do not grasp how brutal such people he associates with are, and how willing they are to watch the world burn to gain their success.
And my every sense is that Paul would stand by and allow it. I cannot abide a people who makes that choice, no matter if it’s ideologically coherent.
Kirk Spencer
@David in NY: nod.
The problem for libertarians is that the stance can’t solve the Tragedy of the Commons. In fact, libertarianism pretty much guarantees it happening.
Davis X. Machina
Does this mean no legal dope?
Damn. I was so looking forward. I even put the growlights on Craiglist.
Davis X. Machina
@David in NY:
They just use the word ‘decent’ in a very special way, is all.
Schlemizel
@harlana:
DOOD! Do you seriously expect anyone with half a brain to be supporting him in the first place? 8-{D
Amir Khalid
@sneezy:
Whoever wrote that bigoted swill, Paul still disseminated it and profited by it. He’s not getting off the hook for it, no matter what he says; nor should he, even if it turns out that someone else did write it. (One could then ask Paul, so why did you let people think you wrote it?)
I agree that Paul’s denial of authorship now, 15 years after he defended those writings so passionately, is suspicious. But it’s still possible, even now, that Lew Rockwell or some other person put finger to typewriter/computer keyboard. We might yet hear a pointless but truthfully detailed denial.
catclub
@Woodrow/asim Jarvis Hill: Yep, Paul is the Stormfront candidate, and not by accident.
Steve Benen has posted wondering why the heck Mitt has not been pounded for all the liberal things in his past.
Likewise Paul has not been pounded for being the stormfront candidate. Mysteries.
Lee
@gene108:
Not very many people have picked up on that yet. They all focus on the gold standard thing.
His insanity with the Fed has lead him to claim that the Fed causes unemployment and inflation.
Of course he conveniently forgets that those things existed prior to the Fed.
Ben Cisco
@Woodrow/asim Jarvis Hill: That is a museum-quality comment.
Samara Morgan
@Kirk Spencer: are the black libertarians you know states rights federalists?
that is a kind of litmus test for libertarians imho. its a Libertarian Finder! hahaha
@David in NY: sowwy, jus’ gettin my gloat on. you are a n00b here, aintcha?
@Linda Featheringill: a more important and largely ignored part of mormon liturgy is that Jesus wrote the US constitution.
kind of problematic for jeffersonian separation of church and state, eh?
Hal
If the ideas in the newsletters are racist and homophobic, and Paul either wrote them, or by default endorsed them, doesn’t that make him racist and homophobic?
What am I missing here?
Maus
@Samara Morgan:
You are a freak, though. Not a troll, but definitely cray cray and nobody need apologize for pointing that out. (As long as this current account is Makoto-chan, at least.)
@sneezy:
I don’t think he bothered to write it, but I believe that he absolutely agreed with the content and approved all issues and writers and will hide their names until the end of his life, as they’re the same assholes involved in his campaign(s). I’m sure fellow Von Mises goon Lew Rockwell wrote a ton of them.
catclub
@Hal: IOKIYAR?
David in NY
@Kirk Spencer:
Exactly. The libertarian problem. Except, as I understand them, they say the “market” will solve that tragedy, forgetting that it is the “market” that creates it. Oy!
Samara Morgan
@Maus: i never claimed to be sane…..i just claimed to be correct!
tolejasotolejasotolejaso!
/spikes ball in the end zone while simultaneously taking a knee to Mecca, Tebow-style.
gene108
@Lee:
I’ve bumped into a few libertarian types, who use the 1980-1982 recession and the Great Depression as proof the Fed makes things worse.
They think we should peg the dollar to some arbitrary value of a precious metal (gold, silver and/or platinum) and let banks set their own interest rates. They don’t like the fact a dollar today can’t buy you what a dollar could buy you yesterday and want a constant dollar value.
They haven’t thought through the problems that caused us to go off the gold standard, as well as the global impact of that sort of currency situation would have on the U.S. and the world.
They like Paul because he “gets it” from their point of view.
Like you said, they omit the booms and busts prior to the Fed and whatever better understanding of monetary policy that has emerged over the last 80+ years.
