Some of Ron Paul's Strange Bedfellows?

[BaalChatzaf]

See

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the...gn_and_its.html

One wonders how careful Paul is in picking his allies.

I do not know who I will vote for in Nov of 2008, but it sure will not be Ron Paul

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

See

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the...gn_and_its.html

One wonders how careful Paul is in picking his allies.

I do not know who I will vote for in Nov of 2008, but it sure will not be Ron Paul

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, there's ANOTHER reason not to vote for Ron Paul.

Alfonso

[Brant Gaede]

He won't be running with the nomination of the Republican Party. He has not demonstrated political gravitas by becoming a US Senator or gov of Texas. Congressmen are not viable presidential candidates and no US Senator has been elected Pres since Kennedy. He would be a disaster. The idea that Musllims are after us because we have antagonized them and we should stop is 180 degrees wrong. They are after us because while the Jews are the Jews of the Middle East, Americans are the Jews of the world. If Kennedy was a Berliner, I am a Jew.

--Brant

[galtgulch]

He won't be running with the nomination of the Republican Party. He has not demonstrated political gravitas by becoming a US Senator or gov of Texas. Congressmen are not viable presidential candidates and no US Senator has been elected Pres since Kennedy. He would be a disaster. The idea that Musllims are after us because we have antagonized them and we should stop is 180 degrees wrong. They are after us because while the Jews are the Jews of the Middle East, Americans are the Jews of the world. If Kennedy was a Berliner, I am a Jew.

--Brant

Thank both of you for making me aware of this issue. I had him on a pedestal giving him more than the benefit of the doubt because of his advocacy of the Constitution, limited government, the Gold Standard, abolition of the IRS and repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, along with assumptions about his character and his touted principled positions.

Given the "liberal" immigration policies of European countries I fear that Europe will succumb to the Islamic invasion. I still believe that there were WMD in Saddam's Iraq which were trucked off to Syria and are still there. Although Bush waited too long to attack Afghanistan I find the whole issue very complicated and quite a mess to be able to come up with a sensible solution or policy. Potential nightmare looms but is everyday reality for more rational humanistic folks who grew up under the irrational indoctrination which prevails throughout the region.

It is a shame that Paul has not promptly rejected the support of those cited in the article linked above.

As for the Iraq situation I sympathize with those who want to withdraw immediately but that would leave the country vulnerable to a takeover by the bad guys and if so then that country would be a perpetual threat because they would nurture and harbor terrorists n'est pas?

This election is discouraging with no one who should get in from our standpoint standing much of a chance. Looks like our ideas will have to percolate a few more decades before they become policy.

Thanks for the head's up. So who is worth supporting in this race? Romney? Guiliani? Certainly not Hiliary, Kucinich, but Dodd sounds good but I am not aware of enough of his positions to know of a deal breaker, still he has not much chance.

galt

[Dragonfly]

As for the Iraq situation I sympathize with those who want to withdraw immediately but that would leave the country vulnerable to a takeover by the bad guys and if so then that country would be a perpetual threat because they would nurture and harbor terrorists n'est pas?

n'est-ce pas?

[Greybird]

It's easy to agglomerate any nonsensical combination one wishes from those who support, in whatever degree, an effort that does not demand that supporters adhere to a particular standard. That does not make such supporters anyone's "bedfellows."

I'd think that this had been practiced often enough, among those who despise Objectivists and sympathizers — mostly, other Objectivist factions — that those here would see it when it's so obviously practiced toward someone like Ron Paul. I clearly thought too highly of the discriminatory powers of those here.

Anyone who doesn't see the essential similarities between this American Thinker (hardly) article and Schwartz's "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," in their anti-rational screeching, doesn't have the judgment to participate properly in such a discussion.

I'd also thought that the notion of "tainted money" — not which came from outright theft or fraud, but which carries some vague moral opprobrium from those who provide it — would have been finally discarded by now. What matters is what Paul does with the money. His probity and choices, not those who, by an infinitely variable set of standards, choose to give it to him.

And that's all I can stand to bring up about this. Especially in regard to those thirsting for endless bloodshed, such as Robert Kolker, who now deign to show some moral fastidiousness. Or those who ignore entirely the phenomenon of blowback, from decades of an imperial foreign policy — which phrase Paul does not shy away from using, to his eternal credit.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I personally find the the following argument too weak to be anything but a call to look-see if there is any real problem:

So-and-so supported Ron Paul with a 500 dollar donation. So-and-so is antisemitic. Ron Paul did not denounce So-and-so, therefore Ron Paul is antisemitic.

From everything I have ever read about Paul, he is not antisemitic or bigoted in any manner. Some of his minor supporters are. Yawn... There are Jews who support Ron Paul, too (and see here). There is lot's more out there.

If there are any real issue here, that would be different. The only thing this kind of smear shows is the fear of those trying to smear the man (not OL posters, who to my mind are simply taking a look-see and analyzing the issue out loud, but those behind the smears).

