Glen Whitman highlights a problem that was part of what I was trying to get at when I declined to cast a protest vote for Ron Paul:
Given the relative rarity of libertarians, both in the public eye and in general, most people’s judgment of libertarianism will be based on a very small sample – often a sample size of one. If the first libertarian someone meets is a smart, reasonable, decent person, they will come away with a positive impression and possibly a willingness to explore further. If the first libertarian someone meets is a wild-eyed lunatic, on the other hand, they could easily write off libertarianism as the ideology of wild-eyed lunatics.The Paul candidacy presents a special case of the small-sample problem. For many people, Ron Paul is the first and only libertarian-identified candidate they’ve ever seen receive any serious media attention. As a result, they may assume other libertarians share all of his views. Many libertarians, including Kling, are wary of supporting Paul – even though they probably agree more with Paul than anyone else in the field – because they fear the public will assume that all libertarians are anti-immigrant gold-bug conspiracy theorists (and possible closet racists).
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat sums up roughly my suspicions about Ron Paul's racial attitudes:
You know, I half-believe Ron Paul when he says that he is not a bigot or a racist or an anti-Semite. I half-believe him in when he says the inflammatory material that James Kirchick has uncovered in years and years of newsletters and pamphlets with his name on them was written by others without his supervision or direct permission. But what I'm nearly sure of is that he doesn't really care that much if some of the people around him are racists - not because he shares their opinions, but because he thinks those opinions aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.This doesn't make Ron Paul a terrible person; it just makes him human. He believes in a constellation of ideas - some of them nutty, but some of them not - that have been shunted to the fringe of American political life. And people who find themselves in that position tend to be far, far more forgiving of their allies' various tics and idiosyncracies and yes, bigotries than would otherwise be the case. It's unfortunate, but it's also human nature: If someone agrees with you and supports you when the whole world seems to be against you, of course you'll be more likely to look past their tendency to suggest that Mossad was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, or their fondness for pre-apartheid South Africa. When you're way out there on the fringe, without any obvious way to reach the mainstream, it's very easy to tell yourself that your dubious friends aren't really all that bad - and that besides, if you ever start finding your way back to the mainstream, it won't be all that hard to jettison them along the way. It's easy, as well, to start making excuses for them: If the mainstream accuses you of anti-Semitism, unfairly, because you're a principled non-interventionist who wants the U.S. to pull out of the Middle East, it's easy to find yourself making excuses for other people who get tarred (more justly) with the label. And then time goes by, the mainstream never gets any closer, you're spending all your time in a cramped and crankish and resentful world, and you hear yourself thinking hey, if these neo-Confederate guys are right about states' rights and the Constitution, then maybe they're right about race too ...
It's the most natural thing in the world. Just ask Sam Francis.
It kind of doesn't matter what he actually believes. A number of libertarians have argued that Dr. Paul is obviously not a racist because he has so many other crazy ideas that if he did hold repulsive racial views, he would have aired those too. I find this pretty unconvincing. Since my blog brought me out of the closet, pretty much everyone I know is aware that I think we should privatize Social Security, eliminate most forms of government spending, get rid of the corporate income tax, legalize heroin, etc. etc. Almost all of them think I am crazy. But they still associate with me. I myself am friends with at least one person who claims to be an actual communist, and doesn't suffer socially for it. However, if either of us started saying "You know, the real problem with America is race-mixing" that would clearly put us in an entirely different category of crazy loon: the kind you shun. Ron Paul doesn't have Tourette's syndrome; I presume he is able to discern these find distinctions as well.
But regardless of whether he believes the things he wrote, we punish people (socially) for enabling racism. Dr. Paul should be abandoned because that is how American society, and the libertarian movement, says: "Helping racists publish their nastygrams is totally legal, but it's not ok."
Incidentally, I apologize if yesterday's Ron Paul post came off as "I told you so". I'm not surprised that Ron Paul's newsletter occasionally plunged into the fever swamp to wallow in the muck, but it's not as if I knew this was coming.
And ending on a "hmmmmm" note, has anyone else noticed that the Paul supporters have completely disappeared? I have one left in my comments who was a regular reader before I ever posted on Paul. But the locust hordes are no longer descending on my comment section every time I mention the good doctor's name.
I am a Ron Paul Supporter, I don't generally comment. I have for the most part been ignoring your blog due to the tone you express about my candidate. Your opinion is valid because its yours but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I do however want to make sure you know we still exist even if many of us have decided to avoid your blog.
"Since my blog brought me out of the closet, pretty much everyone I know is aware that I think we should privatize Social Security, eliminate most forms of government spending, get rid of the corporate income tax..."-MM
And so she backs Barak Obama? I like Obama personally. He seems like a fine man. But I can't vote for him because he wants to expand the size of government and I want to cut it.
Obama wants no entitlement reform at all (and certainly no privatization), more government spending, and higher taxes on capital--yet somehow Megan thinks he's just dandy. Meanwhile McCain (and some other Republicans) want exactly the things Megan says she wants and she shuns them--even calling them plagues. I don't get it.
Re: the disappearing Paulites. Maybe they're still here, but they're all writing about Barack (H-word) Obama and being filtered out?
rwe: Based on my experiences and confirmed by the NH exit polls, it's simply a fad among rich, white liberals, including reporters and at least one blogger who rejected Chalcedonian christology after hearing Obama speak. Not that MM is one, but they're the people she associates with. I'd be happy to be proven wrong in her post explaining her support.
Um trouble is, he didn't write those things. And you know it. Yet you continue on this old debunked smear.
Why are you not equally upset about Hillary hiring a racist into her campaign who won't drink from fountains that the white people drink from? He is her campaign co-chair.
McCain is a plague.. I am ashamed that NH chose him along with Hillary.
I feel he is a liberal Trotskyite.
Liberal establishment candidate, war-mongerer, and ill-tempered veteran-with-an-axe-to-grind John McCain won the GOP primary in NH after the sheeple dutifully went to the polls in obedience to the many controlled-media newspapers who endorsed him.
McCain has been the defacto proponent of open borders, and supports government control over the internet and your ability to finance campaigns. He has stated he is in support of the ICC in violation of our US Constitution, subjugating our US sovereignty to international law. He is no Republican, no conservative, and definitely not a patriot.
Oh how the CFR must love it.
But the worst thing is, he's stated that he doesn't care if we stay 100 more years in Iraq? Al Qaeda has already noted this in their training manuals.
Ron Paul will be the next civil rights hero. We will have Ron Paul day...because of how he has awakened the country.
