Why Ron Paul is a traitorous, libertarian idiot

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Fri, 2011-09-30 21:38

Anwar Awlaki, the U.S. born al Qaeda leader whose writings inspired Muslims, including the U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan of the Fort Hood massacre, to commit terrorist attacks against Americans, has been killed by a CIA drone attack in Yemen. But Ron Paul, that potential savior of America according to some SOLO posters, has already condemned the Obama administration for "assassinating" this man without a trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Forgive the HuffPo link.

The AP article:

Ron Paul: Anwar Al-Awlaki, U.S.-Born Al-Qaeda Cleric, 'Assassinated'

MANCHESTER, N.H.--Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an "assassination." Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.

Anwar al-Awlaki was considered one of the most influential al-Qaida operatives wanted by the United States. U.S. and Yemen officials say he was killed in a U.S. air strike targeting his convoy Friday morning.

Paul made the comments to reporters after a campaign stop Friday at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. He said America's leaders must think hard about "assassinating American citizens without charges."

How can this man be so stupid? Never mind. I know the answer to that.


Simple, in an ideal world..

gregster's picture

How could any corporation back laissez faire capitalism?

1. By being forced into it by my 'naive' expectation that government ought not be involved in economics.
2. Or, by acting with knowledge of the inevitable pitfalls of acting against its own interests and supporting regulations (sanction of the victim) and becoming the victim. Through interest rates, exchange rates, taxation, labour laws..., and preventing or averting that happening.

Greg, your answer is very niave

Sandi's picture

How could any corporation back laissez faire capitalism? When the only way is to get there is by jumping off the regulatory vehicle upon which they grew in the first place!

Sandi babe

gregster's picture

I don't believe that kind of stuff myself and I would bet Cheney is innocent.

You may like this site Silver Bear Cafe, and articles like The Illuminati and the House of Rothschild.

We are expected to believe that these people are that clever with their money that they force economic collapses so that their banks can come to the rescue - because they control the central money supply.

But if they were smart they would back pure unrestricted capitalism!!

And make a fucking fortune.

Michael: Please state what is stupid and back it up with source.

Sandi's picture

Sorry to disappoint you with another film clip but "words straight out of the horse's mouth" are in my opinion, more credible than any second hand quote from corporate media.

 

If this concerns you. then get off your arse and start looking!!

Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

What do you make of Ron Paul saying he is not a 9-11 Truther? I am really curious as to your answer to this question.

What I find particularly pernicious about 9-11 Truther conspiracies is that it shifts blame away from those who actually committed the acts, and places blame on the victims. To excuse murderers in that way -- and in such a righteous tone to boot -- is a vicious injustice.

At any rate, do you believe Dick Cheney was behind 9-11? Your own Truther video leaves that question somewhat open (eg. "knew the attack was coming and took steps to ensure its success..."). The video suggests an awful lot using random facts pieced together to fit a pre-ordained conclusion.

If, in your vigorous 4-year "study", you checked some of the facts that are easy to verify -- like the idea that the War Powers Act was put in place after 9-11 -- you would realize that this is balderdash. The War Powers Act was enacted in 1973. Or that Karzai never worked for Unocal. Or that Haliburton was awarded these contracts by previous administrations, including Democrat Administrations, before Cheney ever worked for them. Maybe, just maybe, they got those contracts because that is their industry and those are the contracts they bid? When they cannot get easily verifiable facts correct, that should tell you everything you need to know about the veracity of your sources.

So is it your assertion that Bush and Cheney were in on 9-11? Please, no more videos (they are excruciatingly stupid), just list those you think were involved in the 9-11 attack. I am interested in learning all those 9-11 Truthers think were behind the attacks.

Michael

NFRA Iowa Outstanding Landslide: Paul 82% Cain 14.7%

Sandi's picture

Santorum 1%, Gingrich 0.9%, Bachmann and Perry 0.5%, Gary Johnson .2%. Romney and Huntsman 0%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The bastards do fear him for one reason

Sandi's picture

And one reason only. His INTEGRITY.

Because Dr. Ron Paul has held integrity in the highest value during his 30 odd years in politics, no one and no amount of money can touch him! They can not bribe him and more significantly they can not malign him.

That is why I say, that running for presidency is a very bold and dangerous thing for Dr. Paul. This man has my deepest and utmost respect and support. He is the only clean politican in the race and for some, that ain't good enough!

Who is John Galt? (the man standing beside his father).

Sandi,..

Olivia's picture

Olivia, you say of Ron Paul "Nobody Fears him?" What sort of morality requires fear to impart reason? Religion.

I wrote that to you in response to your comment beneath - "the bastards fear him."

Cain is bought and paid for.

Sandi's picture

It astounds me that on this forum, Cain has more votes than Dr. Paul and this thread maligns him

My response to questions regarding 9/11 is illustrated in this excellent commentary. Be it a brief account, it is factual and as I said previously, do your own research (mine has taken 4 years).

Regarding Cain

Quoting his associates on his website, it would appear that Cain consults his bible for morality and is spoon fed policy from "The Heritage Foundation" whose associates include members of PNAC (Project for New American Century) whose associates are people such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Frank Gaffney (to name but a few).

On Cain’s website, he uses the Heritage Foundation as a reference source.

The very same “Heritage Foundation” which congratulates and awards Cheney.

“Dick Cheney has set a lifelong example of what it means to be a citizen, a leader and a patriot,” Heritage President Edwin J. Feulner said before the ceremony.
http://www.heritage.org/resear...

Cheney “We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." —WhiteHouse.gov, The Tony Snow Show, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
http://video.google.com/videop...

Frank Gaffney (7 hours after 9/11) “The United States is at war now and I hope that the president will respond appropriately and accordingly. This is not the matter for business as usual, judicial process, forensic investigation”

When asked who you think was responsible for the attacks, his response was,

“We probably won’t know if at all for some time, with precision, who is responsible for this precise attack, therefore I would go after everyone” (How convenient)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Quote Ron Paul at a later date (reference in next clip below) “How did we go in, without a declaration of war, we just marched in??”

Olivia, you say of Ron Paul "Nobody Fears him?" What sort of morality requires fear to impart reason? Religion.
I'd say that Dr. Paul is extremely fierce when it comes to freedom. Maybe people do not fear him, but they certainly respect him. Even the most liberal of women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I'll go for respect over fear any day.

And as Dr. Paul boldly and very bravely states “it seems like the industrial war complex controls both parties”

Uh, Ross

Michael Moeller's picture

"The views expressed here about Ron Paul's defence of state's rights, and by analogy, individual rights, are just dumb. Of course states have the right to make laws not forbidden by the Federal constitution. How else would you want it? Should we have the Feds micro-managing state law? If so, then we should dispense with republicanism altogether and reduce states to mere administrative functionaries of the Federal government. You can't have your states and eat them, too.

No, Ross, not by analogy -- by fact. It is one thing to argue that the federal govenrment should be reduced to their constitutional powers, it is quite another to say that the individual states should have carte blanche to violate individual rights. Ron Paul stands for the latter, as I have shown with his actual positions.

The feds do, and should, have the power to enforce individual rights violations against the states -- from what a person does in their bedroom to their right to buy or not buy a good or service. Enforcing those rights is not "micro-managing" the states, it is defending individual rights, unless you have no regard for individual rights. And such enforcement is realigning the feds to their constitutional powers, as that is the purpose of the 14th Amendment. As far as Ron Paul is concerned, it is not a matter of individual rights, but rather the level of government that is allowed to violate them.

Separation of Powers 101. By ignoring Ron Paul's actual positions and trying to hide behind "states' rights", you are whistling past the graveyard.

Speaking of growing the federal government, what do you think of Ron Paul growing entitlements in his actual budget proposal, Ross? Was this your idea of reducing the size of the federal government? And this makes him a better candidate than the others who will deal with entitlements? To paraphrase an earlier article I linked to, Ron Paul simply put some zeros in a spreadsheet next to some federal departments and called it a day. The guy is not the least bit serious.

Ron Paul does not even have a serious tax proposal. When asked about the flat tax and fair tax proposals of the other candidates, he responds that those are "regressive". Those are actual serious proposals vetted by think-tanks. As you can see in the following interview, Ron Paul has no proposal at all. He simply says he wants to reduce as many taxes as possible and is in favor of a "0-0-0 tax plan". While those who elevate rhetoric over reality might find that pleasing, it is not the least bit serious, especially when he has to come up with $3 trillion for his own budget. And he is supposed to be a better candidate than those who put out serious proposals? The guy's a joke.

Here's the thing, Ross: everybody knows that the federal government needs to be reduced and individual rights need greater protection. However, if all you do is wax poetic on the subject without rebutting evidence to the contrary (in regards to Ron Paul), your arguments are nothing more than rhetorical fluff. You need to get your hands dirty with his actual positions, proposals, and policies.

Goode

Michael Moeller's picture

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Michael

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

Well said. I've noticed you've been talking a great deal of sense lately.

I don't know if you wanted my endorsement, but there you have it.

"A heard of cows"

gregster's picture

about sums it up Sandi.
http://www.thecompletepatient....

I'm wondering...

Ross Elliot's picture

... if anyone gets it that America is failing and that there will be no foreign "policy" to speak of when America eventually fails?

Check your premises. Why is America failing?

Now, I appreciate that there are a few here that see America's influence as something distinct from America's economic power, but we can be assured that they are one and the same. Study Britain in the first fifty years of the twentieth century. That's exactly where America is now. Britain had America to pick up the baton, but when America is reduced, who then?

Given the current trajectory, America will be washed up as an influential force sometime not too soon. Does anyone doubt this? Or do you think that carrier battle groups, gunboat diplomacy and economic sanctions fund themselves?

The cancer eating at the core of American civilisation is not, in any respect, due to Islamofascism. Sure, the simpering attitude towards it is a symptom but it's *not* the cause.

Unless America can return to first principles and restrict the federal government to the powers expressly given it in the constitution--and that with caveats, then it's all over.

Forget a foreign policy that does anything more than protect American trade and threats to it's citizens in foreign lands. America has been kowtowing too long to an ungrateful world and sacrificing it's best upon the altar of world policeman.

The views expressed here about Ron Paul's defence of state's rights, and by analogy, individual rights, are just dumb. Of course states have the right to make laws not forbidden by the Federal constitution. How else would you want it? Should we have the Feds micro-managing state law? If so, then we should dispense with republicanism altogether and reduce states to mere administrative functionaries of the Federal government. You can't have your states and eat them, too.

But, let's forget Ron Paul. Let's concede that he's just a cat amongst the pigeons and has no chance of winning. Who are you going to vote for? Who's going to roll back the Feds and restore America? Romney, Perry, Cain? Yeah? Right.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Evidence has everything to do with a smear, as a smear is baseless in fact. A good example is saying somebody is part of an "orchestrated smear campaign" against Ron Paul, then providing no facts to back it up, and to continually repeat this smear without evidence. Goode has three choices here: (1) he can retract this accusation, (2) he can provide evidence that I am part of an "orchestrated smear campaign", or (3) he can continue to evade the fact that he has provided no evidence and that he is a smear-monger. If he chooses (3), the lizard can be damn well sure I am going to point to this post and his lack of evidence when he resurfaces to smear me again.

I retract the accusation that you are part of an orchestrated smear campaign against Ron Paul.

Sandi

Olivia's picture

America has got one chance only. RON PAUL.!!

No way!