What’s more important is the absolute chaos his potential failure to make appointments to the Fed could cause, not just in the U.S., but globally.
Reporters really don’t get that this is something President Paul could unilaterally control.
Samara Morgan
@David in NY: you. The “freed” market is an ecophagy.
But what do you suggest replacing it with?
Kirk Spencer
@Samara Morgan:
Yes. and yes. It’s a variation of the same meme of individual ‘rights’ trump all. (Interestingly clearly stated in Spooner’s On Treason pamphlets).
MariedeGournay
Every time I think of Ron Paul, I think of Mammon’s cave in the Faerie Queene.
“And round about him lay on euery side
Great heapes of gold, that neuer could be spent:
Of which some were rude owre, not purifide
Of Mulcibers deuouring element…”
Kirk Spencer
@Samara Morgan:
replacement is not needed, regulation resolves the tragedy.
Enforceable (and therefore not voluntary) regulation that restricts any individual’s access so as to maximize overall use while sustaining the common resource.
Bill Murray
@The Moar You Know: the idea of black skin being a “curse” was certainly used by Christians to justify slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. the LDS part comes from Brigham Young.
In 1847, Young wrote, “Its nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent [to] regain what we have lost — we have one of the best Elders, an African in Lowell [referring to Walker Lewis].”, but changed his mind by 1849.
BY was asked in 1849, “What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?” Young responded, “The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.”
In 1852, while addressing the Utah Territorial Legislature, Young stated, “Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.”
This is likely based on the Book of Abraham, where the child(ren) of Ham and Egyptus who founded Egypt were cursed as pertains the Priesthood. The priesthood was denied to most black people of African descent until 1978
HRA
After reading a few of these threads and comments, I would be interested to know who else wonders why each time one of the candidates starts gaining speed to the top of the polls, something onerous is revealed about them.
I think the main theme of libertarian is no government intrusion or no government and everyone fends for themselves. At least that’s what I learned from hearing Paul speak in the marathon debates. He actually is a 3rd party candidate even though he runs as a Republican. IOW he will never win the presidency.
Maus
You forgot “no Government”.
And yes, that’s our fucking problem with him.
I would be interested to know who else wonders why each time one of the candidates starts gaining speed to the top of the polls, something onerous is revealed about them.
El Cid
Randian Libertarianist “Objectivism” was a trivial, and boring inversion of one’s hatred for Soviet Communist totalitarianism.
It’s not revolutionary or brilliant to simplistically, ignorantly, and heartlessly preach the inverse of one hated ideology with another soulless, anti-empirical solipsist’s tale.
Rathskeller
This is a bit silly. Ron Paul has so many flaws that have been so visible for so long, basically all some flavor of hatred, fear, or paranoia. There’s no need to choose to between them, or decide on the appropriate label. He’s genial, but nuts.
CarolDuhart2
@Amir Khalid: I don’t believe he didn’t write at least some of it. He’s probably splitting hairs with his denials here. He wrote some and let others contribute to it as well, I have no doubt. Some may have even been anonymous submissions.
In any event, he’s unfit to represent the United States in a 21st Century, multi-ethnic and multippolar.
Boots Day
Yeah, I don’t understand why it excuses Paul to say that he didn’t write the newsletters. He absolutely was endorsing and promoting that kind of thinking. There should be no doubt about Paul’s position on the issues covered in the newsletter.
The only thing that could possibly excuse him is if Paul was publishing and profiting from a “Ron Paul Newsletter” while having absolutely no idea what the contents of said newsletter were. While that beggars belief, it also torpedoes any notion of Paul’s judgment and management capabilities, and renders him unfit to be president.
Although I’d love to see him put up that defense: “I’m too incompetent and oblivious to know what people are doing in my name.”
Sarchasm
Sully withdrew his support, but still refuses to believe (at least on the 24th) that Ron Paul is a racist. And he clearly IS.
Maus
@Maus: Oops, accidentally put my reply in quotes.