The 8 RP supporters who stood at the polls in my small town on the 8th were:
A PhD in computer science
A lawyer
An accountant
A computer scientist
A retired schoolteacher
A high tech worker
Two engineers
They were of these nationalities:
Jewish
Pakistani
Iranian
Irish
Italian
English
They are all quality people in the middle to upper class.
They all know the issues, unlike those voting for Hillary and Obama who vote for emotional reasons.
We already found vote fraud in two towns, Sutton and Greenville.
If you add up all the towns that might have done what they did, RP was cheated out of 10,000 votes - enough to put him in third place....how sad that we have unfree elections in Amerika.
>If someone agrees with you and supports you when the whole world seems to be against you, of course you'll be more likely to look past their tendency to suggest that Mossad was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, or their fondness for pre-apartheid South Africa.
What's wrong with PRE-Apartheid South Africa?
From article:
"...we punish people (socially) for enabling racism."
Remember, when the politically correct use the term racism, they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.
Woah, wait a minute - Tourette's doesn't afflict people with the inability to distinguish between socially offensive speech and acceptable. It gives them really bad tics, the most notorious of which are spewing dirty language. They know what they're saying, and in a mental sense not really "saying" it. I had a friend with Tourette's whose tick was constant side-to-side head shaking, but that didn't mean he was constantly saying "no."
What, we can't take a few days off to rest after NH? :)
Seriously, my poor ole' Paulite fingers are down to the bone from typing so many comments refuting stupid allegations that lesser-minded folk are apparently considering, without considering their source (PFY, aka Kirchick).
Anyways, I haven't been reading your blog much because there hasn't been much of real substance. We're just working on different parts of the 'net. But maybe if you showed us your +i+s...
Get off the whole racism red herring would you? Maybe then people will actually leave thoughtful comments on your blog.
If you continue to insist on pretending Ron Paul is a racist who is therefore undeserving of elections, you'll continue to offend people who actually care about real issues that affect our pocketbooks and our freedom.
Ron Paul's campaign isn't about Ron Paul, it is about every individual who dreams of freedom from the nanny state America has been morphing into.
Do you think my friends would shun me if they knew I don't recycle? Or is racism the only thing that's beyond the pale?
//has anyone else noticed that the Paul supporters have completely disappeared? I have one left in my comments who was a regular reader before I ever posted on Paul. But the locust hordes are no longer descending on my comment section every time I mention the good doctor's name.//
So are you a sadist who gets kicks insulting someone and by watching how their supporters react.
your blog is entertaining.. just that.
Jay
So here we are, all wrapped up in our favorite politician and clawing and scratching to take down whomever stands in the way. I guess this is politics in America. At least Ron Paul isn't being put in prison as a political dissident. Why do people continue this behavior? Our country is further from healing today than it was yesterday and it looks like the "disease" of partisanship is going to eat through what's left of the fabric of our civilization and leave us vulnerable to even more infections. Please consider the policy of each candidate and ask yourself who is putting forward the best plan for our nation. Remember, the person elected may get sick or otherwise not able to govern, so voting on a policy seems like a wise choice. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate putting forth a policy, the rest are running on campaigns similar to the kids down at the high school - popularity and empty promises (i.e., in high school you promise no school on Mondays, politician in Washington promise everyone will be made healthy and live in comfort until they are 90) which everyone knows is just down right silly. Consider the message made vocal by Ron Paul and many other millions (it's really not about Ron Paul it's about the policy of governing anyway) and forget the garbage that Washington and the media put out there. To every American, God bless and prosperity in peace, honor and strength in war.
"And ending on a "hmmmmm" note, has anyone else noticed that the Paul supporters have completely disappeared? I have one left in my comments who was a regular reader before I ever posted on Paul. But the locust hordes are no longer descending on my comment section every time I mention the good doctor's name"
I personally blame you jinxing us for the above comment thread
Remember, when the politically correct use the term racism, they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate
I'd like to think of myself as a bright guy, yet I've sat here and tried and failed to puzzle out how a) this connects with the passage you quoted or b) how that quote and its context in that article and in this discussion could possibly be relevant to that tried and true "Everyone is racist against white people!" meme.
That's right, Megan. The Paulites have been outnumbered. Freedom shall not reign. It will have to get worse before it gets better. Much worse. Can't blame us for trying, though.
"McCain is a plague.. I am ashamed that NH chose him along with Hillary. I feel he is a liberal Trotskyite."-NH
Well, the Borg are back. And they are as ignorant as ever. Anyone who would call John McCain a "Trotskyite" is so dumb there's just no point in debating with him (and I won't even comment on the contradiction inherent in the epithet "liberal Trotskyite").
McCain risked his life fighting the communists, after all, and was tortured by them for years. And he has been nearly alone in DC trying to hold government spending down. But why do I bother? The Paulites are too crazy to discuss anything with seriously and Megan McArdle seems more interested in ridiculing these stooges than engaging in a substantive political debate with more rational interlocutors.
They spamming Obama website and message boards trying to get a people on board a recount of NH because a few townships reported pauls numbers wrong, even though the exit polls match that of the results.
"Has anyone else noticed that the Paul supporters have completely disappeared?"
Nobody has disappeared. We are, for the most part, not feeding the trolls. The notion that Ron Paul is a racist is far kookier that any of the ideas that any of his supporters support. He is guilty of a lapse of judgment, at worst. Not only has he disavowed the content that was attached to his name, he has publicly assumed the "moral responsibility" for the content, and apologized. What more can be asked?
If anyone has heard Dr. Paul speak, not just on the campaign, but on the floor of Congress for 20 odd years, there is simply no justification for a belief that he is a racist. (If he were, I would not support him.)
Read the man's words:
I still don't see Ross's (and by extension, your) point.
Here's why:
I think the War on Some Drugs is ill-concieved, counter-productive, and harmful in many ways. If I were running for President, I'd strongly support ending it. I think there are good reasons for ending it, in spite of thinking that heavy, long-term use of psychotropic drugs is generally a bad idea.
Why would I be bothered by the fact that some of my supporters, who support the same policy I do, support it because "Man, I'll be able to smake up 7 days a week"?
Wow Megan, for someone who won't vote for Ron Paul, you sure write a lot about him. J
ust come out of the closet already and join us. We'll welcome you with open arms. ;)
Can you not write about something else, Meghan? Seriously, WE DON'T CARE what you think and everyone knows you just want the hits on your little blog here. Write about Hillary crying or McCain's favorite dish. You know, the issues that really matter.
"McCain is a plague.. I am ashamed that NH chose him along with Hillary. I feel he is a liberal Trotskyite."-NH
Ah, the Neo-Cons are (still) Trotskyists meme...though Irving Kristol has not been a Trot since about 1943.