Every time I watch Ron Paul speak, I cannot even believe he is in the GOP candidate race. He is a doddering cartoon-like character, with a beggy countenance and mannerisms, who cannot complete an articulate line of logic - on issues that are really really important! Yesterday when he was being interviewed by the panel on Brett Baier's Special Report, it was as though Krauthammer, Hayes and Baier themselves held back out of charity because he would've been too easy to take down. Nobody fears him.

He would be disasterous for America, but I'm not even worried about it as he is NEVER going to win the nomination. He is not presidential in any way, shape or form.

Codex Alimentarius????

Michael Moeller's picture

Some UN/WTO food organization helped bring down the WTC Towers or is plotting for a "New World Order"? I don't follow.

The questions were pretty simple, Sandi. You posted a Truther video. So, what organizations were responsible for 9-11, in your view? How were the WTC Towers brought down and by whom?

And who has developed the "well documented" plans for globalization? Bilderbergers? Illuminati? Goldfinger and Spectre?

Michael

Hypocrisy

Sandi's picture

"That doesn’t mean that we favor military adventurism necessarily, but it does mean that no foreign dictator, and no southern state, has a right to oppress people, and if we choose to stop them we have that right in the same way that we have the right to shoot a rapist we see raping a woman in a back alley. We argue that freedom cannot be “forced” on people: it is oppression that is “forced” on people."

Then I would suggest that this American Objectivist should be looking in his own backyard instead of over the fence.
Executive Orders, 10990, 10995, 10997, 10998, 11000, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11051, 11310, 11049, 11921!

Oh and, whilst his government is sacrficing American lives in chasing goat herders, just recently in Wisconssin, a judge ruled:

"Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or herd, to consume the milk from their own cow, to board their cow at a farm and NO, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice" Page 4

Michael, do your own homework and with regards to this particular post you can start with Codex Alimentarius.

9-11 Truthers and Muslim Capitalists

Michael Moeller's picture

"Because this is not a war, it is selective murder. Selective murder of whom? Capitalists. Muslims are great capitalists. They have always been so. "

So you think that the cave-dwelling and donkey-riding you speak of are signs of capitalism?

And then we get the payoff with the 9-11 Truther video.

Sandi, do you believe that 9-11 was a controlled demolition? If you could list all the groups involved, that would be splendid.

"Globalisation is not an accident. It is a well documented and drawn up plan."

If you wouldn't mind elaborating a little here -- in your own words preferably -- who drew up the plan. Bilderbergers? Illuminati? Elders of Zion? What do you think they have in store for us next?

Michael

A guide to the perplexed re. Ron Paul and libertarianism

gregster's picture

This was linked to on Binswanger's list on Tuesday by a contributor. http://sandefur.typepad.com/fr...

"The Objectivists—those who draw their understanding from the works of Ayn Rand—believe on the contrary in a universal human nature, natural moral laws, and therefore, in a universal right and wrong. That doesn’t mean that we favor military adventurism necessarily, but it does mean that no foreign dictator, and no southern state, has a right to oppress people, and if we choose to stop them we have that right in the same way that we have the right to shoot a rapist we see raping a woman in a back alley. We argue that freedom cannot be “forced” on people: it is oppression that is “forced” on people. Since no state can claim a right to enslave people, the south cannot have been engaged in a legitimate act of revolution during the Civil War, and the mullahs do not have a right to force women to wear the veil, and so forth. (Again, this does not mean we have a duty to come to the aid of the oppressed; just the right to do so.) Likewise, contra Ron Paul, we believe that no state ever has the right to use force on people who are engaged in private, adult, consensual sexual activity—or the right to censor me, or to take away a woman’s right to an abortion (again contra Paul). We believe judicial independence is essential to ensuring that a free society remains free, rather than a collection of bullies who enforce their will on us through majority vote."

Ron Paul in the Media

Sandi's picture

The bastards fear him. 

Ron Paul is the ONLY Politician who sees the big picture

Sandi's picture

And who has consistenly maintained integrity.

What is the big picture some may ask? Iran. Ooooo, scary, big, coming to get you Iran. Oh what a big threat that is, along with those terrors. The lot of them, scary stuff coming from countries whose usual mode of transport are donkey's and living quarters are caves.

For ten years the USA has been fighting these terror's, hunting down peasants in caves and fighting a false war with such aplomb, that Hollywood must have indeed written the script. These terror's along with big scary Iran (complete with donkey's, medieval philosophy and fucked up morality) have scared the crap out of the entire western world, which instead of telling said theocracy where to sling its hook, have apologised for it, appeased it and fawned over it, not because it is a real threat but because it is NOT.

In the name of and USING the Threat of, big scary terror-men, the Oligarch's have removed freedom's and thoroughly pulled the constitutional carpet out from under the feet of Americans. With the trickledown effect afflicting ALL western nations mortgaged to the top of their corrupt political eyeballs, so that they are indeed most submissive to the WTO (He/they who hold the gold makes the rules).

There was a time when I thought Iran was the enemy, Islam was the enemy, North Korea was the enemy. But now I don't and I am rather ashamed at my gullibility to thinking so in the first place. America is no safer since it invaded Iraq & Afghanistan. In fact, Americans are worse off for it. Why is that?

The war is a hoax. A complete and utter farce. Think about it, marines, airforce pilots, artillery, transport and naval crew. Each and everyone of them, ALL have to ask permission to fire their weapons, even in moments of self defence.

WHY?

Because this is not a war, it is selective murder. Selective murder of whom? Capitalists. Muslims are great capitalists. They have always been so.

The intention of said wars in the Middle East. Social D E M O C R A C Y. And the end game of global democracy/socialism is communism.
I asked a question in another thread. Since 9/11 who has removed or taken your freedoms? Terrorist's or your government.

WW3 is going on in front of our very noses and blinkered taxed slaves are not only paying for it, they are endorsing it.

If you think for one minute that 9/11 was from donkey riding, cave dwelling neanderthols, who managed to crash American airliner's into sky-scrapers and the Pentagon (main base of the world's greatest super-power), then I suggest it is you who have not applied reason.

I am a truther. Bloody oath I am. This is war, but not war with the Middle East. This is a war against capitalism and slashing the individual.

Globalisation is not an accident. It is a well documented and drawn up plan.

America has got one chance only. RON PAUL.!!

 

Yep...

Michael Moeller's picture

I think you hit the nail on the head. In fact, I would bet cutting off mid-sentence keeps *him* from fully coming to grips with what he's saying. Usually when he gets ready to veer off in some other direction, he'll throw out a number of buzzwords like "militarism" and "neocon", but for some reason he spared the audience that today. My favorite is that he can't seem to remember certain positions of his own. He cites the CIA on "blowback" or Iran's nuclear development, but he wants to end the CIA. They already served their purpose as far as he's concerned, I guess.

Michael

Michael, I did indeed ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... catch that. Yes, that babbling was excruciating. Have you noticed how infrequently Ron Paul finishes a sentence? Generation Airhead doesn't complete sentences (when it can even begin them) because it can't concentrate for long enough. In Paul's case I suspect it's because he knows the full lameness of his thoughts would be apparent if he completed them, so he quickly moves on to something else. The overall impression is of hysteria and incoherence. Kookiness in other words, exactly as Brook says.

Haha...

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz, you caught that? What a great moment when Steve Hayes asked him about sending in the Seals to get bin Laden, and Ron Paul was reduced to babbling about Tora Bora. He really is an old fool.

I rather like that format of having the candidates on that panel. Krauthammer and Hayes are sharp and have good questions (Juan Williams is useless, though)...far superior to the 60 second Q&A's that turn on soundbites and squabbling.

Michael

Very interesting ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... discussion of the Republican candidates pre-Cain between Peikoff and Brook here, Pt 3:

http://www.peikoff.com/podcast...

Paul was on with Brett Baier's panel today. He's a kook for sure. As Brook says, "not quite all there."

The reason I support Herman

Elijah Lineberry2's picture

The reason I support Herman Cain is because he talks my language on a vast number of issues - ie: I just happen to prefer Cain *shrugs*

I am sure the independent electors of New Hampshire (who are able to vote in the Republican primary) will show the World whose message is connecting and whose message is not.

The main reason I have never supported Ron Paul is because he has always reminded me of Bill Rowling Sticking out tongue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....

I am sure most NZers will see the comparisons and chuckle - the high pitched whiney voice, the obvious 'little man' complex, the moaning minnie attitude to most issues, the sense of injustice at a vast number of inevitable defeats, the complete failure to realise the constant electoral defeats may be due to himself etc

(I wonder if Ron Paul used to be a Scoutmaster?) Eye

Herman Cain

Richard Goode's picture

Smoke on!

(I canceled my vote for Johnson and gave it back to Cain. Herman Cain now has the clear lead.)

Time to Put Up

Michael Moeller's picture

On this thread, Scott has countless times tried to label opponents as "big government" advocates and me as "misleading" with my evidence, while himself lamenting the name-calling at Ron Paul. (In fact, I had not called Scott one single name until the last couple of posts in which I rightly think he is a True Believer.) Yet, he has obstinately refused to rebut the evidence when asked -- multiple times. In his latest broadside, he tried to say I misrepresented Ron Paul when Ron Paul clearly says in his interview with Hannity that somebody put words in his mouth, thus showing Ron Paul is too much of a coward to stand by his words when face-to-face with those he throws bombs at.

I cannot permit Scott to similarly throw bombs, then slink off to the sidelines only to later return and throw more. It's time for him to man-up.

1. Here Scott said I did not use "accurate inputs" in my dismantling of Ron Paul's foreign policy. I asked him to outline the positions I got wrong, and he says that he rejects that burden (see 2nd sentence in his third section).

2. Here Scott says that those against Ron Paul dissolve into "attack dogs" that name-call and smear Ron Paul, even after I asked him to dispute my evidence. Actually, it is Scott dissolving into name-calling, as I had not called him any name up to that point, only Ron Paul. I asked him for a "smear", and, per Scott's M.O., he declined to provide any evidence.

3. After I linked to many sources on Ron Paul's character issues, Scott called it "purposely misleading" and "scummy", but once against refused point out what exactly was misleading when asked by both myself and Linz.

Scott has no problem reappearing to chastise his opponents as "big government" advocates, but has disappeared when asked to back up his accusations.

Time for him to put-up.

Michael

The Guardian is calling...

Marcus's picture

...this the worst political ad of all time. Why? Because Cain's manager is seen smoking.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/g...

Good on 'em, I say!

A Hard Look

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "If you look really hard, you will find some striking facts which differentiate the two situations. Or maybe not."

Not. He's made similar blanket statements about racism in defense of his 1996 newsletter comments, which earlier he claimed were (guess what?!?) misrepresented! Then he later denied making them at all. Poor, poor Ron Paul, he seems to always be "misrepresented" and people are forever putting "words in his mouth".

Michael

YOU are Misrepresenting

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "Dr. Paul ADMITTED that he said what he said. HE DID NOT DENY IT. He didn't pander or reverse himself. Shame on you, Michael."

Ron Paul to Hannity: "I think that somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn't deny it...I didn't go out and volunteer this."

Yes he did volunteer this statement in an interview, and nobody put those words in his mouth. He is trying to make as if he didn't say what he said. He's lying, and you are misrepresenting with your statement above.

Scott: "As I said before, I reject that role. You are doing nothing here so much as ruining your credibility and kind of "lawyering" in the most stereotypical and regrettable way. "

Nope, you are ruining your credibility and revealing yourself as a True Believer. I've gone over his actual policies and his actual budget numbers. You've done nothing but call my evidence "misleading", while providing no evidence to the contrary. You've done nothing but call your opponents "big government" advocates, which is Alinksyite playbook of personalizing the message and attacking the messenger.