@Rathskeller: Right, there’s nothing “new” about Paul’s horrifying ideas, nor his directly implied support for the white supremacist movement (but not RACIST white supremacism, because “racism is a collectivist trait therefore it’s impossible for a rugged individualist to be racist…”) the only reason why this is new is because the mainstream media has finally picked up on his history of horrible decisions, ideas, and campaign staffers.
@CarolDuhart2: Yeah, I’m sure he cribbed a lot from the usual sorts of racist survivalist papers that’ve gone around that scene, but he directly edited the journal, and over however many dozen years had the opportunity to observe and shape the coverage.
He also met with and collaborated with the sorts of people these articles touched.
HRA
@Maus:
I have “no government” in the first sentence. It’s my problem with him, too. I should also add I do not like any kind of discrimination as well.
Yes, his is, as of now, a different revelation. I was referring to Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich who both rose to the top of the group in the polls at one time.
Mark S.
@Boots Day:
It worked for Reagan.
FlipYrWhig
@Hal: The option that he doesn’t really hold those views himself but is willing to parrot them in order to get people who really hold them to like him and give him money. Still not terribly flattering…
The Moar You Know
@Bill Murray: Oh, I’m well aware of that. I survived a LTR with a Mormon. Interesting woman, interesting religion. Assuredly not for black folk.
The claim was that racial separation was central to the Book of Mormon. It is not.
Accuracy is important when making allegations of racism.
Brandon
Ron Paul was about as serious a candidate as the rest of the GOP clown car posse that preceded him as nominal front runner. I could give two sh*ts about his newsletters. They are nothing but a side show and every second spent on them is time not spent focusing on the execrable Romney. But what I do think funny though is how many conservatives have said that should Paul win Iowa, it would cast aspersions on that states future first in nation status. They seem to have a very funny view of democracy, but we’ve all known that for a while.
burnspbesq
Thought experiment: imagine that President Ron Paul gets to nominate four Supreme Court Justices during his first term in office.
Here are some paper towels and Nature’s Miracle to deal with the mess you just made on the floor. And get those pants in the laundry, stat, or the stains will set and you’ll never get them clean.
eemom
Yep, toko-loko was right about ED.
His support for that racist woman-hating paranoid fuck pretty much eviscerates every one of the many words of praise he eventually wrung from all those stupid flame wars. What a fucking waste of time.
Ya done good, toko. Hope Santa was appreciative.
Now, perhaps we can channel all that positive energy into some New Years resolutions about being less of a disruptive, self-obsessed nuisance, hmmmmm?
El Cid
Also, imagine that the Ron Paul newsletter began publishing articles / editorials in favor of the Federal Reserve or other such issue close to Ron Paul’s heart.
How long do you think that would escape his notice?
Boots Day
@El Cid:
That’s a good point: What sort of article would have been controversial enough to get Ron Paul’s attention?
“The Justice Department: Maybe We Shouldn’t Eliminate It”
“Is It Time to Sell Ten Percent of Your Gold Stockpile and Invest It in U.S. Treasury Bonds?”
“Black People: Not As Bad As You Might Think”
CarolDuhart2
@Maus: I wouldn’t be surprised at at least some plagarism there as well or a massive re-write of some others. I think ethics goes out the window in that world, because ethics means caring for something other than self-interest. Plus, the racist sots that contributed would not be in a position to safely demand credit for such work.
n any event, how can anyone believe that he didn’t look at a newsletter with his name on it, that he made money on something he didn’t read, and that he would defend something so execrable that he didn’t read?
Maus
@HRA:
Of the two, Herman Cain is the only one with skeletons in his closet (Newt’s serial adultery is common knowledge.) In both cases, their supporters are not the type to consider sexual harrassment or multiple affairs something that makes one unfit for the presidency, unless that person is a Democrat.
@Hal:
Again, the oft-regurgitated Randroid quote “racism is a collectivist trait therefore it’s impossible for a rugged individualist to be racist…”
It’s also connected to the “I hate ALL people, so I could never be racist” defense, used by the sort of idiots who rant on about “political correctness” and not being able to tell dead black people jokes at parties.
Lojasmo
@BO_Bill:
And who told you this?