I am a RP supporter but the racist commits have knocked the wind out of my sails just a little, not because I believe RP has a racist bone in his body, but because it seems like the hit pieces never let up, as soon as he gets a little traction BOOM.
RP voted to Legalize Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday back in the 80's and then again as a holiday for the NSA in the 90's. For him being as strict Constitutionalist and voting YES for only those things the pertaining to the Constition...I believe this is significant
Sorry to say that: He stuck-to-his-guns concerning BLACKS $500, for he a person who is not scared of "Bad Press" concerning his principles. In hind-sight this was a mistake especially now, for he should of given the money to some "black" charity or even to OBAMA this would of gotten him "good press" and would of been a help to him in dealing with this mess. RP 2008
As a libertarian, I'm incredibly disappointed in Ron Paul, though not really surprised. There's a huge gulf between the modern, cosmopolitan "hipstertarians" of Reason magazine and the Cato Institute and the unreconstructed, Old Right libertarians of the Von Mises Institute in Alabama. The latter are purely ideological and completely rigid--and Ron Paul is one of them.
What's more, the full extent of this scandal hasn't even broken yet. Paul keeps insisting that his association with bigots was a mistake and, anyway, is "ancient history." Not true. Paul has written dozens of articles for Lew Rockwell.com, a clearing house for bigots, neo-Confederates, and conspiracy theorists. His last article there was published two weeks ago. For quotes from the site and a link to his article, see http://distint.blogspot.com/2008/01/psa-these-are-not-libertarians.html.
Even though most of the articles written by Paul are either expositions of monetary policy or weirdly paranoid visions of the North American Union, he chooses to publish in a forum dominated by people who spew the vilest kind of hate onto the internet.
This isn't ancient history and it can't just be brushed away. Paul needs to answer for his complicity. I love libertarian theory and libertarians--they can be some of the most vibrant, fascinating, and kind people in the world, and it kills me to think that, because of Paul, their philosophy of hope and peace will be associated in the American mind with bigotry.
Given the relative rarity of libertarians, both in the public eye and in general,
Libertarians are rare in general. But they're far from rare in the public eye. The New York Times' front page currently features a Bloggingheads debate on the sex industry (slavery or empowerment?) between, on the one hand, someone from the Cato Institute, and, on the other, someone from...Reason Magazine. A NYT Week in Review piece on the Bali climate summit noted that it seemed likely that the world would finally be edging towards strict carbon emissions controls, but "Libertarians say" this may harm the global economy. No other particular viewpoint was presented; they didn't note what any other ideological group of similar numerical weight might think (Communists, say, or supporters of Islamic Jihad).
Libertarians are extremely prominent in the public eye, out of all proportion to their overall representation on the political spectrum. I have a vague feeling that the appeal of the ideology to the spectacularly rich anti-tax crowd may just have something to do with this.
When you're way out there on the fringe, without any obvious way to reach the mainstream, - Douthat
Ron Paul is a sitting United States congressman. Lyndon Larouche is way out there on the fringe without any obvious way to reach the mainstream. Ron Paul won the votes of the majority of the people in his district. He would still have plenty of friends if he fired every racist on his staff.
I agree with most of what you say, there was an article in the LAtimes (by Weigel ?) regarding the trouble Libertarians have with the guilt by association problem because of the academic nature of their political movement, and the weirdos it atracts.
I do disagree that Ron Paul is any kookier than any other candidate though.
The thing that you miss is that in fact, this is the most predjudice charged election since 1860. IF you have been watching, pundits are claiming that NH voters lied to exit pollers, who predicted that Obama should win, because they didn't want to admit they were NOT voting for a black man - Michael Dyson even suggested there are CODE WORDS used to trigger bigotry in voters. On the other hand, Many people vote for Obama because he is black. Chris Matthews suggests that by electing Obama, we will make foriegners feel good and like us more. Others talk of voting for Hillary because she is a woman - you've come a long way baby. Of course, Edwards doesn't want voters to vote for him because he is a white guy, and has said so publically numerous times ? ? All the while, they sound like they are running for school board, or president of pakistan with programs that will break the bank, giving to the health insurance companies. Kucincih knows better than this, but has seen UFO's.
The republicans are just as crazy, McCain wins, by saying the the war on radical Islam is the "Transcendent struggle of our time" and we can be in Iraq for 100 years? ? ? why not just nuke the bastards, and be done with it ?? - ok that was Tancredo.
Rudy wants ID cards, surveilence, no Habeus Corpus, because of events that have killed fewer Americans in the last 20 years than are murdered on the streets of our cities in one year. Romney wants to double guantanamo, and believes that an Islamic movement started in the 1960's is responsible for all the world's terrorism (forgeting, it seems, about the 1967 Israeli-Arab war.) and Fred Thompson, probably the only sane one, because it seems like he'd rather quit this stupid campaign, and go home to his hot young wife - the only sign of sanity from any candidate other than Ron Paul.
So who should I vote for Megan ? ?
"no longer descending on my comment section every time I mention the good doctor's name."
It's because your writing style is hackneyed and pedantic, and the content is generally uninteresting and with a undeserved smugness.
It's no mystery that people are generally avoiding your writings, sister. I mystified that you've been given your soapbox in the first place.....
For all you hacks, especially the author of this blog, here is a video I found when I was researching this issue. From the man himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qzPt_Ykse4
FYI, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but if I was a republican, he would most fit my views. Nonetheless, I have been following his campaign closely for the past two weeks now mainly because he is the only candidate on the Republican side who opposes the war, yet I was also astonished by the allegations coming out of the TNR story. So I did a bit of research myself and came up with words from the man himself and what he says he believes in. If you believe that he is a man who sticks to his principles (I don't know one person who doesn't believe that), then you would also believe that the ideas he talks about completely rule OUT racism. As is posited clearly by Ron Paul in the video above, libertarianism is the opposite of collectivism, and therefore, flows contrary to the ideas that generate racist ideas/thoughts. If any of you would just allow logic to flow through at least one brain cell, you would surely come to a similar conclusion. Maybe we should try to LISTEN to the man rather than be reactionary after what we hear on the "news/blogs". Maybe we should try to come to our OWN conclusions rather than be spoonfed our thoughts by authors such as James Kirchick and Megan McArdle. It is obvious they prey on the susceptibility of people who do not do their OWN research. Out of all the Republicans out there, Ron Paul seems to be the only man with integrity and honesty. Biden wasn't too bad either ;) (Biden '12??)
I thought Douthat's explanation was excellent.
Ron Paul has been in public life for about 30 years. I am bemused that people [who presumably claim to be well informed about politics] claim to be surprised about some of his less savory views and/or the racist views of some of the less savory people around him.