An unwavering blindness to evidence coupled with excuse-making, rationalizations, and unsupported/vicious charges against what Scott surely considers apostate opponents. The hallmark of True Believerism.

Michael

Nonsense

atlascott's picture

"I think it should be quite clear from my post that I linked to that article because I pointed out that Ron Paul's campaign did not denounce Don Black or Stormfront specifically, but just provided a blanket statement about racism. Goode stated that the proper action for Libz would be to denounce Lineberry and what he "might appear to endorse". Well, they did not denounce Don Black or Stormfront specifically, which is a glaring omission in the campaign's response. "

If you look really hard, you will find some striking facts which differentiate the two situations. Or maybe not.

Dizzying.

You are Misrepresenting AGAIN

atlascott's picture

Hi Michael:

I watched that whole video, which is really not a problem since I like Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul ADMITTED that he said what he said. HE DID NOT DENY IT. He didn't pander or reverse himself. Shame on you, Michael.

He said that someone put words in his mouth and immediately thereafter (the part you didn't quote) said that he admits that his positions on things puts pressure on guys like the interviewer.

He was being called out out on a statement and dealt with it like a gentleman, but he DID NOT reverse himself. And then he cited his record of being a long time supporter of small government before any of the show hosts ever jumped on the bandwagon.

Just like previously in the thread, you are misrepresenting, and as too many people do, you deluge everyone with a bunch of nonsense, and then the burden is on the people who are in search of or who support the truth to review what you reviewed, effectively becoming your honesty police?

As I said before, I reject that role. You are doing nothing here so much as ruining your credibility and kind of "lawyering" in the most stereotypical and regrettable way.

You must really have some sort of GOP or orthodox O'ism axe to grind with Dr. Paul. That much is clear. It certainly is not about his ideas, because you seem to relish in misrepresenting them in every way.

These are rather Saul Alinsky tactics. Nice to see big government Objectivists are learning new tactics, sad to see those tactics being favored over the truth. Which is, here, that Ron Paul is a good man and an honest man who really does see the problems in this country and how to fix them.

Can't Help Himself

Michael Moeller's picture

Here is a previous interview from Ron Paul, including the following quote:

Q: Do you think radio talk show people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin fear that you’re making them obsolete because your views reveal them as the statists they are?

A: I think that if I gain influence it’s an embarrassment to them because they’re not really limited-government people yet they make their livelihood fooling the people into thinking they’re the real leaders of limited government. And when you look at it we find out that they haven’t been. Look at Bush’s eight years. The budget exploded.

In the following Hannity interview, Ron Paul claimed "somebody put those words in my mouth". He panders to whatever audience he is speaking to.

And Ron Paul lies, he lies a lot.

Goode's Misdirections

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode writes: "You quote me out of context."

Here is Goode's post on the subject, and here is my quoting of it. It's hard to quote somebody out of context when the actual context is: "Evidence has nothing to do with it. That's the whole point of smears. You throw the mud, it sticks. Damage done." I.e. A statement can be considered a damaging smear whether or not it is backed by evidence.

Goode is just making shit up as he goes along in order to misdirect from his foolish statements. Goode made that statement about evidence point-blank. Now he is trying to backpedal with some wholly new argument about conspiracy theorists accepting positions despite evidence, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues being discussed. Instead of admitting it was a stupid statement, he tries to shift the blame to me by saying I quoted him out of context. Goode has no shame.

Evidence has everything to do with a smear, as a smear is baseless in fact. A good example is saying somebody is part of an "orchestrated smear campaign" against Ron Paul, then providing no facts to back it up, and to continually repeat this smear without evidence. Goode has three choices here: (1) he can retract this accusation, (2) he can provide evidence that I am part of an "orchestrated smear campaign", or (3) he can continue to evade the fact that he has provided no evidence and that he is a smear-monger. If he chooses (3), the lizard can be damn well sure I am going to point to this post and his lack of evidence when he resurfaces to smear me again.

In Goode's analysis of the Ron Paul campaign's response after the campaign said they would look into the matter, he writes: "I find that a perfectly satisfactory response." Goode also writes: "Benton's statements are the end of the matter."

Since Goode is so accepting of a blanket statement about racism, let's consider this statement from Ron Paul:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Does Goode also find this statement "a perfectly satisfactory response"? I will be anxiously awaiting Goode's answer. After all, Goode says that all Ron Paul needs to do is stand by his principles and that such blanket statements are "the end of the matter". Does Goode consider this the "end of the matter"?

Here, Ron Paul is also denouncing the "small-minded thoughts" of racism -- comments that Goode earlier described as "nothing much to see". And that is the whole point in this episode, his sending back the money would be a repudiation -- not just in words, but also in action -- of Don Black, Stormfront, and their views, which is precisely why every rational candidate either sends the money back or donates it to charity.

Goode: "Frankly, I find your source's response beyond disgusting.

Great! So why doesn't Goode go argue on that website? Where did I say I agree with the author's assessment? I didn't, and Goode is arguing against a strawman. If Goode wants to rebut my arguments, he should start by quoting me.

I think it should be quite clear from my post that I linked to that article because I pointed out that Ron Paul's campaign did not denounce Don Black or Stormfront specifically, but just provided a blanket statement about racism. Goode stated that the proper action for Libz would be to denounce Lineberry and what he "might appear to endorse". Well, they did not denounce Don Black or Stormfront specifically, which is a glaring omission in the campaign's response.

That particular article is important because the campaign's initial response was that they were going "to look into the matter", and the author followed up after that pledge. And part of the campaign's initial response was that: "Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step". So why didn't they take that "simple and practical step"? The campaign offered no reason, except to say that it somehow obligates them to go through a rigorous examination of where their donations come from. No it does not.

And this brings us to another of Goode's strawmen:

Goode: "It would be nice to have the luxury of devoting one's presidential campaign to ostracising such groups in every manner possible, but Ron Paul has bigger fish to fry (e.g., Tel Aviv)."

Another complete misdirection. Who said anything about "devoting one's presidential campaign" to such matters? There is no obligation -- implied or otherwise -- to hunt down the source of every donation. In fact, I said Ron Paul is not responsible for those who donate to his campaign, but it is reasonable to ask why he doesn't return the money once he does "know of the source". A statement I made more than once and which Goode conveniently ignored while setting up his strawman. This source was brought to the campaign's attention by others.

Sending back a check for $500 and turning off an IP address hardly qualifies as "devoting one's presidential campaign" to the issue -- hyperbole does not a strong argument make. This is particularly true when the campaign itself admits that: "Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step".

"Goode quoting Linz: 'The over-arching point is, Ron Paul is Islamoterrorism's friend'

Goode: 'Let's stick to the over-arching point. When it comes to Ron Paul, anything else is nothing but a distraction.'

Oh, so talking about Ron Paul's character and his stance on domestic economic and social issues is irrelevant to his candidacy? Is that how Goode evaluates candidates?

Among the many, often conflicting, statements on Ron Paul, Goode did say this:

"I'm not particularly interested in Ron Paul. But it strikes me that the problem with Ron Paul is not that he cuts his political philosophy with intellectual strychnine, but that his political philosophy is pure libertarianism, cut with nothing."

Does Goode stand by that?

Michael

Truthers and birthers

Richard Goode's picture

You quote me out of context.

For the likes of, e.g., 9-11 Truthers and Obama citizenship conspiracy theorists, evidence has nothing to do with it. You can explain why the Pentagon's lawn was not strewn with debris, or brandish a copy of Obama's birth certificate, until you lose your voice or your arm drops off. Birthers will continue to insist that Obama is ineligible to be the POTUS; meanwhile, said POTUS remains on course to destroy the US economy. 9-11 Truthers will continue to insist that 9-11 was an inside job; meanwhile, the real perpetrators plot further atrocities.

Those who, like yourself, continue to insist that acceptance by the Ron Paul campaign of relatively small donations from the likes of Don Black (is that his real name? LOL!) is a damning indictment are of the same ilk. I followed your latest link and found this from Paul spokesman Jesse Benton.

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and the protection of inalienable individual rights for every American. All of our campaigns energy is dedicated to spreading the message of liberty and limited government, and we do not spend time screening donors or blocking websites. We don't know who Don Black is, and pay him no attention. If a small number individuals who hold racist beliefs want to waste their money by giving to Dr. Paul, a man who stands firmly against their small minded ideologies, then the campaign will simply use those funds to protect freedom, peace and civil liberties across our Nation.

I find that a perfectly satisfactory response. Josh Harkinson, however, says

Frankly, I find the glibness of this response appalling, and I could not disagree more with its reasoning. Accepting Black's dirty money creates an implied obligation to these nut jobs and their priorities, which, even if rejected by Paul, is hard to deny. Are we to simply take Paul's word that these people aren't buying anything? How are we to know that Paul doesn't share their motives? Does Paul support tighter border controls because he fears a drain on social services, or because he doesn't like brown people? Now it's hard to know. I say this reluctantly, as someone who has a great deal of respect for Paul's courageous stands on issues such as the war in Iraq: I no longer believe that Paul is a man of principle. There is simply never any principle to taking cash tainted with the blood of Auschwitz and Jim Crow.

Frankly, I find your source's response beyond disgusting. Accepting Black's donation creates no obligation, explicitly or implicitly, other than the obligation to stand by one's stated principles and to honour one's stated policies and campaign promises. Ron Paul is under no obligation whatsoever to tell Don Black to go fuck himself. Harkinson's response is nine parts insinuation and one part masturbation.

I followed one of your earlier links and found another statement from Paul spokesman Jesse Benton.

We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director. Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken. I doubt there is anything we can do legally. Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated. I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation. It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom.

Benton's statements are the end of the matter. Of course, there will always remain the conspiratorial, the vexatious and the querulous to maintain that Benton's statements have nothing to do with it.

When I asked you why the Ron Paul campaign should not accept donations from neo-Nazis, you said

Because these lunatic groups should be ostracized in every manner possible.

It would be nice to have the luxury of devoting one's presidential campaign to ostracising such groups in every manner possible, but Ron Paul has bigger fish to fry (e.g., Tel Aviv). As Linz rightly says

The over-arching point is, Ron Paul is Islamoterrorism's friend

Let's stick to the over-arching point. When it comes to Ron Paul, anything else is nothing but a distraction.

Back to the Topic

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott writes: "How is he going to get votes from the 50% of Americans who owe half of their income to the Federal government if he immediately attacks entitlements"

That's the excuse? And how does that make him a better candidate than those who will attack entitlements?

Because:

"No, it wouldn't necessarily. And it is also a less principled approach. Romney is pure pragmatism."

Ron Paul not touching entitlements because he can't get the votes isn't pragmatic, but a principled approach? Come again? Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Romney, as he is a pragmatist. My only point is that even Romney's tinkering around the edges has more potential to improve the long-term budget than Ron Paul's proposal. Ergo, despite the rhetoric you guys seem impressed with, Ron Paul's constraint of the federal government is illusory.

"Eh, not so generous. He is for strong national defense."

Another assertion. No he's not, and I outlined why in an analysis of his actual policies . You described my analysis as not having "accurate inputs", yet you failed to note one policy I got wrong. You have this bad habit of describing things as "inaccurate" or "misleading", then when asked about which facts are wrong, you drop the matter altogether as if it was proven. Either back it up, or retract it.