Maus
@Lojasmo: What does Brick Oven Bill know about thinking people?
I doubt he’s actually read anything Lew Rockwell’s authored to completion, let alone the actual Ron Paul Survivalist papers. He’s a permatroll.
MacKenna
@Samara Morgan: Are you ten years old? Sounds like it.
Try spelling out words, moron. It’s not difficult if you know how.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Samara Morgan:
Sometimes you can be adorable. You still scare me, though.
Keith G
@eemom: A girl can dream.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Mark S.:
And Ford. East Timor, anyone?
Maus
@eemom: I’d more likely see it as a Ron Paul-like stopped clock accident whenever their opinion happens to be correct.
@Shawn in ShowMe: Granted that I am occasionally amused.
trollhattan
You’re known by the company you keep. I have a John Birch Society pamphlet I was handed at a teabag rally featuring Ron Paul and proclaiming “together we can save the republic.” Has a Paul quote, supposedly from April 2008:
“The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts…”
It also announces a Paul book signing to be held at their big birthday celebration.
But the true nail in Paul’s reputation coffin, for me, is his vile son, the Aqua Buddha senator.
Paul W.
I don’t have time to sort out all of the comments, unfortunately, on this right now but let me just say this: the whole idea that anyone’s stance on any issue “disqualifies” them from the presidency is stupid… there are only 3 qualifications necessary:
– Be older than 35.
– Be born on US soil.
– You must have served no more than a single term already.
(and of course winning the election)
That’s it folks! Now, once the first three conditions are met no one but a public vote can determine who is president, their stance on topics of race/economics/isolationism not withstanding. This goes doubly so for the GOP, where views that would be radical to the rest of the country are A-OK (remember how shocking it is to have a black man run our country every day, and how much that hurts us!)!
Paul is in it until he runs out of money or Romney gets enough delegates to take the nomination, speculating otherwise is stupid.
catclub
@Paul W.: “Be born on US soil.”
Close! John McCain was not, still qualified.
shortstop
What’s utterly ridiculous about this is that this isn’t news. All of this shit was out there, easily accessible, after TNR’s story in 2008 (and much of it was out there long before that). EDK and Sully (no idea who Conor is and too lazy to find out) are guilty of not doing an ounce of fucking homework…like almost everything else EDK writes about and a goodly portion of what Sullivan spews out.
It shouldn’t take reminding them of it and then patiently waiting out their played-out-in-public resistance and tearful defensiveness to get them to back off what they could’ve, should’ve known long ago was an indefensible position.
shortstop
@Paul W.: Thanks for the extremely literal reading of that statement, but in this case “not qualified” pretty obviously means morally and intellectually, which should — and in this case will — translate into “unable to garner sufficient votes.”
Maus
@Paul W.:
You also don’t have time to understand that context is everything. Better hurry up and reply without reading some more!
@shortstop: Like he has the time to read your reply. He is a busy man!
shortstop
@Maus: Heh. But you did, and it was a Christmas cookie for my soul.
Frankensteinbeck
@HRA:
I think I understand what you’re asking, and the answer is because they’re not given close scrutiny until they’re seen as leading the pack. ALL of the GOP candidates are train wrecks waiting to happen. It’s just that until they thought Perry might win nobody went ‘Oops, he can’t finish a complete sentence, can he?’. In Ron Paul’s case, the man’s baggage is unbelievable. His appalling racism is the tip of the iceberg. It’s just that the GOP and the media have been trying their hardest for his entire career to pretend he’s just a more principled regular Republican candidate. Now that enough pundits have gotten it into their heads he might win (which shows what morons they are) they have to look directly at the man and kinda sorta half-admit he doesn’t have skeletons in his closet, they actually can’t SEE him for all the skeletons standing right out in front.
Mnemosyne
@Paul W.:
I’m free to apply for a job as a brain surgeon, but I can’t whine if they decide I’m not qualified since I don’t have, like, a medical license or any kind of training.
Similarly, Paul is free to run for president, but you can’t whine when the rest of us notice that he’s completely unqualified to actually do the job.
The Moar You Know
A protest candidate? What the fuck is he protesting, sanity?