Libertarian philosophy has a lot going for it. Most of the libertarians I come across, not so much. They tend to be as dogmatic as Marxists and argue everything from 1st principles in contravention of demonstrable fact.
Political disucussions with them remind me of watching Noam Chomsky debate 35+ years ago: you could tell that he didn't listen to a word the other person was saying, never reflected for a nano-second that the other person might have a point, his entire being was wrapped up in rejecting whatever they had to say and in demonstrating the incontravertible truth of his own position.
Now Chomsky is an exceptionally intelligent person, and in fact most of the libertarians I come across are smart. But they seem to lack any sense of libertarianism's limitations.
Drew (above) writes:
"Paul has written dozens of articles for Lew Rockwell.com, a clearing house for bigots, neo-Confederates, and conspiracy theorists."
This is an amazingly dishonest thing to write about LewRockwell.com. I would challange this lying little cheat to provide a link to a single article from LRC as evidence for such a maliscious and cowardly smear.
Lying and smearing seem to be the only ammunition the little whores can find to use against liberty, property, and peace, which are the foundation of Ron Paul's message and the theme of Lew Rockwell's site.
We're back......
So you didn't vote for Paul as a protest vote. The only reason that makes sense is in the event of voting fraud where his vote would be counted for someone else like McCain in N.H.
Paul is the candidate for all men and women. He is the only true civil hero amongst all Republcrats and Demolicans...that's why he has people from all races, cultures, socio-economic classes in his camp.
The problem is not his image or appeal, it's his lack of coverage by the MSM and what little coverage he does get is almost always negative. No wonder, since corporate interests are at stake in our welfare-warfare imperialistic state.
I can't believe you would stoop to branding Ron Paul as an author of hate literature, when he's really just a publisher of hate literature. He can't help it if the people he hired to write his newsletter turned out to be racist, anti-semitic conspiracy nuts, any more than Osama bin Laden could help it if the people he had working for him turned out to be hijackers. It's so hard to find good help these days.
Hey John Reading:
For some reason the link I posted is not working (though it should be the first post on my site at http://distint.blogspot.com).
Nevertheless, had you bothered to spend a minute with Google, you would no doubt have found the same things I did. Gems like the following:
--
Those of us who oppose homosexuality are not "uptight." What concerns us isn't what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but that civil government will equate the sterile act of two rutting men with the life-giving act of husband and wife. We may certainly agree that the State should not be involved in marriage, but if it is going to be involved, and use our tax money, we are perfectly within our rights to demand that the State supports real marriages and denies the benefit of its imprimatur to "unions" that are destructive of the society in which we live.
--
The site is full of crap like that, and anyone who denies it isn't being honest. Being a libertarian isn't an excuse for being a bigot.
Ron Paul can win. Its really the constitution/REAL consevatism vs the media and whatever democrat whether Romney or Barak that they want people to pick.I love how the media is already trying to say Ron Paul isn't going to win. What they REALLY mean is the HOPE Ron Paul doesn't win.
Paul is in 4th place with votes nationwide. Wait until the south where there still exist a lot REAL conservatives, not fake Republicans like Switch Romney and IL Duce Giuliani.
You, and every other blog who has been putting out this bullshit for the past 2 days make me ashamed to be an American. You make me want to never again even look at another politician or get involved in politics. Because it's just plain out bullshit. Plain bullshit.
The fact is that Ron Paul is the only politician I have ever seen in my entire life that said something that was true on racism and collectivism. And it is obvious he wrote that speech. And it's just as obvious that he did not write what you are talking about. And at any rate, did you happen to actually read the article? If you had, you'd probably have realized that the article itself wasn't even racist, it was just poorly worded and was talking about how biased and unfair social crimes are in minority communities.
And yet, you are many other people just flat out don't care. You post them, knowing full well whats going on. And you post them because you didn't like him from the start.
I'm a vet, and I am literally ashamed of my country these past 2 days. I can't believe it, I'm in a state of shock that people are falling for this, and even more in shock at the desperation of those who are pushing it. What did you get for your soul? because you can't have one to lie about someone like this.
So who the Hell else can we support?????
If you want America to be a great Constitutional Republic instead of a half-assed, war-mongering Empire / Welfare State, and if you believe that out-of-control Big Government is the greatest long-term threat to everyone's freedom; then what other candidate can you possibly support?
Fred Thompson, maybe? Every single one of the others is a Big Government statist/socialist. They only differ from one another in the details.
I'm still for Ron Paul and don't care whether he's a racist.
If a democratic president is a racist, it affects policy. Witness the entitlement and affirmative action morass that came about because people in power decided that poor black people are incapable of competing on a level playing ground.
However, if a libertarian president is a racist, how would that affect policy? Wouldn't he or she say, in effect, "I think outcomes will differ by race but I STILL will work to level the playing ground"?
I am so far very disappointed in the country for failing to support Ron Paul in the polls as well as the countries failure to recognize a smear campaign whey they see one. Suffice to say my outlook on the future of this country with another BIG GOVERNMENT democrat or republican for that matter is rather bleak. However, if Ron Paul were elected I think there would still be hope to put this once great nation back on track.
I am a believer in the Austrian business cycle which you can learn about here: http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=672
Hey! You stole my title! :) I do a daily "Ron Paul Roundup" on my blog that is reprinted on RonPaulForums.com!
- Rick
Alan R wrote: He is guilty of a lapse of judgment, at worst. Not only has he disavowed the content that was attached to his name, he has publicly assumed the "moral responsibility" for the content, and apologized. What more can be asked?
Probably nothing, and that's exactly the problem: That kind of lapse is not presidential material. If somebody under your oversight is writing Bad Things below your natural-born nom de plume across a period of time, it takes quite a substantial lapse in judgment not to notice what's going on.
This is all semantics. All of it. Look at his voting record. All he does it vote against unbalanced budgets, and against foreign intervention. It's really not that complicated.
So why didn't we hear about the Bush families ties to Hitler when he was running for office?
Has anyone thought of some of the powerful racist/ fascists that our current and previous administrations have rubbed shoulders with?
What about the Clinton family and their close relations with the Chinese government?
None of these people are lining Ron Paul's pockets like the politicians mentioned above.
This smear is a smoke screen. Anyone who has spent an ounce of time researching Paul's past knows that he fights fervently for personal liberty and the Constitution. His vision for the United States would only liberate and strengthen not only minority groups, but all American citizens.
Go back and take a look at the the PBS debate held at a "historically black college". Ron Paul showed up while the "major" candidates declined. He stated that the "War on Drugs" has been unfair to the black population. Paul knows that the only way to fight inequality in the United States is by restoring the Constitution to its rightful place as the law of the land.