"I always find it to be phenomenally curious why self-proclaimed liberty lovers would support empire and nation building and occupying other countries, rather than bringing swift and efficient ends to real and demonstrated enemies."

Strawman. Where did I ever say I was in favor of nation-building?

I'm glad you agree on Iran. So what is the argument for Ron Paul as Commander in Chief if he has to be forced by Congress to do his job, as you suggest?

Scott, I pointed out how his stance on social issues was not consistent with individual rights, that was ignored. I pointed out his suspect character and history, and that was ignored, except that you scolded me for pointing out these inconvenient facts. (Side question: would you have similarly scolded those in 2008 who pointed out all of Obama's suspect associations and statements???) Using his actual policies, I demonstrated how his foreign policy does not defend America and is blame America first. I showed he was even willing to retreat on a law to kill individual terrorists, and pretend like no such law exists and that he never signed it. In response, you foisted the strawman that those who disagree with Ron Paul's stance are for nation-building. I pointed out how he would not perform his constitutional function and enforce rights violations against the states, including an individual mandate (Romney redux?). Then the argument for Ron Paul was that it was more important that he constrain the federal government. I pointed out how he does nothing to restructure entitlements, which are the real budget-busters and and most significant rights-violating programs in the federal government. Then you say if he wants to get votes, he can't attack entitlements.

Is there a point at which the excuses and rationalizations for Ron Paul run out? Seriously.

Michael

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Can you keep the backbencher off this thread? He never has anything substantive to offer, except for such imbecilities as: "Evidence has nothing to do with it" -- which should be his epitaph. His constant "smear" stuff is getting old and I'm tired of cleaning off the bottom of my shoe. He's nothing but a distraction at this point.

Michael

No Shame Whatsoever

Michael Moeller's picture

There is no level too low for Goode. The guy has no shame, and no integrity. He levels smears at me, can't defend them, proves himself an idiot, then moves on to his next smear. Exactly as I said here:

"Perhaps Goode can shed some light on these questions.

But he won't. He'll do just as he did before and move on to the next topic where he can get in a smear..."

In fact, he hasn't disputed the evidence. He draws a different conclusion about whether or not it is appropriate to accept the money, and then proceeds to call it a smear.

In fact, by Goode's own reasoning, Ron Paul did not meet standards that he sets out for Libz. His campaign said they did not know who Don Black was, did not investigate the matter any further, and did not repudiate Don Black or Stormfront. All they did was issue a blanket statement about racism, see here. Goode looks the fool, again. He has no shame.

Besides, Goode's argument is a dumb one. When you send the money back, it entirely repudiates the source -- no questions asked. There is not even an appearance of influence or impropriety or support of the organization, which you would think is especially important for Ron Paul given content of his newsletters. Of course questions will be raised under the circumstances.

Goode cannot argue his way out of a paper bag, so he turns into a puny, malicious little rat.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

Among other reasons, the one expressed by you at the time: Elijah's *genuinely* racist rantings here on SOLO and on his own blog. The point made by you and Luke, as I recall, was that we should not, and we should not be seen to, accept backing from such a disreputable source.

You just shot Michael in the foot.

There was nothing wrong with the colour of Elijah's money. The Libz could have accepted Elijah's generous offer and, at the same time, issued a statement to the effect that, while Libertarianz supports Lineberry's views in so far as they coincide with Libertarianz principles and policies, Libertarianz does not otherwise support Lineberry's views and that, in fact, the Party repudiates racism and anything else unsavoury which Lineberry might appear to endorse. In fact, the idea was mooted. I poured cold water on it. It would not wash. It would still have been a bad look for the Party.

There was one reason only that the Libz campaign should not have accepted donations from Elijah Lineberry, viz. because it should not be seen to do so. Because it would be a bad look.

Which brings us to smear leader Moeller. Why is he banging on and on about the fact that the Ron Paul campaign received donations from neo-Nazi sources, has been apprised of the political views of the sources, and continues to accept such donations? It's not because it's wrong to accept such donations, because it's not wrong to accept such donations. And it's not because he is concerned, as I was for the Libertarianz Party, that it's a bad look for the Ron Paul campaign. No, it's precisely because it's a bad look for the Ron Paul campaign.

It's a smear.

(Speaking of smears, I have some mud to unthrow on another thread.)

When Rhetoric Doesn't Match Reality

Michael Moeller's picture

It seems no matter how much evidence I give on Ron Paul -- including both his character and his policies -- people still want to insist this guy is for capitalism and a constitutionally-limited republic as the founders intended. I provided plenty on defense, social issues, and economics. Well, let's dig a little deeper on domestic fiscal policy.

As everybody knows, the real problem is mandatory entitlement spending -- a bomb that is set to go off in the coming years. Ron Paul has indeed acknowledged this bleak outlook.

How has Ron Paul proposed to deal with the entitlement crisis? It depends on which Ron Paul you ask.

Here Ron Paul says that entitlements are unconstitutional, and I agree. Here Ron Paul says he will end SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Great! Here he says he will cut those programs by 20%. Uh-oh, backtracking quite a bit from the unconstitutional programs he wants to end. Here he says we don't have to cut SS and Medicare/Medicaid to get our house in order. Some "stick-your-dick-in-the-mincer" honesty, that.

Will the real Ron Paul please stand up? Fortunately, I think we can answer that question.

Here is Ron Paul's recently released budget proposal for 2013-16, and here is Obama's budget proposal for 2012. Scroll down to the entitlement numbers in each. Notice anything? Like, I dunno, the fact that Ron Paul increases spending on Medicare and SS over Obama's 2012 budget. Or how about the fact that Ron Paul continues to increase them throughout his budget at roughly 8% and 5% per year, respectively? The only reform in there is that he will spending freeze the Medicaid/S-Chip combo. What a maverick reformer this guy is!

His cuts come almost entirely out of discretionary spending, which are not the primary source of moral parasitism and the continually expanding federal budget and liabilities. The discretionary cuts are pretty much a one-shot deal and, while welcome, will not resolve any long-term budget problems. Even here, Ron Paul is playing loose with reality. Even if Congress gave him everything he wanted, it would still take years to transition things like selling off all federal lands. Or, as the author put it:

"Paul doesn’t even bother to supply transitional funding for these agencies or any of their subsidiary responsibilities. They just disappear. It’s simply not a serious plan at all.
...
Had Paul been truly creative, he would have worked through the obvious implications of his cuts and provided a rational path for their success. Instead, Paul simply proposes cuts on a spreadsheet and then washes his hands of the consequences. That’s vintage Paul, but it’s certainly not leadership."

Ain't that something?

The whole rationalization for Ron Paul thus far has been that he would allegedly bring the federal government under constitutional constraint. Well, not only did I point out how Ron Paul would abstain from his constitutional function to enforce individual rights violations by the states, but he would also allow the federal government to perpetuate the biggest rights-violating/deficit-exploding programs in the federal government!

Michael

Paul Budget

atlascott's picture

"Don't you think if he was serious about the deficit he would put forth a plan to end entitlements? You're looking at a mirage, my friend."

How is he going to get votes from the 50% of Americans who owe half of their income to the Federal government if he immediately attacks entitlements? You do not have to know much about Paul to understand that he does not support entitlements, but look at the way he wants to cut the government Departments. Not by wholesale layoffs, but by reducing size by attrition. That is the humane way to do it for Americans who have grown dependent and need some adjustment time.

"Romney tinkering around the edges by raising the SS retirement age, means-testing, etc. would do more long-term for the budget deficit than Ron Paul's discretionary cuts, and that's a big problem."

No, it wouldn't necessarily. And it is also a less principled approach. Romney is pure pragmatism. Turn off the cameras and he is a big government Republican. He would grow the government.

"I am being generous to Ron Paul here, as I think his tendencies are anarchist and he would love to see the US military gutted and helpless in the face of Islamists."

Eh, not so generous. He is for strong national defense. He is just against giving away 50 billion per year in foreign aid and trillions in unnecessary military expenditures for interests that are not America's.

I always find it to be phenomenally curious why self-proclaimed liberty lovers would support empire and nation building and occupying other countries, rather than bringing swift and efficient ends to real and demonstrated enemies. It costs so much in cash and blood, and I guess before I want an ounce of my countrymens' blood spilt, I want a really good reason to risk it. Others are more cavalier with the government's use of a man's life, and that is a dangerous road to go down.

I think Iran is an enemy state, so to that extent, I disagree with Ron Paul, and their leader has said, point blank, that his goal is to wipe Israel off of the map. It is time we take them at their word. Air power and technology, not eternal boots on the ground.

Still, we are electing a President, not a King. Ron Paul could not prevent a war if Congress really wanted it. Just note that the Soviets and China, to a lesser degree, have cozied up to Iran, so their response would be interesting.

Elijah

Richard Goode's picture

I am presuming "you won't have a teenaged husband for very long" is referring to the fact the clock is ticking?

Of course! Hence my remark, "God willing, it might be a life-long union," and link to the verses from the Book of Proverbs.

some trip to the fortune teller - car crash, serious illness-wise.

Heaven forbid! I think you just inadvertently illustrated my point

That if you wish not to be misunderstood, you must assume that your audience is brain damaged. Otherwise, they'll get completely the wrong end of the stick

I should have assumed that you're brain damaged, LOL!

(Sadly, though, each of us has one foot in the grave. Every day is "one day nearer the marble tombstone" as my grandfather liked to remark as he poured the port.)

Thank you for your kind

Elijah Lineberry2's picture

Thank you for your kind comments, Richard; I am presuming "you won't have a teenaged husband for very long" is referring to the fact the clock is ticking? and not some trip to the fortune teller - car crash, serious illness-wise.

We have been enjoying a very relaxing 10 day holiday at Waihi Beach... (fortunately far enough up the coast to have avoided the oil)... celebrating his birthday, before he begins his final term at high school next week.. [the final burst of marxist indoctrination, alas].. and, curiously, it was he - rather than my good self - who commented on the fact he is a year older and will soon no longer be a teenager; his comment on Monday "ugh I am getting old" seemed somewhat bizarre. For once I was literally speechless ha ha.

That biblical quotation thingy on that link seemed very nice, thank you, and I hope works out that way too Smiling

A Little Perspective

Michael Moeller's picture

Tinkering Around the Edges

Michael Moeller's picture

Ross,

The meat in the budget is entitlements. Ron Paul's proposed $1trillion cuts in discretionary spending do not even get us back to the 2007 Bush Budget. Paul Ryan's plan is the most serious proposal on the table regarding the restructuring of entitlements. Ron Paul criticized Ryan's plan as not going far enough, which is a fair criticism.

So what does Ron Paul propose instead? Block-grants to the states on entitlements. That's not a serious proposal -- that's no proposal at all. It simply passes the buck to the states to implement their reforms -- some of which could be good, some of which could be atrocious. Some states would attract parasites, and the transfer of wealth will still happen by any future presidents who bailout block-grant to the socialist individual states.

Don't you think if he was serious about the deficit he would put forth a plan to end entitlements? You're looking at a mirage, my friend.

Romney tinkering around the edges by raising the SS retirement age, means-testing, etc. would do more long-term for the budget deficit than Ron Paul's discretionary cuts, and that's a big problem.

His spirit is anarchist, and I'm glad it's lacking in the political discourse, which is why I would describe it as anti-Federal (see previous questions on evidence for Ron Paul where he would promote Fed protection of individual rights against states; in the absence thereof, I do think it is appropriate to describe him as anti-Federal). In any event, the Founding Fathers you named were Federalists, with Jefferson straddling the line perhaps. Considering that Washington invaded Canada and Jefferson sent the navy after the Barbary Pirates, it is a bit rich to compare their foreign policy with Ron Paul's, don't you think?

