Angry White Man: The Bigoted Past of Ron Paul

[Bidinotto]

My blog commentary on the Ron Paul article in The New Individualist can be found here.

It is loaded with links to the various publications and commentaries in question, for anyone who wishes specifics. It also discusses the wider views of Ron Paul that are completely inconsistent with individual rights.

It's unfair to ask me to rehash here everything I said there, or that Steve Green wrote in his TNI article on Ron Paul. Those who want to see the TNI article that set off the furor are invited, once again, to subscribe to the magazine.

TNI continues to be discussed in the major media (this article alone was cited in the Washington Times, the Tampa Tribune, and the Seattle Times) and all over the Blogosphere. To get a free sample copy of TNI and learn what you've been missing, click here.

-- Robert

[sjw]

My blog commentary on the Ron Paul article in The New Individualist can be found here.

It is loaded with links to the various publications and commentaries in question, for anyone who wishes specifics.

It's loaded with a litany of opinions of other men and links to articles other people wrote--but zero analysis of the contents of the newsletters. So I don't think "specifics" is the right word.

The author who wrote the original smear piece reveals his motive for writing it:

"Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!"

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/j...on-paul-is.html

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't understand what all the hub-bub is about. Let's say Ron Paul is a goofball. I'd rather have a goofball who likes hard money, less government, abandoning the imperial project. Maybe I'm a simpleton.

W.

[sjw]

I don't understand what all the hub-bub is about. Let's say Ron Paul is a goofball. I'd rather have a goofball who likes hard money, less government, abandoning the imperial project. Maybe I'm a simpleton.

W.

That's just it. The Objectivists who are against Ron Paul are also for very strongly for the "imperial project". They cannot defend their foreign policy position on any pro-rights grounds, so they enthusiastically latch on to the smear-job.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

My, don't you guys feel all the love in the room? Jeeze-Louise!

I dunno...I saw Ron P. on the Colbert Report and I thought he was actually kind of sane, given what that means in the political animale' world.

And he's kind of funny, too. How do you manage to maintain that sense of humor when you're going after being the leader of the Free (or not-so-free) world?

It's too bad the LP is such a piece of crap these days. If I could find my LP card, I'd finally cave in and burn it.

As far as our current Fearless Leader<tm> goes, he's a puppet. Google "Bohemian Grove." Trace the history of the Bush family. Start thinking power elite. Hell, I think back and if I'm not wrong, Bush and Kerry never mentioned that they're like 9th cousins or something. Dem/Repubs dissolve, and it's not because of centrism.

You do some deep research and it sickens.

Ever see the Bin Ladin/Bush families holiday party photos?

rde

Fossil fuel: the devil's coin.

[John Dailey]

~ I agree with R. Engle, regarding how Ron Paul 'talks the talk.' I saw him interviewed on Glenn Beck and, man, paying attention to nothing but that, I'm tempted to vote for him! Glenn asked him about these 'conspiracy' theories his name has been associated to, and he flat out said (paraphrasing) "I'm not aware of that stuff,' and regarding the 9-11 Israel-backed/U.S.-supporting conspiracy made clear that he regarded it all as nothing he'd even consider as possible. He gave denigrating names to all such ideas (I forget how he characterized it.) So, kudos for his talking-the-talk.

~ Ntl...I notice that my previous post's question is being noticeably ignored (or, for Ron supporters...evaded.)

LLAP

J:D

[Martin Radwin]

~ Given that all that crap has been promoted in Ron Paul's name for so long, and that he just 'wasn't aware of it'...

...were he to become President, what other crap will be done under his auspices...which he also 'won't be aware of'?

~ Talk about having a history to back up 'plausible deniability' on, well, anything.

LLAP

J:D

First of all, Ron Paul is not going to become president. The main value of his campaign is and always has been that running for president gives him valuable media exposure with which he can hopefully expose large numbers of people to small government, libertarian oriented ideas. Presidential elections are the time when more people become interested in political ideas than any other, for better or worse. Ron Paul has in fact been quite successful at achieving this objective, more than most libertarians (or probably Paul himself) ever anticipated. This despite the fact that he certainly could have run his campaign much better than he has, by running ads more focused on his libertarian views and less focused on his conservative, nonlibertarian views. Obviously, the racist newsletters have also been an unwelcome distraction and pose the unfortunate danger of associating libertarianism with racism.

As to your hypothetical of what would be done under Ron Paul's auspices were he to become president, based on Paul's handling of the racist newsletters, it is important to remember that someone is going to be elected president, and it isn't going to be John Galt, as I pointed out in a post made earlier in this thread. So the question needs to be asked of whoever will in fact be elected president. What crap will be done under the auspices of John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani. or Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton? For a detailed play by play history of the crap done under the auspices of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, our last two esteemed presidents, see any of the last several books by James Bovard; he has documented their innumerable abuses against liberty in depressing detail. Should we expect anything better in the future from the existing set of candidates?

Martin

[Martin Radwin]

My blog commentary on the Ron Paul article in The New Individualist can be found here.

It is loaded with links to the various publications and commentaries in question, for anyone who wishes specifics. It also discusses the wider views of Ron Paul that are completely inconsistent with individual rights.

Of course, the views of all of the other presidential candidates, both republican and democratic, are even more completely inconsistent with individual rights than those of Ron Paul, by a wide margin. So I take it that you will not be supporting any of these candidates either. Right?

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

My blog commentary on the Ron Paul article in The New Individualist can be found here.

It is loaded with links to the various publications and commentaries in question, for anyone who wishes specifics. It also discusses the wider views of Ron Paul that are completely inconsistent with individual rights.