The IRS, the FED, and the Military Industrial Complex have undermined the life and liberty of all American Citizens. Minorities in particular weren't allowed fair time to invest in our Nations success before these straightjacket programs were unloaded on the populace. Wake up people! Ron Paul is no racist and none of the other candidates have a real plan to pull us out of the rut we've created!
Has it occurred to anyone that by Ron Paul not being racist yet associating with bigots that he might be able to change their minds. Maybe he felt he could use their common ground (economics and national sovereignty) to better them through contact rather than expulsion from society. It could take his whole life, but sometimes it takes just that long to make people see the error of their thinking.
Bigots that are only exposed to other bigots remain bigots forever. Exposing people to other ways of thinking changes the world. Look at the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act did not change people's minds, only the law. Peaceful action by MLK and his compatriots in hostile areas did what legislation could not do.
Anony-mouse wrote: " ...That kind of lapse is not presidential material...."
Yeah, but I doubt if very many of his supporters seriously expect him to win anyhow. The point of supporting Ron Paul is to poke a finger in the eye of the Establishment, and hopefully to push the Republican Party back towards Reagan/Goldwater/Taft Republicanism.
Personally, I kind of (almost) hope that he starts a 3rd party movement and siphons off enough Republican votes so the The Witch wins in November. That might cause the Republican Party to finally come to its senses again.
Watching the despair of the Ron Paulites now that he failed to blow away the Republican competition in NH has been priceless. Oh noes! Oh woe is us! It has to have been because of vote-rigging! We wuz ROBBED!
Libertarians just can't ever seem to grasp the concept that on the whole, the average American sorta likes what they get from government. Yeah, they'll bitch about taxes and are suckers for any politician who promises to lower them, but you try to pin them down and discover that, golly gee, they LIKE having things like safety nets and some sort of social security and regulations that keep unsafe stuff off the store shelves...people have been furious about the pet food scare and the lead-paint scare--or haven't the libertarians noticed?
Then libertarians abuse the average American, call them "stupid" or "welfare-addicts", "lacking in responsibility"....and then are surprised that they get such minute percentages in any election. Yessiree, calling anyone who doesn't vote for you an idiot is really going to change his mind. Great rhetoric, guys.
I feel so pessimistic and hopeless about our countries' big government. I support Ron Paul and he has my vote, regardless of what the polls say. I must admit that I do not feel good about his chances to win though. A majority of the population of this country has their priorities so out of whack, that big names and big money is all it takes to sway them. Ron Paul is real and speaks his mind and that's why he likely won't win. This country needs a drastic new direction that the majority of citizens aren't ready for. Maybe someday...
Hey Drew,
The quote you offer is not from the Lew Rockwell site. There is never anything like that on his site and for you to write that his site is "full" of nonsense like that is extraordinarily dishonest.
You are a creep trying to smear good people with lies.
I actually agree. At this point, after New Hampshire, Ron Paul has demonstrated that while he was able to launch the libertarian/federalist movement to new heights, he just doesn't have the political savvy and campaign infrastructure to make
it a successful national campaign.
I don't know if this quote applies to him directly: "If the first libertarian someone meets is a wild-eyed lunatic, on the other hand, they could easily write off libertarianism as the ideology of wild-eyed lunatics."
But I can see how his lack of political charisma "just isn't good enough." Unfortunately, politics isn't just about policy.
Dear Megan,
I am a Ron Paul supporter. We have not disappeared. I stopped visiting your blog because you refuse to EDUCATE YOURSELF on RON PAUL's Positions and you continue to publish National Enquirer type BS.
So here is one more attempt to help you get it RIGHT!
Ron Paul offers the ONLY HOPE to the next generation. He clearly offers a choice for them. We can follow McCain and the NEOs into foreign adventures for the next 100 years, OR WE CAN STOP POLICING the world BEFORE IT BANKRUPTS US. We can save Trillions of Dollars by cutting foreign handouts and changing foreign policy. The money saved by not donating billions to foreign dictators like Musharraf will go a long way in taking care of those weaker and dependent americans that have been trained to live off the fruits of others. The younger people can OPT out (if they desire) of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme once this TRILLION DOLLAR YOKE around their necks has been lifted. They have a chance to be truly free. This is a ONE TIME OPPORTUNITY IN OUR LIFETIME. I do not think this chance will come again...There is NO ONE clean enough (except Dr. Paul) to carry the freedom message. We desperately need a leader who can again ask WHAT CAN WE DO FOR OUR COUNTRY? . Dr. Paul refuses the lucrative Government Pension program (worth millions). Many of us that DO NOT NEED our government benefits might GLADLY REFUSE THEM also, but only under HONEST LEADERSHIP.
I am voting RON PAUL for the sake of my 3 teenage children.
You’ve your own definition of democracy!
You’ve forgotten what America stands for!
You're with "No Shame" call yourself a patriot!
If the above are true, then you are a disgrace to the community!
You’ve insulted a selfless man who stands for equalities! Whom devoted his entire life serving the country that he really loved, with honor and integrity!
Prior to smearing this honorable man. Take a few minutes, look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself these simple questions;
What have I done "That Made a Different" in my family?
My neighborhood?
My community?
My town?
My county?
My state?
And my country?
Don’t be afraid to tell the truth!
Come back and tell us so that we can share your values with the rest of the community!
My background is technical.
It's in my nature that I approach issues with some type of "Solutions." and if I have doubts I refer back to the prints.
Sound complicated doesn't it?
Does Bilderberg attendee and Giuliani advisor, David Frum, still write for you guys at the Atlantic?
BTW anyone that Frum thinks is the "right man" is often the wrong one.
If your journal has something sensible to say about Ron Paul, please come out and say it.
And ending on a "hmmmmm" note, has anyone else noticed that the Paul supporters have completely disappeared?
Not too surprising. The amount of energy being expelled by the Paulcolytians relative to their mass was clearly indicative of a thermonuclear reaction. Now that the initial overpressure wave has expelled all substantive air from the region, the vacuum effect is sucking them up into a stratospheric mushroom cloud. Their primary effect from now on will be to drizzle radioactive fallout for several months to come, as witnessed by the toxic-but-small comments some of them are leaving in this thread.
Actually, John, you're the one who's being dishonest.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/003561.html
Any casual perusal of the Rockwell archives will reveal that the site has given a soapbox to any neo-Confederate and bigot willing to call themselves "libertarian."
Rockwell and his ilk are poison--either bigots themselves or enablers of bigots. Associating them with libertarianism is the smear.