My main point being that Federalists like Madison won the debate and wanted no part of the Articles of Confederation, or the pure "states' rights" position, which is a misnomer considering states do not have rights. Ron Paul's position, at best, would turn the states into separate warring "factions" (i.e. what Madison wanted to avoid) free to impose individual rights restrictions at-will. I am being generous to Ron Paul here, as I think his tendencies are anarchist and he would love to see the US military gutted and helpless in the face of Islamists. No thanks.

Michael

Elijah

Richard Goode's picture

Congratulations on the recent nuptials, old chap! Just what you always wanted, eh? Ha ha! Well, you won't have a teenaged husband for very long, but who knows? God willing, it might be a life-long union. Here's what I think (you'll have to reword it a bit, obviously).

A few lighthearted posts written as either a pisstake or to annoy anally retentive pc idiots and marxists do not a racist make ... these people have a sense of humour (sorely lacking in some quarters) and also know when someone is clearly pulling their leg.

It goes back to Jesus, you know. Forever speaking in parables, answering (nearly) every question with a question, and occasionally taking the piss. But what lesson is to be learned from the two millennia of Christianity that ensued? That if you wish not to be misunderstood, you must assume that your audience is brain damaged. Otherwise, they'll get completely the wrong end of the stick, and probably try to kill you, or at least declare that you're a very, very sick individual. Or a racist.

Here's a politically incorrect joke for you and your new friends up north. It's one of my all-time favourites, actually. Eye

What were Jesus's last words to the Maori?

"Don't do anything until I get back."

Michael

Ross Elliot's picture

"I agree with what you say, but it is not an either-or. It is not let's either go back to the anti-Federalist "states' rights" theory, or let's embrace an overly intrusive federal government. And with his anti-Federalist view, what is Ron Paul doing running for Chief Executive of the federal government?"

Don't you think that an anti-Federalist (not anti-Federal, careful now) view is exactly what's required?

As I've said before, Ron Paul, is what's sorely lacking, in spirit, if not in body. That's my point.

You want four more years of Obama? No, I suggest. Then who? Perry? Romney? C'mon. Those guys will tweak and twiddle but effect no real change. They'll fiddle while America burns.

If I have the choice between restoring America qua America--that is, a constitutionally constrained federal government--or international nation-building, then I choose the former.

Time's up. The debate is no longer about targeting Islamists in foreign lands. The question is who will restore capitalism within America. If that comes down to the slithering snake-like conservatism of Perry-Romney or the clear cut, stick-your-dick-in-the-mincer honesty of Paul, then where are you gonna go? Because those are your choices.

Hell, do we need to outline the travesties of foreign and domestic policy perpetrated by the likes of Washington, Adams and Jefferson? Yet we hold those men up as exemplars of the American ideal. We do that, because, on balance, they spoke the truth, despite their shortcomings.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

"In which case, we must finally meet up and celebrate over some reds and many vodkas!"

Anytime, actually! Eye

After some comments on this

Elijah Lineberry2's picture

After some comments on this discussion where I was not only unnecessarily mentioned, and which accused me (yet again) of racism, I contacted Lindsay yesterday to complain.

He generously agreed that I should have a right of reply.

I text messaged (although I somehow managed to cock that up - bloody cellular telephones!) and emailed him as follows -

".. "If you are going to defame and "bag" someone on your website you should give them some right of reply (or perhaps get your facts correct?); my total donations to the Libz was $50 in October 07 - other offers of assistance being declined. A few lighthearted posts written as either a pisstake or to annoy anally retentive pc idiots and marxists do not a racist make, my dear. If I am so "obviously" racist, and you are so rational and objective, perhaps you may like to join those dots and explain why I married a Maori boy a few months back (well, civil union); a teenaged husband - just what I always wanted ha ha! Elijah"

I would like to point out a couple of things for the brain damaged;

1. In October last year I met a lovely Maori boy. One thing led to another and we entered into a civil union (what we call 'Gay Marriage' here in New Zealand) in January 2011.
He is a member of the Ngapui tribe, like Hone (!), and during the last year or so I have spent a considerable amount of time around Maori people from 'up North'.

2. Due to my recent nuptials, and company I keep, those seeking to call me racist simply end up looking a bit bloody silly don't they?

3. I have shown various posts from my old blog, and solopassion.com from 2007/08, to people 'up north' - indeed as recently as the weekend before last on a Marae in some godforsaken place in the Hokianga - which have been viewed with pants pissing hilarity by the Maori folk reading them; these people have a sense of humour (sorely lacking in some quarters) and also know when someone is clearly pulling their leg.

My thanks again to Lindsay for this opportunity to respond Smiling

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You say:

I never disputed the phenomenon [Airhead America], just how widespread it is. Let's both hope I'm right.

As I said to you on Ed Hudgins' thread: "You have hope; I have none, except the hope that you are right!" If, notwithstanding the ubiquitous smelly barbarian entitlement mentalities, Obamugabe gets thrown out next year, I might agree with you that there's hope. In which case, we must finally meet up and celebrate over some reds and many vodkas! Eye

Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Among other reasons, the one expressed by you at the time: Elijah's *genuinely* racist rantings here on SOLO and on his own blog. The point made by you and Luke, as I recall, was that we should not, and we should not be seen to, accept backing from such a disreputable source.

Of course we're not on the same page. Michael objects to Ron Paul's acceptance of donations from Nazi kooks. You then accuse Michael of "smearing" Ron Paul. For every criticism of Paul he has made, Michael has provided bountiful evidence. You prefer your death-metal whims to evidence. We are not remotely on the same page, nor even, I hope, in the same book.

The over-arching point is, Ron Paul is Islamoterrorism's friend. A friend of liberty he ain't.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

For the same reason that the Libz campaign should not have accepted donations from Elijah Lineberry, I would have thought.

And what reason was that? In your own words. (This is important. Let's see if we're on the same page here.)

Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Please explain why the Ron Paul campaign should not accept donations from neo-Nazis.

For the same reason that the Libz campaign should not have accepted donations from Elijah Lineberry, I would have thought.

Congenitally inconsistent as always. Normally you'd be the first to condemn anything or anyone as "racist" on the most nauseatingly facile, knee-jerk, PC grounds (e.g. your fatuous dismissal of Doug). Then, when confronted with real racists of the type who support Ron Paul you're quite happy to share their bed!

Inconsistent on a superficial level only. Consistently on the side of unreason—and the evil that it spawns.

Goode

Michael Moeller's picture

Because these lunatic groups should be ostracized in every manner possible. Rejecting the donations serves as an unequivocal repudiation of what they stand for -- not just in words, but in actions as well. In Ron Paul's case, such a repudiation is particularly important given the racist content of his past newsletters.

A good example of how it should be handled is when, after 9-11, Rudy Giuliani told Saudi Prince Alwaleed and his moral equivalence to go stuff it.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Please explain why the Ron Paul campaign should not accept donations from neo-Nazis.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

I never disputed the phenomenon, just how widespread it is. Let's both hope I'm right.

Quite so, Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Airhead America," I believe someone called it. Eye

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

After watching the videos of the Occupy Wall Streeters and listening to Goode's argument, I'm beginning to think Rand understated the matter. These people go to college, get degrees, and yet have no thinking skills whatsoever. They fly on auto-pilot to the Land of Groupthink -- to the extent they can be bothered to think at all. It's criminal.

Michael

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What I enjoy about Baade is that he brings out the best in you. And his eye-popping irrationality is an object lesson. He is proof that Ayn Rand wasn't exaggerating. What puzzles me is why he bothers, since he's on record as saying no one can help thinking as he thinks and acting as he acts. Guess he just can't help himself. But I'm glad he does bother, partly for the reason just stated. I get to savour the delight of dander-up posts by the eloquent and talented Moeller. Smiling

Eye-popping

Michael Moeller's picture

Absolutely eye-popping the things Goode says. He writes:

"Evidence has nothing to do with it. That's the whole point of smears. You throw the mud, it sticks. Damage done."

Evidence has nothing to do with it, he says. Let's try this on for size.

Situation A: I say: "Richard Goode beats his wife". No evidence for the statement at all.

Situation B: Same statement, and I have video of him beating his wife, along with testimony from his wife and eye-witnesses.

Goode sues for slander, and I present the evidence in Situation B where truth is a defense. Goode's argument is that evidence has nothing to do with it and all I've done is thrown mud at the wall. The guy would be laughed out of court. Or the state charges Goode with battery in Situation B, and Goode's defense is that his wife is "playing the man, not the ball" and just "smearing " him. Goode would find himself behind bars.

In Situation A, I would be liable for slander and the state would have no case at all. Yet, Goode sees no difference between the two. Evidence has nothing to do with it, he says. Worse, by Goode's gorilla logic (i.e. evidence does not matter), he has not smeared me when asserting that I am involved some "orchestrated smear campaign" against Ron Paul, and provides ZERO evidence of "orchestration" or a "smear". Yet, I've "smeared, smeared, smeared" Ron Paul even though I have presented a multitude of sources and evidence from all over the political spectrum on Ron Paul's campaign contributions, his 9-11 Truther courting, and his statements about the racist content of his newsletters. You figure that out. The guy is completely off his rocker.

I know this point will go right over Goode's head, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Anything involving state of mind, like intent or motive, HAS to be inferred from the evidence because you cannot peer directly into somebody else's mind and see what they are thinking. This does not mean, however, that you float any old motive, but rather that you need their statements and actions to back it up. You know, like the actions of Ron Paul's campaign in keeping the money and refusing to shut down the donation links, and their statements about why they did so.

In Goode's reality -- and I have no idea what reality that is -- evidence has no bearing on the issue. When I first read Goode's post, I thought it was a hoax. I can't believe this didn't occur to me before, but I've never considered the fact that Goode is just plain stupid. I say that with absolutely no intent to insult the guy, but as a mere statement of fact regarding my state of mind when I read his post.

Now let me say something about the character issue. Damn right character is an issue for a presidential candidate!!

In 2008, the MSM refused to vet Obama and his ties to Marxists, anti-American militants, black racists, and a number of other left-wing nutjobs, such as Reverend Wright, Father Phlegler, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and others. Nor did they look at any of his Marxist statements or report on such earlier statements as wanting to nationalize healthcare. Then Obama goes on to appoint a bunch of Marxists and anti-Americans in Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Eric Holder, and the list goes on. The media was completely complicit and his braindead supporters turned a blind eye while basking in the glow of their Messiah.

Sound familiar? Ron Paul is cavorting with anarchists, 9-11 Truthers, and neo-confederates. His supporters turn a blind-eye eye to anybody pointing to the facts about his history and connections, and, even worse, they shoot the messenger. Lord only knows what kind of freaks and miscreants he would appoint. Oh, but he wants to end the Fed and cut the size of the federal government, they say. Who gives a crap. He is a crank and he is surrounded by crackpots. The guy is treasonous on foreign policy and has disastrous ideas about the Constitution.

Now that the tables are turned and his supporters have to vet their own candidate, they make every excuse in the world for Ron Paul. No, I am not going to be painted as the bad guy by Scott. I consider them as complicit as the MSM in regards to Obama.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

the facts show Ron Paul received donations from neo-Nazi sources, knew of the source, and continued to accept them against protestations. A rational person would not continue such acceptance and would distance themselves in every way possible, just as one would from 9-11 Truthers if one was accused of being one such crackpot.