Maus
@The Moar You Know: Birchers exist to protest the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, always and ever.
Arclite
RE: Apocalypse. I don’t think it is too far off to say we’re facing an apocalypse. With oil running out and no suitable replacement, and with the global temperature rising due to the burning of said oil (and coal and gas), the anticipated effects of these two events are nothing short of apocalyptic.
Villago Delenda Est
@shortstop:
Thank you for saying that in a much more polite way than I was inclined to respond to that “extremely literal reading”.
AxelFoley
@rikyrah:
This rightchere.
tomvox1
So did Greenwald pull out before consummating his Ron Paul love yet?
Frankensteinbeck
@Samara Morgan:
Rlrr was saying there that as a ‘prophet’ your predictions are right so rarely that you’ve started to predict things that have already happened so that you can take credit for them. Thus, George Bush.
And then you *fell for it* and patted yourself on the back.
Arclite
@tomvox1:
Greenwald always prefaces his Paul-jobs with “Although he’s held abhorrent positions on positions X and Y, on position Z he is making sense: …”
eemom
@tomvox1:
tee hee.
Mona The Avenging Angel swooping in to hurl a thunderbolt at you in 3….2….1…..
lawguy
Well the guy is scum, but I’m not sure that he is any more scummy then the other republican candidates and on at least two things: weed and military intervention he is right.
And lets face it every other republican candidate seems to agree with all his other positions.
Maus
@Arclite: Every single fucking generation in the history of humankind has been preparing for the apocalypse. I suppose you know different, like every single fucking apocalyptic-follower in the history of humankind.
Pardon my crankiness, but the end-times are a long time coming.
Mnemosyne
@lawguy:
Paul thinks we shouldn’t have gone into WWII because it wasn’t our business to save the Jews (see the RP thread from yesterday).
So pretty much the only defensible position he’s got is weed.
Frankensteinbeck
@Mnemosyne:
I’m not sure that’s defensible. He wants no drug laws of any kind whatsoever. Among other things, modern medicine will go down the tubes. Of course, since he wants to gut all regulatory bodies for that…
Maus
@Frankensteinbeck:
This is incorrect. He wants no FEDERAL drug laws of any kind whatsoever. He is not pro-drug, he’s anti-federal government.
JR
@Paul W.: You can’t count [having listed 4 requirements rather than 3], and you got at least one of your so-called requirements wrong.
You can be born anywhere on the planet, as long as one of your parents is an American citizen. That’s why all the noise about President Obama was so stupid. His mom was American, therefore so is he. End of story.
Senator McCain was born in Panama, not in the United States. No one thought that disqualified him.
The Sailor
@WereBear (itouch): “Paul wants no restraints on anything, ever, by government.”
That’s a total, pants on fire, lie. Ron Paul wants to shrink the gov’t small enough to fit inside a womb. He is a lying, theocratic, homophobic, misogynistic, megalomaniac that only believes in one thing. “FY, I got mine.”
FY, and F ron paul.
You should read what he’s written and said.
Cacti
@The Moar You Know:
Sorry Moar, but you’re wrong on this one. As an escapee of the Mormon church after two-plus decades inside the belly of the beast, I know my Mo’ism. The basic narrative of the Book of Mormon is explicitly racist. It is the story of two civilizations who supposedly inhabited the pre-Columbian American continent: the fair-skinned Nephites, and the dark-skinned Lamanites, and it is, in fact, a story of racial separation.
The heading from 2 Nephi, chapter 5 reads, verbatim:
“The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple – Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.”
Verses 20-24 spell it out quite clearly:
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing to my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
Per Mormon theology, Lamanites are the peoples presently known as Native Americans/Amer-Indians. And unlike the odious pronouncements of Brigham Young, the above writings can’t be hand-waved away as the personal prejudice of an individual leader. The above is canonized in the holiest scripture of the Mormon faith.
So included in the Mormon canon you find that:
White skin is delightsome to God, black skin is a curse, miscegenation with black-skinned persons is forbidden and transfers the curse to the children of whites, and black skin is associated with being “idle and full of mischief”.