Read an economics book and a history book and i'll see you later when you realize Ron Paul is right.
Is ignorance bliss?
I think that a 10-20 million dollar money bomb at the end of Jan would send an unmistakable message to the 'establishment'. No more vote fraud, WE the PEOPLE are in charge...not your Diebold voting machines. Paper ballots counted IN FRONT THE CAMERAS should be the way all Americans demand our elections be run. LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT AND THERE WILL BE NONE!! We RP supporters are still very much alive, and my vote will goto him even if I have to write him in. This veteran will continue the fight for freedom until there is no breath left in me. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND RON PAUL!!
And one more thing about New Hampshire. The license plate motto of 'LIVE FREE OF DIE" hardly applies anymore. When you add up the primary vote count for Clinton, Obama and Mccain, you have a majority of New Hampshire residents that desire the tit of big government to coddle and protect them. How embarrassing to the spirit of freedom.
Hey Meg, we are all still voting for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday. Do you think supporters of other candidates will vote in a primary to come out in the numbers that will be voting for Ron Paul?
If so, cite ONE reason.
I disagree with the above comment that "Live Free or Die" no longer applies to NH. I just think they have chosen "Die"
Ron Paul was born in Pittsburg, PA. Somehow or other, I think this makes him rather unlikely to fit the slur 'neo-confederate'. I suggest you have a look at www.wikipedia.com for the full story on all the candidates. It is more objective than Fox Noise.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter in Boston. I went to MIT am 34 years old and have two kids. I'm marreid to a PHD economist and have a busy life. I am tired of trying to convince people about the philosophy of freedom. I've been libertarian for 15 years adn have read hundreds of books on economics and history...I still love Atlas Shrugged, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig Von Mises and many others. I am tired of interactin in a society where Arnold Shwarzenegger can say he admires Adolf Hitler...his dad worked for the NAzis...the bush patriarch can be convicted fo supporting and financing the Nazis while working with Brown Borthers Harriman..the Clintons can escalate teh drug war imprisoning 2 million non-violent blacks and think it is "worth it" to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq children...you guys say nothing about the racist and ageist nature of the Social Security taxes.
go bomb some more sudan aspirin factories
And yet I have to hear you idiots call us racist! I'm done talking to doorknobs..enjoy your nationalized health care and worthless currency when $4000 gold comes...I hope your kids get drafted and killed in the wars and blackwater(big supporter of hillary clinton) thugs come and kick you out of your homes. You morons deserve it.
I'm going back to my job of selling research to billion dollar energy companies you people are idiots..I'll just accept it and do my best to continue profiting off it.
Unfortunately for anyone who believes in personal liberty, there is a good deal of ideological crossover with Right Wing extremist groups. I remember one time researching Henry David Thoreau, and a search led me to a neo-nazi webpage littered with quotes from Walden. Odd considering the fact that Thoreau was an unimpeachable abolitionist.
If anyone can satifactorily explain to me how a man that supports an end to the War on Drugs can be labeled a racist, while those afraid to even discuss this effectively racist policy are hailed as progressive, I’ll be happy to vote for none of the above in the Republican Primary.
As it is, the most important issue in this campaign is our misguided foriegn policy, and as a result I will vote for Barack Obama in a General Election against any Republican other than Ron Paul. Until then I will continue to support him, continue to call me a racist by association if you like.
"It kind of doesn't matter what he actually believes."
Exactly. American's knee-jerk PC-inspired fear of being viewed as a racist perpetuates an atmosphere where the *appearance* of racism is seen as abbhorent as actually *being* a racist. Quivering sphincters and instant denouncements and backpedaling is the order of the day.
Hollywood wants HRC to be president. Oprah wants Obama. Fox Noise wants McCain. Every corporate concern [Corporate America] wants to stop John Edwards. Every trade union wants John Edwards. The Evangelical movement wants Hickabee. The Evangelicals are determined to stop Romney (a Mormon), Guiliani (a Catholic) and Ron Paul (who is both a Libertarian and Lutheran). Fox Noise hates Ron Paul, Dennis Kuccinch (because both are pacifists) and John Edwards(who is supports unionized labor). The Washington Post wants HRC. The US Banks/Wall Street/Mortgage business wants to prevent John Edwards, Barrack Obama and especially Ron Paul. The Mafia don't want Guiliani because he fought the mafia in New York (despite his Italian heritage). In fact it is likely that the entire criminal fraternity doesn't want Guiliani. The New York/Boston Irish want HRC because Bill claims to be Irish. The Hispanics want Bill Richardson. So do the cowboys. The Chinese probably want HRC, but you won't find out about, that for another five or six years. In which case they will have gotten whatever they wanted, just like the last time, when the yuan was devalued, and China started sucking manufacturing jobs out of the US.
It is no wonder you never get the truth !!!
The reason the RP supporters have disappeared is because we're busy with the real work of getting Rep. Paul elected; not much time to comment on every blog we come across anymore.
Boots on the Ground, folks!
Megan I think you misunderstand the primary underpinning of libertarianism. Respecting individualism means respecting individuals' rights to think and do what they want, that doesn't violate another's rights. This is why we are such a madcap, crazy bunch of people in the aggregate, because we, by definition, don't see conformity as a virtue. A symptom of this is the tendency for people with less-than-savory views on race and gender to be attracted to libertarianism, because we don't think that what anyone thinks is relevant to the issues of governance, as long as those positions aren't promoted through government. Whether Ron Paul is getting campaign donations from Truthers, Klansmen, or neo-Confederates is irrelevant because he does not advocate institutionalizing their opinions with the force of Federal government. On the contrary, he wants to remove the government from being arbitrator of what is right and wrong on most issues.
Now, if you are a statist and believe that the government has a legitimate duty to make these distinctions and Ron Paul, by extension, must carefully vet his supporters for their personal opinions on things like race and gender, then Ron Paul would never appeal to you and you are better off with someone else. But if you claim to subscribe to individualism and limited government, then Ron Paul's steadfast commitment to those ideals should overwhelm whatever distaste you have for his crazier supporters.
I am a Ron Paul supporter. I think the reason he hasn't done better is that people don't know about him. One month ago I found out about him from a friend (and I live in Texas). I then went to his website and found that his priorities are the same as mine. Most people I talk to have never heard of him or don't know much about him. I'd say about 9 in 10 people I talk to about Paul and direct to his website are now Paul supporters. Once the mainstream media starts actually saying something about him, he is going to fly. Oh, and since you are counting, I think that's about 50 comments on a website that I personally have never heard of from Paul supporters in less than 4 hours.