You really can't help yourself, can you? Smear, smear, smear.

What smears? You've yet to prove anything. ... You catching on how evidence works yet?

Evidence has nothing to do with it. That's the whole point of smears. You throw the mud, it sticks. Damage done.

Did you catch my two allusions to Ronald Reagan? Plenty of good smear material there. Ronald Reagan was beneath contempt. This is an inference drawn from the evidence, which I presented here. I didn't smear Ronald Reagan.

That you resort to smearing Ron Paul is prima facie evidence that you have lost the debate.

Scoundrel Syndrome

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode: "Of course, I won't. I'm not interested in your smears of Ron Paul."

Oh, I see. You're interested in my alleged "smears" of Ron Paul until your arguments prove that either you cannot read or are cherry-picking facts, then you move on. Exactly as I said.

Goode: "Accusing me of blindly and robotically repeating charges, for example."

You did it by your own admission, and thanks for providing an excellent example of the phenomenon, btw. All you did was Google "smear campaign", and then blindly and robotically asserted I was engaged in an "orchestrated smear campaign". No evidence of "orchestration" or any "smear". Nothing, besides arguments that fell flat on their face and you no longer care to defend. A useful idiot, just like I said.

Goode: "Perhaps it is the same type of motivation that compels you to continue to play the man, not the ball, blindly and robotically repeating smears against Ron Paul, while denying that you're part of an orchestrated campaign."

What smears? You've yet to prove anything. By contrast, the facts show Ron Paul received donations from neo-Nazi sources, knew of the source, and continued to accept them against protestations. A rational person would not continue such acceptance and would distance themselves in every way possible, just as one would from 9-11 Truthers if one was accused of being one such crackpot. An inference drawn from the evidence. You catching on how evidence works yet?

Now let's hear the evidence of "orchestration" and some more of your wonderful arguments supporting a "smear".

Michael

Capill syndrome

Richard Goode's picture

This is the classic Progressive tactic of accusing others of what they are themselves engaged in. Google it.

No need to Google it. I'm well aware of the "tactic of accusing others of what they are themselves engaged in". It's called Capill syndrome. And you just accused Progressives of accusing others of what they themselves are engaged in, didn't you? You know, I think you're engaging in a bit of accusing others of what you yourself are engaged in, don't you? Accusing me of blindly and robotically repeating charges, for example.

Perhaps it is the same type of motivation that compels one to appear numerous times on the show of one of the most notorious 9-11 Truthers, while denying he is a 9-11 Truther. Wink, nod, nudge.

Perhaps it is the same type of motivation that compels you to continue to play the man, not the ball, blindly and robotically repeating smears against Ron Paul, while denying that you're part of an orchestrated campaign. Wink, nod, nudge. Oh, wait! You didn't actually deny that you were implicated in an orchestrated smear campaign, did you? Guilty as charged, then!

Perhaps Goode can shed some light on these questions. But he won't.

Of course, I won't. I'm not interested in your smears of Ron Paul.

Scoundrel Redux

Michael Moeller's picture

Oh gee, I wonder if Goode posted his "arguments" so he could repeat charges of "scum" and "smear campaign". He googles "Smear Campaign", finds allegations of a smear campaign against Ron Paul, and floats the implication that I am somehow part of an "orchestrated" smear campaign against Ron Paul. What purpose could such a post have other than to implicate me in some sort of "orchestrated" smear campaign"? None. No evidence whatsoever for this floating implication. The guy's a scoundrel.

Notice the stories about Ron Paul's newsletters, campaign contributions, and 9-11 Truther courting come from the leftist The New Republic, conservatives like Levin and Malkin, and the libertarian Reason magazine. Yes, everybody from all over the political spectrum is out to get Ron Paul. And news organization like CNN and the multitude of Texas newspapers are in on it too. Yep, people like Levin present the facts about Ron Paul at the price of finding themselves smeared all over the web by Ron Paulbots. I am sure Alex Jones will tell us how this is another plot by the Bilderberg cabal -- when they're not busy orchestrating wars in Iraq and Iran during secret meetings in Europe. It's no coincidence that the biggest crackpots in America support Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is fully willing to appear on their shows/functions.

This is the classic Progressive tactic of accusing others of what they are themselves engaged in. Google it. Go look at the Ron Paul support forums and take a look at what they are saying about the other candidates and those who criticize Ron Paul. The stuff is so vile and filled with conspiracy-mongering I refuse to link to it. They prey on useful idiots who have no concern for the facts and will blindly and robotically repeat charges (see, e.g., Richard Goode).

Let's take a look at Goode's "arguments" because they are once again instructive.

Goode: "Indeed, it's a reasonable question. I assure you, I would be the first person to ask it. But the actual question is, "Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?" Say what? $500? Ron Paul's is a multi-million dollar campaign. Michael is stirring a shit storm in a teacup."

This is an interesting argument, and by interesting I mean that he cites facts against his own position. The fact that it is a paltry sum in comparison to his total is all the more reason to give it back. Why hold onto a measly $500 from one of the most notorious neo-Nazis? His campaign could have easily dispensed with the matter by sending back a check for $500. What other candidate in their right mind would not simply do that? Not Ron Paul.

And either this is a case of Goode cherry-picking facts again, or he cannot read. Stormfront had links for donating to the Ron Paul campaign, and the campaign refused to shut off the IP addresses from which those donations stemmed. Could it be that the campaign did not want to shut off the spigot of anonymous internet donations emanating from that site and contributing to their internet "money-bomb"? Perhaps it is the same type of motivation that compels one to appear numerous times on the show of one of the most notorious 9-11 Truthers, while denying he is a 9-11 Truther. Wink, nod, nudge.

Goode: "I took a good look, and there was nothing much to see. Supposedly, Paul has made comments such as 'Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries out of all proportion to their numbers.'"

Goode's "good look" apparently missed comments such as: "Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: 'Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.'" I would certainly like to see that study.

According to Goode these statements are "nothing much to see", so then why would Ron Paul in 1996 say that the statements were "misrepresented" and "taken out of context"? Furthermore, why in 2008 would he deny even making or knowing who made the comments at all, if they are so innocuous as Goode claims?

Perhaps Goode can shed some light on these questions.

But he won't. He'll do just as he did before and move on to the next topic where he can get in a smear or deflect, just like he did when proven wrong about the lacing of drugs that he called "rubbish" and an "urban myth", and was reduced to muttering about Jimmy Wales being the founder of Wikipedia. That was so pathetic that I was embarrassed for him and thus did not respond. Well, he got me to respond. Congratulations Goode.

Michael

Smear Campaign

Richard Goode's picture

Well, guess what? If you go to Google and type "smear campaign ", Google Instant suggests "smear campaign against ron paul". Clearly, there exists an orchestrated smear campaign against Ron Paul.

I was looking for the track "Smear Campaign" by Napalm Death. This one's for Michael. (With "Atheist Runt" thrown in for good measure.)

Play the ball, not the man. ;-)

Gary Johnson

Richard Goode's picture

I canceled my vote for Cain and gave it to Johnson. Unfortunately, that means Ron Paul now has the clear lead. ;-)

No politics in my future. I have effectively pulled the pin on my political career with my stance on drugs, and I recognize that up front. - Gary Johnson, 2001

Scott

Richard Goode's picture

You've got Michael tagged.

I followed the links in Michael's post. That's when I realised the true depths of scumminess that Michael had plumbed.

Michael beseeches us to

Check out the White Supremacy and neo-Nazi supporters that donate to his campaign and show up at Ron Paul's rallies

and then notes

Now, a politician is not responsible for the views of those who donate to his campaign or show up at his rallies.

So why mention it? Of course, a politician is not responsible for the views of those who donate to his campaign or show up at his rallies! Neo-Nazis? Such support is evidence that Paul has persuaded them to accept his philosophy, it is not evidence that he has accepted theirs. At least he's not laying wreaths in Nazi war cemeteries.

However, it is reasonable to ask why Ron Paul is not returning the money once he knows of the source.

Indeed, it's a reasonable question. I assure you, I would be the first person to ask it. But the actual question is, "Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?" Say what? $500? Ron Paul's is a multi-million dollar campaign. Michael is stirring a shit storm in a teacup.

Even further, it is reasonable to ask why is he attracting their support.

No, Michael, it's not. You put yourself in the same category as those in New Zealand who, six years ago, asked why Don Brash was attracting the support of the Exclusive Brethren. The scum category.

Well, take a good look at the whole sordid episode of the racist content in his newsletters here, here, and here.

I took a good look, and there was nothing much to see. Supposedly, Paul has made comments such as "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries out of all proportion to their numbers." If that's racism, what do you call comments such as, "White women are being raped by black predators in very large numbers and whites are being slaughtered by black savages in bulk... many blacks and Hispanics are rotten to their core ... I myself avoid blacks and Hispanics whenever possible."

Michael has presented ample evidence to further his argument that Ron Paul is indeed one of the worst influences on American politics.

Judge not, lest ye be judged!

Doug & Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Thank you both very much for the support, compliments, and sanity in re Ron Paul.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I salute you sir. You're thinking skills are formidable. I seriously hope you eventually write books or treatises at some point in the future. Objectivism desperately needs minds like yours.

I do think it reasonable to ask, are you going to return the compliment now that you know the source?

Scott - very disapointing

Doug Bandler's picture

I'm sorry to say this but you have revealed your soul and by defending the indefensible you're soul is stained. Michael has presented ample evidence to further his argument that Ron Paul is indeed one of the worst influences on American politics. The man is helping to discredit any legitimate challenge to the Left. He is one of the reasons that good people like Garry Johnson can't make a break through in American politics; ie the more libertarian candidates get associated with Ron Paul's nuttiness (it didn't help that Johnson is a little bit of a Saddamite himself).

Michael,

I salute you sir. You're thinking skills are formidable. I seriously hope you eventually write books or treatises at some point in the future. Objectivism desperately needs minds like yours.

Lindsay,

Once again you provide the sanest analysis from the O'ist perspective. I salute you too sir.

Go on, Scott!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Answer Michael's questions. If you're going to call his noble and rigorous posts "scummy," at least provide some evidence for your epithet. If something is truly "scummy" I'm the first to say it should be called such. But what I see from Michael are impeccably muscular serves against someone, Ron Paul, who is indeed scummy—showing him to be so.

I remember the Rockwell/Paul racism scandals blowing up on an earlier occasion. Following Michael's present links and encountering "Muslims for Ron Paul" and such like, I'm reminded that it was you, Scott, who said right here that Islam is a mere bee-sting on a cancer patient. From whom, I wonder, did you get inspiration for such diminution of the Islamofascist threat?

The primary cancer is, of course, unreason. Islamogoblinism is one of its most virulent forms right now. Paulanoma, which feeds Islamogoblinism, is another. Michael's posts serve as a salutary and incontrovertible reminder that Paulanoma is part of the disease, not part of the cure.

Ron Paul, the terrorists' best friend in America.

Tell me how it is misleading

Michael Moeller's picture

Go right on ahead. How does one explain Ron Paul's statements in 2008 to CNN vis-a-vis his statements in 1996 regarding the racist content of his newsletters? How is it misleading to point out what he said? I want to know.

Furthermore, I specifically said he is not responsible for those who donate to his campaign or shows up at his rallies. But I do think it reasonable to ask why his campaign refuses to return the money now that they know the source and why these people are showing up. Do you not?