That is Mitt Romney’s religion.
Mnemosyne
@Cacti:
Are there any thoughts about why Young seemed to change his views? Was it Joseph Smith’s influence since he wrote the actual Book of Mormon, or was it more influenced by the outside politics of the run-up to the Civil War?
AxelFoley
@Paul W.:
Just shut up.
Maus
@Mnemosyne: Are you sure you’re not confusing the Elders’ constant retconning with any change of Young’s views? It’s not like this is the only “change of heart”.
@AxelFoley: A pithier response than the others, for sure.
Mnemosyne
@Maus:
Bill Murray had a Young quote from 1847 where he praised a black church elder as one of their best and most devoted, but Young had done a 180 by 1849. So that seems less like retconning (unless you’re trying to claim that the 1847 quote is a forgery by later elders) and more like a change by Young.
Given the politics of the time, I wouldn’t be surprised if Young changed the LDS’s course to gain more followers (touting racial equality wasn’t exactly popular at that point) but I’d be curious to know if that’s what happened.
Frankensteinbeck
@Maus:
Technically, this is true. His positions in general are about the federal government and dismantling it. There are a handful of caveats like making abortion illegal he holds onto, but basically he hates the federal government. I’ve never heard anything about his positions on state government, but I do know that his son is for eliminating drug laws on the state level as well – indeed, for doing at the state level what Paul wants done on the federal level, dismembering the government. Am I wrong to conflate these two and assume that Ron is just starting at the top?
Maus
@Mnemosyne: Could “Elder” have meant something different at the time than we now associate with Mormon Elders?
Maus
@Frankensteinbeck: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/rand-paul-clarifies-position-on-drugs/
Rand Paul does not support eliminating drugs laws on the State level, and neither does his father.
STAHTS RAGHTS STAHTS RAGHTS STAHTS RAGHTS
With that sort of non-statement, his True Believers believe whatever stupid things they want, without him ever having said them.
Mnemosyne
@Maus:
Seems unlikely, but I don’t know much about the history of LDS (I haven’t gotten around to reading Under the Banner of Heaven yet). It seems more likely to me that, like many minority religions, they originally welcomed anyone who would follow them, but later adopted the prevailing cultural norms to try and expand their influence and increase the number of converts.
Heck, it happened when Christianity itself decided that they needed to expand from a small Jewish sect and started accepting Gentiles as co-religionists, so I don’t see why it’s outside the realm of possibility that the Mormons did a similar thing.
Maus
@Mnemosyne: Hrm, that does seem like a plausible rationale.
The Other Chuck
Just about all the LaRouchie kids I’ve ever known act like they ate the paint off their Chinese-made cribs with great gusto. And now that LaRouche has finally faded into obscurity, every last one of them has become a Paultard. Every one.
You not only can’t reason with these people, there’s no reason you’d even want them on your side, considering the damage they do to theirs.
Maus
@The Other Chuck:
They still exist in small, Scientology-like clusters and feed off the hatred of others. There are plenty that infest Seattle’s touristy areas and scream at passerby.
Villago Delenda Est
@JR:
Not true. In 2008, Paulistas were screaming at the top of their lungs that McCain was NOT qualified to be the nominee because of his “foreign” birth, in Panama. In a military hospital. In the Canal Zone, which was US sovereign space at that time.
Samara Morgan
@Frankensteinbeck: im right very often.
i was right about Leaving Iraq, right about the Muslim Brotherhood taking the electoral majority in Egypt, and right about EDK.
i was right i was right i was right i was right i was right!
hahahahaha!
here is somemore prescience– I predict Obama will get 4 more years.
;)
Samara Morgan
@MacKenna: i dont have to speel.
i can do high order mathematics.
;)
Maus
@Samara Morgan: Do you really expect gold stars and head-noogies for a success rate somewhat below what guesses might give a person?
Sheesh, I surely hope so, for your sake.
Rathskeller
@The Other Chuck: Former LaRouche supporters have gone over to Ron Paul?! Can you document that?
Mike B
Yeah, he’s a nut job. But why does that disqualify him? Our whole political elite is one huge cavalcade of nut jobs. But he alone is unqualified for high office?