I'm going to presume he means South Africa during apartheid, and say that no one who self-describes as a libertarian could possibly find that regime compatible with their beliefs. I suggest Walter Williams's superb book, South Africa's War Against Capitalism for anyone who thinks that apartheid and any other institutional racism is acceptable to libertarians.
Disappear, hell, who are you kidding? Promoting a free and open society is never easy, and working for change is never easy. A couple of smearies out there and Paul's supporters go away? Not a chance. Keep dredging.
For those of us old enough to remember, this is like deja-vu all over again:
They tried to smear Barry Goldwater as a 'racist,' and they probably would have smeared him as an 'anti-semite' also if his grandparents hadn't been Jewish.
(They also warned me that if I voted for Goldwater, the USA would get involved in a disastrous land war in Asia; they were correct on both counts.)
Actually, the trial regarding the 1993 WTC bombing revealed it was the FBI, not the Mossad, behind the bombing. Just read the New York Times reports on the trial.
Hope this helps.
Ron Paul didn't write that stuff.
I am convinced he is not a racist for several reasons, and I am still behind him 100%.
And somehow the "possibility" that he "might" be racist is somehow soooo much worse and unforgivable than the confirmed crimes, bad decisions in office, and abhorrent lifestyles and ideologies of some of the other candidates? I don't think so.
Gabe and others: the problem is that it is hard to reason people out of views they weren't first reasoned into. The road to having the non-aggression principle become a majority view in this country will be long and hard. Ron Paul's campaign is one more step. How long did it take cultural socialism to prevail so that it is, today, accepted by most with nary a thought as to its justice or workability? How much calumny was piled on the socialists over the last hundred years? We libertarians can hunker down and enjoy our wealth while we can (apres moi le deluge) or we can engage our intellectual foes, no matter if some of us are found to be unsavory or flawed or inept, knowing that we tried to do our best for those who come later.
What I fail to understand is why you don't research the other side of the coin.
Ron Paul has congressional speeches on record praising Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Muhammed Ali.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they people of color and ethnicity other than white?
That's why you're a fool. You decline to perform the most basic research on Ron Paul.
Wow, you people let emotion rule your minds.
Expectation rules outcome. How come no one is asking "Que Bono" of this circumstantial evidence.
I would suggest that you people do some evaluation on the essays of Ron Paul that are verified of his own hand. Another is listen to a few of his speeches on the floor of congress.
To use only a few statements that may, or may not be, of his own volition as your entire basis of character judgment is foolery. I still have yet to see the full context of these statements.
Those who let others opinions make judgments for them are easily led.
The greater amount of character data for Ron Paul runs contrary to the alleged statements. I find it suspect that the Implied meaning of the phrases is congruent with his character.
Your future is at stake, as well as your neighbor, critical thinking is imperative.
Do Not suffer from "Brown Dog Syndrome".
If you exclude data you can arrive at any conclusion.
If you allow yourself to see only Brown Dogs, you will conclude that All Dogs Are Brown. It is your perception of reality; however, it is not true reality. In judgment cases, All Dogs Must Be Considered to reach valid conclusion.
Emotion is for guidance; rational and reason are for decision making.
Views Untested Are Worthless.
Ron Paul is a noble man, in my conclusion, based upon a greater data set.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul.
It's hard to imagine bigotry from a man whose two biggest heroes, Mises and Rothbard, were Jewish agnostics, whose off-the-cuff suggestion for running mate early in the campaign was black, who desparately wants for us to stop killing Arabs for no good reason, who delivered many, many Hispanic babies in south Texas.
It's unfortunate that some bad ideas got published in a newsletter bearing his name. Having said that, allowing free expression of controversial ideas is the best safeguard we have against institutionalized racism. Hitchens has some nice things to say about that.
The letter appeared in the newspaper Texan Lone Star (1).
And it is signed by Bill White, head Worgers the American National Socialist Party, or Nazi Party USA, what can appear in public with svastiche and divided SA.
"… Are forced to tell the truth about the involvement of Ron Paul in the white nationalist movement. He and his meet regularly with members of Stormfront, the American Renaissance, of the Institute for Historic Review [the group of revisionist historians] and others to Tara Thai restaurant in Arlingon, Virginia… E 'meeting which was originally organized by Pat Buchanan … I have attended these dinners, I saw Paul and his advisers, and I was invited in its offices in Washington for political discussions. The fact that his spokesman has called the white racism 'petty politics' and that white activists' wasting their money trying to influence Ron Paul' is ridiculous. Paul is a type of white nationalist Stormfront, which held itself his views on racial and Judaism world because of its position… '.
That's it: Ron Paul, the presidential candidate promoted wide popular malvisto but by the strong, "Nazi, anti-Semitic, negatore of the Holocaust.
The maneuver, attempted several times against the candidate (s major media have often said that Paul receives contributions from more or less racist known) this time seems to success: even the head of the Nazi USA to testify against him, making it impresentabile.
Very instructive to learn from Mike Rivero (Site Whatreallyhappened.com) some biographical data on this supernazista Bill White.
It seems that his real name Weiss, studied in Jewish schools and has been Communist up to the correspondent for Pravda, until 1999.
Fall of the USSR, Weiss-White reappears as a Nazi and racist, and suprematista white. Also in the first row in racist, always posing for photo-opportunities. Of course, he became the head of the Nazi Party USA, small organization heavily infiltrated by.
This is not as strange as it seems.
In 1977 another supernazista named Frank Collins, the command of a group of individuals dressed as SS, provoked riots trying to demonstrate in the town of Skokie (Illinois), where he lived many survivors of the Shoah.
Scoppiarono riots, which Collins replied in many other places, often with a "brigade" composed of SS 12 people.
He went in and proclaimed Jewish neighbourhoods in the meeting, that "Hitler was disappointed, killing only 6 million Jews.
In the end, he was sentenced to seven years in jail.
At the trial it was discovered that his real name was Cohen, who was born in Chicago in 1944, and second that his father had been conceived in the camp at Dachau in'43.
Many right-wing extremists, on the blog Vanguard News Network, gathered testimonies of their leaders (of the various movements mentioned) swear that he had never seen the famous White dinners in the Thai restaurant.
In fact, these dinners take place, but in a restaurant called "Sala Thai.
A White oversight?
The holder of its imprecise puppeteers?
According to the blogger "blacks", White took the name from the list of donations to Ron Paul, published on the web (2008), where among the many donors get a "Tara Thai Restaurant," but not the Thai Room.
And 'likely that White, who was not in one or another, have believed that this was the same restaurant.
Or that the two names were similar enough to be able to give credibility to its statements, without nobody accorgesse the difference.