Scummy

atlascott's picture

Nonsensical, purposely misleading, and scummy post, Michael.

You know, I'll bet there are some Neo-Nazi who share your preference for favorite color...lol.

You're calling Ron Paul a crackpot? Haha.

There's a name for using known-false arguments and known-invalid argument techniques as you are showing here, man.

I'm glad I don't have time to correct your strawman critique of Ron Paul (though as I've said, he isn't perfect, just by far closer than any other candidate). It's a waste of my time, and I'm wear my good shoes, and hip-waders and a snorkel are probably necessary to plumb the deep bullshit floating in this thread, thanks largely to you.

Ross

Michael Moeller's picture

I agree with what you say, but it is not an either-or. It is not let's either go back to the anti-Federalist "states' rights" theory, or let's embrace an overly intrusive federal government. And with his anti-Federalist view, what is Ron Paul doing running for Chief Executive of the federal government?

One of his primary constitutional functions is as Commander in Chief, and his views on foreign policy alone singularly disqualify him to run as president. Check out this video from Mark Levin where he quotes Ron Paul -- near the 10th anniversary of 9-11 in Iowa -- blaming America, once again. Oh, and let's not forget this Ron Paul classic where he accuses the US government of wanting to stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident to drum up a war against Iran. He says this on the House floor for chrissake, and nobody calls him on it. Indeed, as this latest Iranian plot has unfolded (nevermind the Iranian proxy war against Americans in Irq and Afghanistan), and Ron Paul is being rightly ridiculed for his statements about Iran, his crackpot followers are busy flooding the comments sections and promoting conspiracy theories about how Eric Holder is drumming this up as a distraction from Fast & Furious.

When Dennis Kucinich says this stuff, he is rightly labeled as a crackpot. Yet, Ron Paul partners with him on foreign policy and everybody excuses his statements because he pretends to be a defender of the Constitution. There's a reason his foreign policy has gotten the backing of such vile outfits/people as CodePink and Cindy Sheehan. No way, no how should this man be vying for Commander in Chief. Listen to a Ron Paul speech and see how he adopts the language of the hardcore left by using such terms as "militarism", "corporatism", "illegal wars", "neocon", "miltary-industrial complex", and on and on.

As Chief Executive, his job is to enforce federal laws. I don't want a man who is going to allow states to run rampant in violating individual rights, but to enforce federal law against such violations. His "imaginary" 14th Amendment is the most important federal protection against violations of individual rights. Will a Ron Paul DOJ enforce the "phony" 14th? One of his most important functions is to nominate SCOTUS justices. Will he nominate people who want to turn the Constitution in to the Articles of Confederation? Quite frankly, to call Ron Paul an anti-Federalist in favor of the Articles of Confederation is too much of a compliment and a disservice to people like Patrick Henry, however flawed their views were. At one time, Lew Rockwell, an anarchist and his biggest supporter, was his chief of staff. Doesn't it make some logical sense that they see this anti-Federalist approach as a stepping stone to their anarchist utopia? An inference, yes, but not one without merit.

The federalist system -- the balance and separation of powers among the states and feds and among the branches -- is essential to the American republic and one of the things that makes it unique around the world. A man who would smash that system is cutting out the heart of the republic, while distracting liberty-minded people with policies such as ending the Fed. I want the end of the Fed, but not at the price of the federalist system, which is one of the critical features of the American republic.

Ross, I understand perhaps that you guys overseas might not be familiar with Ron Paul's sordid history and followers, so let me touch on that a bit as well. I did not want to touch on this earlier as I thought it would distract from my intellectual objections, but this needs to be laid on the table.

Check out the White Supremacy and neo-Nazi supporters that donate to his campaign and show up at Ron Paul's rallies. Now, a politician is not responsible for the views of those who donate to his campaign or show up at his rallies. However, it is reasonable to ask why Ron Paul is not returning the money once he knows of the source. Even further, it is reasonable to ask why is he attracting their support.

Well, take a good look at the whole sordid episode of the racist content in his newsletters here, here, and here. In a 2008 CNN interview, Ron Paul denied knowing who wrote the statements. One might be inclined to charge him with incompetence, considering the newsletters had his name on them and were making a lot of money for him. However, when this issue was brought up during his 1996 congressional run, he was quoted in the Dallas Morning News and other newspapers as saying that he was misrepresented and the quotes were taken out of context when he wrote the newsletters. This is at the same time when Lew Rockwell was serving as his chief of staff and is alleged to have written those articles. This is also at the time when the Rothbard-Rockwell crew were trying to form a "paleo-conservative" coalition with anti-Semite Pat Buchanan.

Ron Paul has denied being a 9-11 Truther. Yet, I think it is reasonable to ask why he has appeared numerous times on Alex Jones' radio show -- a 9-11 Truther and one of the biggest conspiracy nutcases on the planet (who was he playing to with the "Gulf of Tonkin" bit?). Why is he speaking to Truther group called Student Scholars for Truth and making statements about pairing up with Dennis Kucinich to start a new investigation into 9-11 and potential government cover-ups. (See the quotes from Malkin's article.)

And any time he is criticized or these issues are brought up, the Paulbots come out in droves to smear those presenting the facts. Just look at the comments sections of the articles I have linked to and the smears leveled at Malkin and Levin. Or check out this most recent incident when Rick Perry entered the race and this guy got email-bombed from Ron Paul supporters claiming Perry was a sex addict who frequented strip clubs. This story emanates from one of Ron Paul's big donors who took out an ad in the Austin Chronicle and was offering money to dig up sex dirt on Rick Perry, and take a look at the evidence provided. And it is everybody else out to smear Ron Paul. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Needless to say, the sooner Ron Paul is gone from American politics and the sooner his rabid supporters fall off into the abyss, the happier I will be.

Michael

Michael

Ross Elliot's picture

I don't believe for one second that a state has the right to contravene the Bill of Rights, or any amendment to the federal constitution. And if Paul does, in particulars, then he's wrong. To do so, would take us back to the Articles of Confederation.

But that doesn't change the import of his general thrust, that states are independent of the feds excepting for those powers granted to it by the constitution, and that those powers have been exceeded to a massive degree.

The test will not be Ron Paul's opinions but the weight of jurisprudence in favor of the BOR and subsequent amendments.

The fact is, that we should rather have citizens voting with their feet between states based upon particular state enactments and with the protection of the BOR, than oppressive and unwarranted federal intrusions.

Breaking News

Michael Moeller's picture

Iranian terror plot in US foiled.

I just don't believe it. You know, if it wasn't for backing the Shah in 1953 this never would've happened. The author of that article asks:

"If true, would that not be an act of war? We’re presently using drones in Pakistan and Yemen against al-Qaeda terrorist networks for plotting similar attacks, thanks to the AUMF from October 2001, even though we’re nominally allied with both nations. If the government of Iran plotted attacks on American targets, that should require a response from the US, should it not — or do we send a signal that even attacks from actual nation-states fall under the rubric of law enforcement?"

Neither, we need to have "talks" with them and offer them trade. It will provide jobs and a boom in the US centrifuge industry.

"Suppositions" and such

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "I have been searching for more detail regarding Ron Paul's position on the 10th and 14th Amendments -- from his actual mouth or pen, rather than supposition or inference as to what his positions are."

That's quite a statement, and by that I mean it completely misrepresents the evidence I have provided.

I have provided numerous policy positions of Ron Paul's that support a state's intrusion into individual rights, including an individual mandate, sodomy laws, abortion, and gay marriage. I tied it to quotes and statements of his, including an article where he treats the 14th Amendment as "imaginary". I've also supported it with other statements such the states have "leeway" to do "bad things", and how he would "remove jurisdiction" from the federal courts so that states "could do what they want".

I gave a direct quote from Ron Paul that states the 14th implies that the 9th and 10th Amendments have been repealed. Does Ron Paul's view on 10th-14th interplay get any clearer than that? Not according to Scott, who thinks that such a direct quote is mere "supposition" or "inference".

And what evidence does Scott use for rebuttal?

A generalized quote that supports the states having powers over those areas not enumerated and given to Congress under the federal Constitution. I don't have issue with that, and would not have issue with Ron Paul if that was only his position. It's not.

Ron Paul has taken the extreme position that the federal government cannot intrude on these "states' rights" even when there is legitimate authority for the feds to act (see individual mandate and other examples). Further, Ron Paul sets no limits on the "leeway" for states to do "bad things", i.e. usurp individual rights. What is the name for the concept that does not limit the power of a government -- be it federal or state?

Ergo, the challenge for Scott and others is to provide evidence to the contrary:

1.) Give policy examples and articles/quotes where Ron Paul says the states cannot do something, where they cannot usurp an individual rights. I've given plenty of examples to the contrary, and no counter evidence in that regard has been provided.

And

2.) Give policy examples and articles/quotes where Ron Paul says it is legitimate to federal government to stop the states from usurping individual rights. I've given plenty of examples to the contrary, and no counter evidence in that regard has been provided.

You can provide the requested evidence, or you can stomp your feet at reality and level unsupported charges of "smearing" Ron Paul. Your choice.

Scott: "A big criticism of the 14th Amendment as it has been used by "activist judges" is that its "due process" clause opens up federal jurisdiction and decision-making to any and every topic under the sun."

That's a new one on me. To the idea that the feds give adequate protection under the 14th, I can only say IF ONLY. For a prime example, see Kelo.

The modern application of the Due Process Clause gives "economic rights" the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny -- known as the "rational basis test". Since the New Deal Court, SCOTUS has taken the position that the judiciary should refrain from striking down legislative acts involving economic rights -- i.e. rubber-stamping just about legislative act that bears some purported "legitimate state interest".

Ron Paul's argument is not that individual rights are not being properly protected under the 14th against state intrusion. Ron Paul is not arguing for a stricter standard to be applied by SCOTUS. Quite the contrary, he considers the Due Process Clause "imaginary" and is running around asserting that the federal courts should be stripped of jurisdiction when it comes to state laws that usurp individual rights.

It is not just particular positions of Ron Paul's that I disagree with, although I find many odious. His conception of the 10th and 14th strikes at the very core of the balance and separation of powers, and I take offense to this guy calling himself a "constitutionalist".

Michael

Ron Paul on the 10th Amendment

atlascott's picture

I have been searching for more detail regarding Ron Paul's position on the 10th and 14th Amendments -- from his actual mouth or pen, rather than supposition or inference as to what his positions are. The 10th is:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Which, to me means: if a power is not specifically delegated to the Feds, then they should keep their noses out of it and leave it to the States and individuals.

Ron Paul on the 10th Amendment

"A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas."

If the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it pre-empts conflicting State law, then how could any State law which refuses any Federal Constitutional protection at any citizen of any state ever pass muster? It cannot. This was always my reading of the Constitution, even before reaching the 14th Amendment.

Think about it for a second: what sense does the Constitution make if the Federal enshrines right to bear arms, and then every State in the Union passes a law banning guns? It would make no sense at all.

The biggest problem with the 10th right now is: via the Commerce Clause, the Feds have essentially said that they have jurisdiction over everything: meaning, the States and individuals have none. Or very little.

That's why the Commerce Clause as interpreted is so dangerous. There is very little purpose to the 10th Amendment now.

I haven't seen anything which suggests that Ron Paul thinks that States may legislate as they please in derogation of the Federal Constitution or that the 10th Amendment allows such.

A big criticism of the 14th Amendment as it has been used by "activist judges" is that its "due process" clause opens up federal jurisdiction and decision-making to any and every topic under the sun.