Of course, the views of all of the other presidential candidates, both republican and democratic, are even more completely inconsistent with individual rights than those of Ron Paul, by a wide margin. So I take it that you will not be supporting any of these candidates either. Right?

Martin

He is absolutely against a woman's right to an abortion.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Ron Paul has anything to do with human rights in any respect except their violation. His supporters can't even come up with one reference to the contrary. Of course, there's the right to life of the fertilized human egg the morning after whoopie..

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

My blog commentary on the Ron Paul article in The New Individualist can be found here.

It is loaded with links to the various publications and commentaries in question, for anyone who wishes specifics. It also discusses the wider views of Ron Paul that are completely inconsistent with individual rights.

Of course, the views of all of the other presidential candidates, both republican and democratic, are even more completely inconsistent with individual rights than those of Ron Paul, by a wide margin. So I take it that you will not be supporting any of these candidates either. Right?

Martin

He is absolutely against a woman's right to an abortion.

--Brant

And Rudy Guiliani is absolutely against an anti-abortionists right to not fund abortions.

Paul is not perfect, not by a long shot, but he is the best choice by a significant margin. At least his moral problems are limited by his committment to federalism.

For the record, I fucking loathe Paul's personal values, but at least his commitment to federalism means he is unlikely to use a Presidential bully pulpit to inflict his values on others.

Edited January 17, 2008 by studiodekadent

[sjw]

He is absolutely against a woman's right to an abortion.

He says it should be up to the states to decide that. Not perfect, but at least if he left it up to the states there would be somewhere to go. The trend to leave powers to the states is a good thing overall--it means rights lovers could migrate to one state and hold sway, something they can't do with massive federal powers.

Shayne

[sjw]

I don't think Ron Paul has anything to do with human rights in any respect except their violation. His supporters can't even come up with one reference to the contrary. Of course, there's the right to life of the fertilized human egg the morning after whoopie..

Why don't you just visit his web site? Against the drug laws, against the IRS, against the Welfare State, ... if you can't see anything pro-rights in that then you're cross-eyed.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Ron Paul has anything to do with human rights in any respect except their violation. His supporters can't even come up with one reference to the contrary. Of course, there's the right to life of the fertilized human egg the morning after whoopie..

Why don't you just visit his web site? Against the drug laws, against the IRS, against the Welfare State, ... if you can't see anything pro-rights in that then you're cross-eyed.

Shayne

So, we're just to infer it? However, I will visit his site and report back.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

There is no doubt I would support Ron Paul except for his war and foreign policy views. For me, that's too high a mountain to climb.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't think Ron Paul has anything to do with human rights in any respect except their violation. His supporters can't even come up with one reference to the contrary. Of course, there's the right to life of the fertilized human egg the morning after whoopie..

--Brant

I think Dr. Paul's policy position is that abortion should be decided by the several States, not the Federal government.

W.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Ron Paul has anything to do with human rights in any respect except their violation. His supporters can't even come up with one reference to the contrary. Of course, there's the right to life of the fertilized human egg the morning after whoopie..

--Brant

I think Dr. Paul's policy position is that abortion should be decided by the several States, not the Federal government.

W.

States should not have the right to violate rights.

--Brant

[sjw]

I don't think Ron Paul has anything to do with human rights in any respect except their violation. His supporters can't even come up with one reference to the contrary. Of course, there's the right to life of the fertilized human egg the morning after whoopie..

--Brant

I think Dr. Paul's policy position is that abortion should be decided by the several States, not the Federal government.

W.

States should not have the right to violate rights.

--Brant

You don't say! Thanks for the enlightenment Brant, what a wise old man you are!

Shayne

[John Dailey]

~ We really should stay clear about the fact that, IF we're talking in terms of O'ism, THEN to talk about 'rights' (individual, state, blonde), using the term 'should' is not apropos, other than talking within a myopically-irrelevent territory as 'presently legal.' --- There is no meaning to talk about 'X'...'should'...have a 'right' to, whatever. They got it, or they don't; 'should' implies they can get it if they don't have it, if they do 'Y.' This is an implication anathema to O'ism's views of 'rights', no?

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It sounded to me like Brant was making a quip.

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK, BRANT:

~ Um-m-m...ok; 'quip' as such accepted.

~ However, I'd phrase it more accurately as "States should not be allowed (more accurately, 'should be forbidden') by an accepted Federal Government, to violate their ('states') citizens' individual rights."

~ As an aside (and I'm sure there'll be some comments on this, coming from a 'Yankee' no less), that the Confederate states should have been 'allowed' by Lincoln to secede (and I understand his worrisome prob re expectable foreign interference following such an idea); ntl, thereafter, any violation of individual rights of a (so-called) 'slave' would have morally allowed any state 'sovereignty' to be ignored...at the President's discretion, state-by-state.

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 18, 2008 by John Dailey

[Brant Gaede]

No quip!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Sorry. I misread by skimming too fast.

I thought you said, "States should have the right to violate rights."

Now I see that it is clearly, "States should not have the right to violate rights."

Getting old or something...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Look here, Shayne, if you didn't share the name, sort of, with one of my childhood heroes, Shane!, I'd hate your hectoring ass! But you are on notice! I am about to unleash the full power of my rhetorical competence! Opps! I think I just did! (Please, pass the sarsaprilla!)

--Brant

[sjw]

Look here, Shayne, if you didn't share the name, sort of, with one of my childhood heroes, Shane!, I'd hate your hectoring ass! But you are on notice! I am about to unleash the full power of my rhetorical competence! Opps! I think I just did! (Please, pass the sarsaprilla!)

--Brant

Rhetorical competence would be a welcome change!

Shayne