I am still ambivalent about Ron Paul, both pro and con, for a series of reasons (that concern issues that actually exist). But I despise smears wherever they are practiced. Unless there is something in Ron Paul's policies or past that indicate that he advocates antisemitism, I treat this charge as nothing but a smear. It is disgusting.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

And that's all I can stand to bring up about this. Especially in regard to those thirsting for endless bloodshed, such as Robert Kolker, who now deign to show some moral fastidiousness. Or those who ignore entirely the phenomenon of blowback, from decades of an imperial foreign policy — which phrase Paul does not shy away from using, to his eternal credit.

I yearn for bloodshed -precisely- because I am morally fastidious. Hard problems call for hard solutions (sometimes). If you want Goodness, then be prepared to slay Evil.

By the way did you notice the question mark on the title I gave to the original posting? The kind of folks that Paul seems to attract has raised questions in my mind. Since I cannot read Paul's mind (or anyone else's) all I can do is ask questions. Eventually Paul will give us answers.

I am particularly disturbed by Paul's implication that it is our "imperialism" (ha!) that has created the problem. Nonsense! Radical Muslims have been attacking the West for hundreds of years. Vienna was attacked by Muslims in 1453. Somehow those attack are Our Fault or The Fault of the West? Does he really believe that if we retreat behind our moat and portcullis the attacks will cease? I sure don't. Islam is the name of our Pain at this juncture. After Islam is eliminated, we can get back to our Other Problem, how we can be just with and to each other.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

After Islam is eliminated...

Bob,

I honestly try to take you seriously, but when you say things like this, all I see is a deluded old man. Nobody is going to eliminate Islam, just like nobody eliminated Christianity or Buddhism or even weird things like Satanism. An outright national, philosophical and military effort was engaged to eliminate Judaism (according to your recipe for Islam) and it did not work.

Reality doesn't work the way your delusions work. It just doesn't.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I have been expecting there would be a problem for Ron Paul and some his supporters. I am reminded that when Ronald Reagan received John Birch Society support he said that he was being supported by the JBS members that Reagan was not supporting the society. Dr Paul would be wise to say something of that sort.

I would also hope Paul would say something like the Holocaust happened. His record in Congress show he does not support the charge that he a Nazi.

Objectivists should not forget as Barbara Branden has pointed in her wonderful talk at the Atlas 50th event that Ayn Rand was accused of being a Fascist.

I want to empasize that I haven't decided to support Dr. Paul.

[Martin Radwin]

After Islam is eliminated...

Bob,

I honestly try to take you seriously, but when you say things like this, all I see is a deluded old man. Nobody is going to eliminate Islam, just like nobody eliminated Christianity or Buddhism or even weird things like Satanism. An outright national, philosophical and military effort was engaged to eliminate Judaism (according to your recipe for Islam) and it did not work.

Reality doesn't work the way your delusions work. It just doesn't.

Michael

Michael,

In the areas of physics, mathematics, and philosophy of science, Bob Kolker is obviously a highly intelligent man. In these fields, he would probably even qualify as brilliant. Understanding the finer details of special relativity is not the province of fools.

In the areas of political philosophy, ethics, and foreign policy, I doubt that there's a single person posting here who takes Bob very seriously. His views in these areas are not only ludicrous but criminally immoral.

As such, Bob is a living example of the principle that a person can be absolutely brilliant in certain areas and absolutely stupid in others.

As you've indicated, if a "final solution" to the Jewish problem was not successful, the probability of success of a "final solution" to the Muslim problem is vanishingly small, not to mention the utter barbarity of such an attempt.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Two or three nuclear bombs, well placed, and the Jews are effectively GONE. Judaism needs more Jews, a lot more. Bob makes sense tribally--them or us. From the tribal perspective killing a billion Muslims to save, what?--10 million Jews, makes all the sense in the world. Never mind it can't be done.

The Jews are a tribe with tribal sub-categories. This is true of all the great monotheistic religions. Culturally I'm a WASP. This tribe is so big one in it hardly thinks he is in it even if he's an atheist. But I can imagine going to a Protestant service and in a basic sense feeling at home even while despising the ranting from the pulpit. I can't imagine the same thing for a Catholic service, even if in Latin mumbo jumbo.

America being Israel's implicit ally means the Jews there feel they don't have to go crazy with this us or them thing, but the U.S. is trying the keep Israel's nuclear genie in the bottle and keeping the oil flowing and so on and so forth. Eventually the U.S. will lose this battle, probably because of Pakistan, and Israel will suffer horribly if it let its American dependence weaken it in various important aspects, like serious civil defense, regional alliances and cooperations, anti-missle defense, playing one Muslim side against another, etc.

If the Israeli Jews don't have Bob's attitude--I'm talking about backbone, if he really has one--never mind the hairbrained, immoral policies, they will eventually get stomped, horribly stomped. They have the brains to save and protect themselves without doing Hitler one better.

--Brant

[Danneskjold]

Wish I knew enough about what Ron Paul was saying about our past involvement in the Middle East to know if Paul is right or full of it. I do remember a speech by Paul being somewhat iffy on historical facts regarding how peachy things were after we pulled out of Vietnam.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert Bidinotto on his blog has some posts about Dr. Paul and non-intervention. I think I remember a quote from Paul that suggested that there were no bad effects after South Viet-Nam fell to the Communists. Paul did not remember the great number of boat people who fled Viet-Nam or the killing fields in Cambodia.