Cliff's notes: 10th Amendment - Federal Power is limited to that enumerated; 14th Amendment - States cannot make laws in derogation of Federal protections.

Anyway, I am not sure that I have seen anything which clearly shows that Ron Paul believes that States may enact tyranical laws in derogation of the US Constitution.

Libertarianism and Ron Paul

Richard Goode's picture

To dispute this alleged "urban myth", Goode cites Wiki.

I cited Wikipedia, not Wiki.

Did you know that Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, is an Objectivist and a libertarian?

When asked if he could trace "the Ayn Rand connection" to having a political philosophy ... Wales labeled himself a libertarian, qualifying his remark by referring to the United States Libertarian Party as "lunatics" and citing "freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them" as his guiding principles.

Wikipedia's other co-founder, Larry Sanger, is a philosopher with a Ph.D. from Ohio State University.

Hell, the guy can't even offer an opinion.

Are you kidding? In my last comment I offered

the problem with Ron Paul is not that he cuts his political philosophy with intellectual strychnine, but that his political philosophy is pure libertarianism, cut with nothing.

and in an earlier comment I offered

Iran today [is] a clear and present danger ... We must NOT let them acquire nuclear capability.

so it ought to be clear that I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul. Care to comment?

Scoundrel

Michael Moeller's picture

I wasn't going to respond to any more of the drug posts, but this last by Goode is just too good to ignore. This is a prime example of not only his illogic, but also his dishonest argument tactics.

Goode: "Your sources say that heroin is cut with strychnine (rat poison), arsenic, laundry detergent, and cleaners like Ajax. They do not show it."

From my first source, which Goode conveniently sidesteps:

A team of researchers (Shesser et al, 1991) also went through DEA bulletins and the forensic science literature from 1982 through January 1989 looking for reports of contaminants. They found mentions of 48 substances, everything from heroin and amphetamine to baking soda and caffeine--but no strychnine or arsenic. Strychnine and arsenic were found on occasion in heroin, though.

Does Goode have a problem reading? Best case, yes he does. It even names the paper where the study can be found. Yes, cutting with these lethal substances is noted on a bazillion websites, and I specifically chose that one because it cited a comprehensive study. What's the argument going to be this time? That the DEA and scientists are lying from 1982 to 1989?

No, Goode cannot admit he was wrong on a simple fact and instead slices and dices from parts of the articles to create a scattershot of diversion.

1.) To dispute this alleged "urban myth", Goode cites Wiki. Yet, if you read his Wiki article, it says absolutely nothing about any "misconceptions" concerning strychnine and arsenic in heroin. The strychnine part applies to LSD and is linked to an article on LSD.

Can Goode not read his own sources, or is Goode deliberately misleading?

2.) He attacks the motivations of the people behind the articles. Logical fallacy #1. What does that have to do whether the fact heroin is cut with strychnine and arsenic?

3.) He cites other parts of the articles and disputes those, as if being wrong or contradictory on other points makes them wrong on that fact. Logical fallacy #2.

4.) I've cited tons of examples from Ron Paul's policies, along with examples from articles and quotes. I've even asked Goode three times to answer a simple question, and he has thus far refused, just like he always does. Yet, this creep performs a little hop-skip-jump and likens me people who try to "scare the pants off" potential drug users, stating that I am trying to do the same with Ron Paul voters. Logical fallacies #3, 4, and 5. He offers no argument, no facts, no nothing. Hell, the guy can't even offer an opinion.

Goode really is some piece of work.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I was drawing an analogy between the method of the drug-pusher and Ron Paul

Yes, I got that. It was a bad analogy.

Well, now you forced me to look it up because this is a subject with which I have no familiarity. Indeed, drug-pushers do cut drugs with more lethal poisons that are cheap and available. Here and here show that heroin is cut with strychnine (rat poison), arsenic, laundry detergent, and cleaners like Ajax.

Your sources say that heroin is cut with strychnine (rat poison), arsenic, laundry detergent, and cleaners like Ajax. They do not show it. In fact, TheGoodDrugsGuide (your second source) also says

It's impossible to judge the purity of street heroin. ... it's impossible to determine how pure street heroin is or what other substances it has been cut with.

Why trust a source that contradicts itself? (To maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.) Why trust a source that refers to heroin users, derogatorily, as "smack users"?

I agree that drug addiction is a choice,

So why trust a source whose very raison d'etre is to push treatment for a non-existent disease?

The idea that heroin is cut with strychnine is an urban myth. Moreover, it's a recycled urban myth. Trust Wikipedia. And

maybe why strychnine and other poisons figure so prominently in media and for that matter medical reports of the dangers of drugs

is because such stories "sure scare the pants off potential users", according to The Straight Dope (your first source).

I simply figured that there are drug-pushers who used cheap, available products as a substitute to cut drugs.

There are. Last time I bought drugs they were cut with 90% Drano H2O. But your original claim was not that drug-pushers cut "drugs" with "cheap, available products". Your claim was that drug-pushers cut "lethal poisons" with "other lethal poisons". You're a moving target.

If you want me to improve the analogy, Ron Paul cuts his political philosophy with intellectual strychnine.

I'm not particularly interested in Ron Paul. But it strikes me that the problem with Ron Paul is not that he cuts his political philosophy with intellectual strychnine, but that his political philosophy is pure libertarianism, cut with nothing.

I think you're trying to scare the pants off potential Ron Paul voters.

Can I call you Moeller?

Scott

Michael Moeller's picture

"What vexes me is that Objectivists, like GOP attack dogs on FOX News, devolve into name calling and smearing a guy on Ron Paul's character."

To whom are you referring? Please, call the people out by name. No doubt I called Ron Paul an imbecile, and I made my arguments as to why he is an imbecile. But "smearing" him? This is an extemely offensive and bold accusation. If you are referring to me, please name me directly and name the issue, thanks.

Michael

Fox News - O'Reilly smears the bias against Paul

Sandi's picture

Well said Scott

Sandi's picture

"What vexes me is that Objectivists, like GOP attack dogs on FOX News, devolve into name calling and smearing a guy on Ron Paul's character."

I totally agree with you.

(I am still writing my response to this matter and hope to post it soon).

Right on, Ross

atlascott's picture

"But, I've said it before and I'll say it again: if we have the choice between restoring the promise of America within the vision of the Founders and within the limits of the Constitution, or sinking into the mire, we must side with Paul.
Does that mean that the actions taken in Afghanistan in late 2001 were wrong? No, they were right on the money. Does it mean that if we have credible intelligence that Iran has a nuclear launch system that we just sit back and wait for Israel to be incinerated? No, we bomb that capability back to the stone age.
But further than that, I say no to nation building and decade long wars in pursuit of it. I say make America a strong capitalist nation again, stop protecting an ungrateful world from its own folly, and stop pretending that an Objectivist-orientated state could sanction 90% of what's being done in our name."

One of the reasons it is easy to criticize Paul is: he actually PUBLISHES his positions.

I do not support all of his foreign policy positions. But foreign policy is not of utmost pertinence right now.

Addressing the economic and cultural critical mass is.

It seems clear to me, as it is to you, Ross, that of the choices, Paul is far and away the best. Those on this site fail to address the real issue on foreign polciy, anyway -- and that it that it is essentially a MORAL issue. Wars are not a video game. They have real and profund cost. just because America has a history of foolishly squandering its wealth and citizenry does not mean that the cost should be disregarded.

Stealing $1 or a billion are both theft. But the trillions needed to continue this suicidal foreign policy and the DOMESTIC policy which has come along with it is something that nio loer of freedom can ever pretend to be tenable.

What vexes me is that Objectivists, like GOP attack dogs on FOX News, devolve into name calling and smearing a guy on Ron Paul's character.

Sad.

Kyrel

Michael Moeller's picture

"So Ron Paul has a certain amount of truth on his side here.

Um, no he doesn't, not in regards to the execution of bin Laden and al-Awlaki. If anything, the president's power as Commander-in-Chief has been reined in by recent SCOTUS decisions. Ron Paul's position on bin Laden/al-Awlaki is not the historical or legal precedent for the conduct of presidents during wartime. The US has different standards for the laws of war than it does in a common criminal context.

Since this ties in nicely with Scott's criminal justice defense, I will address the legalities in due course and as time permits.

Michael

Ross

Michael Moeller's picture

With all due respect, your last two posts are nothing but pure assertion. They prove nothing.

I agree that nobody in their right mind would construe the 10th to support unlimited power by the several states, but you are operating under the faulty asumption that Ron Paul is right of mind.

Framing the debate in terms of the Founding Fathers is an excellent idea, so let's put your contention to the test.

Ron Paul, in his answer to Chris Wallace, stated that individual states could impose an individual mandate to buy a good or service. There are not many policies that would intrude more on the free market and one's right to liberty and property than a state forcing them to buy a good or service.

1.) Which Founding Father would endorse this act by an individual state and under what construction of the 10th, or any other provision?

Ron Paul has also rejected free trade agreements with other countries. His allowing states "leeway" to do "bad things", however, is not confined to economics. Indeed, he believes that the states can intrude on the bedrooms of gays under the 10th. He believes that abortion can be outlawed by the individual states under the 10th. He believes the federal government should not set immigration policy, and would leave it up to the states.

My quote from the article on anchor babies I think is an excellent summation of his entire approach, to wit: "I would remove jurisdiction from federal courts so the states could immediately do what they want".

I've given multiple positions and direct quotes/articles on the matter, so:

2.) Please provide me with the policy instances and articles/quotes in which Ron Paul sides with the federal government enforcement against an individual state's usurpation of individual rights.

That brings me to the second part of Ron Paul's quote ("But when you refer and use the 14th Amendment, it implies that the 14th amendment repealed the Ninth and 10th amendment")and your central contention that he is a topshelf representative of the Founders' views, which I find beyond absurd, quite frankly.

If somebody asked me if I had to pick the one and most important clause of the Constitution, I would without hesitation pick the Due Process Clause. The Framer and referred to as "the Madison" of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, stated that the 14th naturally follows from the 5th's Due Process Clause to ensure that people are secure in their property and liberty against state intrusion. Ron Paul, by contrast, thinks the 14th repealed the 9th and 10th, and has shown his willingness to dispense with individual rights when federal government attempts to enforce the14th's Due Process Clause against the states.

3.) Whose view is consistent with the Framer's -- Ron Paul's or John Bingham's -- and which do you support?

Finally, I want to touch on the issue of honest and integrity. Ron Paul signed the bill that authorizes the president to use lethal force against terrorists. Now he says that there was no congressional authorization for taking out bin Laden and al-Awlaki as those killings are against "the rule of law" -- a law he signed.

4.) Does this exhibit the kind of integrity exemplified by the Founding Fathers.

Michael

Rule of Law vs. Unlimited Executive Fiat

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I marvel at the frequent incompetence of Ron Paul's foreign policy. Over and over he comes down on the side of tyranny, mass-murder, and America's enemies. This can't be an accident!

That said, Congressman Paul has a good point. Altho' Awlaki was justly exterminated, that jihadi should have been either tried and convicted, or declared war upon, or both. Today's American federal gov't deliberately operates outside the law in its War on Islam. This is wildly dangerous and intensely immoral. Proper legal principles are pretty easy to follow here. But George Bush and Barack Obama far prefer to operate outside the reach, control, and oversight of American law and the constitution. The natural, if not inevitable, result of such gov't usurpation and amorality is ever-growing tyranny for all.

So Ron Paul has a certain amount of truth on his side here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.