I can understand why many will vote for him as a protest vote in spite of the craziness. Two of the largest issues of our time are this nation’s unbridled imperialism and the bipartisan march toward a police state. Most liberals seem comfortable with both so long as their Medicare and Social Security are intact. Most conservatives are thrilled with both.
If a crazy crypto-racist who believes in the gold standard and the impending collapse of civilization is the only thing that might put some brakes on both of these, then that’s good enough reason to hold your nose and vote for the crazy guy.
The Raven
@burnspbesq: (cite of 2007 Dave Neiwert article)
He did an updated article at Crooks and Liars, link.
The Raven
@Mike B:
Dave Neiwert already answered this one:
maus
@Mike B:
What sort of idiot believes he would? All of his fucking horrible crazy comes from the same place, and all of it comes from the very wrong concept. He does have a few good ideas, but but they come from rotten beginnings, so he’s “right” for the wrong reasons.
The weight of these ideas does not counteract the horrible laissez-faire, pro-life, gold bug, no federal consumer/health protection, fascist State he wishes upon us.
Do you have any imagination whatsoever?
pattonbt
@Samara Morgan: Wow! Those were really hard things to be right about! I mean, totally unbelievable! Like no one on this site besides you has said those things a thousand times without the 2 year old, LOLcat textspeak gobblety gook writing.
But on some of the biggest things in the last decade (GW Bush and all he wrought) you were spectacularly wrong. I mean hook, line and sinker wrong. You full-on supported all the things that turned this country into shit in the last decade and try and get by now with a “oops, my bad, but NOW, NOW I tells ya, I am soooo totally right”.
So these days you cherry pick easy “rights” yet get all the serious things “wrong”. Methinks you need to recalibrate your assumptions on your self belief-o-meter.
Again, please listen to what people keep trying to counsel you on ad nauseum; think a bit more, self reflect a bit more, realize you ain’t the shizznit and hold no particularly unique, critically accurate insight lacking in the world. You are not a rare little butterfly of unending socio/philosophical/religious knowledge.
But you sure can bring the crazy. It is entertaining, in a way.
maus
@The Raven: Of course he’ll do nothing for anyone made unemployed. The Truly Free market will find a place for them, in the coal mines, once our federal minimum wage is removed, OSHA is destroyed (his plan) and the EPA is set ablaze.
DougW
@Samara Morgan: Because you stink up the joint honey…
goddinpotty
@EconWatcher: anyone who takes a look at the history of libetarianism (not just its abstract belief system, but where that came out of) can see that it shares roots with the more obviously crazy parts of the extreme right.
Check out Murray Rothbard, the founder of the modern libertarian movment, defending “states rights” as far more important than the wrongs of slavery. As you said, it’s just neo-confederatism in slightly new clothes.
Virginia Highlander
@JR:
By statute, yes, but not by birth and one must be a natural born citizen of the US — ie, born on US soil — in order to become president unless one were a citizen of one of the original Thirteen Colonies at the time our independence was declared.
It’s late and an obscure point, but to a weirdo like me, it should be made.
Maus
@Samara Morgan: I assume it has something to do with the level of noise to signal and your narcissistic tendencies.
Villago Delenda Est
@Virginia Highlander:
Um, no.
Otherwise, the sons and daughters of diplomats and military personnel would not be “natural born”. But, amazingly, they are! Like John McCain, who was born of US parents in a military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.
This was addressed in the 18th century. You’re “natural born” if you can prove you were born of US citizen parents. Obviously, this is easy to do if the parent in question was the mother. For the dad, this takes some work, if he wasn’t with the mother at the time of birth.
Yutsano
@Mike B:
Beautiful. The pox upon both your houses defense. Choke on this: the man is 76 years old. At 76 cognitive abilities decay. I think we’re already seeing signs of this but we just mask it as he’s always been crazy.
You also have yet to give any plan for getting his ideas past a hostile Congress. When you have that in place get back to me.
Maus
@Villago Delenda Est: To this end, military bases ARE US soil, birthwise.