On the other hand, the reason white supremacists blog VNN if davver Paul is a racist illegal because a head-racist should expose to publicly shame, liquidando your chances of arriving at the White House?
The neo-Nazis have every interest to have a president "of our"…
Mike Rivero has discovered another instructive detail.
Bill White
One of the members of the neo-Nazi party of Bill White is writing and attending "Megaphone."
What Megaphone?
This is a software distributed from the site Giyus.org Israel and the World Union of Jewish Students, which serves nicely to influence opinion polls in favour of Zion.
Once loaded on the computer Megaphone, an icon (a megaphone), which is active in trilla when a poll that may affect Israel was launched from some other site, like CNN or CBS, or when they appear - and appear anywhere - articles and videos critical of the actions of the Zionist state.
The software automatically routes to the site where the survey, and the militant jew who loaded can give its Votic, obviously pro-lobby.
When it is technically possible, Megaphone automatically vote for you, and always as "fair".
In this way the polls are flooded by "views" pro-Israeli.
Various media have spoken of this electronic system to distort the polls ( "Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers", The Times, London, July 28, 2006, "Israel ups the stakes in the propaganda war," The Guardian, November 20 , 2006).
When the BBC launched a poll in which asked if the British were in favour of making the "denial of the Holocaust a crime" criminal, as in many other countries of Europe, was buried by enthusiastic and automatic "Yes" from Megaphone .
The Jerusalem Post quoted Amir Gissin, head of the Public Affairs Department at the Israeli Foreign Ministry who praised Megaphone in these terms: "The government promotes the idea, and urges supporters of Israel throughout the world to become soldiers of cyberspace in the new battle for the image of Israel ".
So the Megaphone is a tool of disinformation and psychological warfare developed by the Israeli regime.
Instrument better and more effective than 'Correct Information Pezzana "poor, poor.
And at least one of the group members neonazi White (White or itself) is a subscriber of Megaphone, and has posted the letter White against Ron Paul on the site of Megaphone.
That the National Socialist Worker's Party has a head jew pro-Israeli, probably a "sayan" of the Mossad, is anything but surprising, some groups are better direct and control them from above, and perhaps use them in provocations sceme, but Useful to show that "Israel is in danger" and that "anti-Semitism is mounting.
On the other hand, racism is not malvisto in Israel.
Now we know for sure that Israel does not like Ron Paul, and does everything possible to cover sketches of defamatory.
Ron Paul has received donations from 123 thousand people.
Since it is estimated that donors are one cent of those who then will vote the candidate they supported, it is estimated that the votes on which Ron Paul in the primary can count on aggirino is 12 million.
Moreover is autofinanziando his campaign without support from the party or corporation, and its popularity is strong in all States, the only candidate among Republicans.
The heads-stick party will be difficult enough to deny him to run for the nomination.
We use methods more robust than those made in the Nazi Weiss said Whitney.
Not more sayanim but maybe kidon.
SIL,
Yuor right. I will continue to try and inform and convince others. I will continue to financially support freedom movements/projects. I will redirect my efforts on college kids though, sicne i live near MIT I and it is easier for smart kids to understand this stuff I will re-focus my efforts on spreading info there instead of Andrew Sullivan board filled with people who think the drug war is good for us and complete central government control of our school system is a good thing and it was "worth it to kill 400,000 iraqi children and Clinton was just showing his compassion when he bombed Sudan Aspirin factories. People who think Carbon dioxide is poison and mercury is good for you cannot be reasoned with very effectively. People who think Blackwater/Hillary Clinton and Rupert Murdoch are all enemies are not smart people...people who refuse to read government documents and think Operation Northwoods is a fantasy are not rational people. People who think a global carbon tax is nothing to worry about. When a democrat refuses to question social securities racist effects they cannot be reasoned with. Younger people with decent IQ's come from a generation that has adapted to the intense propaganda piled onto them, they don't believe as much BS as some of these "the Atlantic" democrats who think Hillary is going to "stick it to W"...they have a more logical way of analyzing the truthfulness of information. Our only hope is to keep working and expanding with these younger folks.
I am a South Asian muslim and a naturalized US citizen. I have lived in 3 countries, speak 3 languages fluently including Korean and travelled in more than 10 countries. I support Ron Paul and will vote for him and will campaign to get as many of my community to support him as possible.
About his racism, I do not believe he is a racist. Racism comes from ignorance and fear of the unknown. The biggest racists and supremacists are who think they can impose their will on the world and kill people of other countries without impunity and not think about golden rule. They do not think how it would seem to other people if the same thing were done to them. Unlike Megan and the rest of candidates, Ron Paul understands and appreciates the golden rule. That is why Ron Paul will be a favourite not just here, but in the rest of the world, if they knew about his opinions.
Just to summarize, there are many races in the world and all need their respect and equal treatment, not just the ones who are well represented, empowered and might I say pampered here in the US.
Ron Paul and Dennic Kucinich are lone voices of sanity. And about gold standard, most people in the US are uninformed or mis-informed about the inevitable that is in store for them in the next decades, that is why they think Ron Paul's ideas about this is crazy, but most economists agree that fiat currency is the biggest threat for the current world economic system.
This is the most rediculous article I have ever read. I am a libertarian and do not believe in racism. In fact, my beliefs lay far from those of the hate mongering individuals you speak of. I do however believe in Freedom, even if it means that I have to read your self-righteous nonsensical display of ignorance. You should be ashamed for even thinking that Ron Paul's views are too outlandish for the Presidential Office. Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty??... If you truly believe America if given the opportunity would not embrace these ideals, then the fight is lost and so are we.
Ron Paul may not win.. But the people have heard his message and the seed has been planted. Not all of his views will be adopted by mainstream candidates, but the most important of them have and will be. And one day, if there is a country left for us to lead.. Those same Libertarians you speak of now (non-racists) will be the ones that save your country and your freedoms.
Paul is the faint haunting glow on the clouds before the libertarian dawn. Perhaps he is a backwards kind of libertarian, but he has done what decades of activism and Reason magazine efforts have failed to do, create a boots on the ground/money in the bank libertarian movement.
What the Communist Party USA wouldn't have given to have True Believers like this back in 1956!
"Younger people with decent IQ's come from a generation that has adapted to the intense propaganda piled onto them, they don't believe as much BS as some of these "the Atlantic" democrats who think Hillary is going to "stick it to W"...they have a more logical way of analyzing the truthfulness of information. Our only hope is to keep working and expanding with these younger folks."
This, the above, is, to me, the greatest realization from RP's run. The understanding that our Youth, in large numbers, get it--Liberty nourishes.
Patrick Henry taught us all the Political Triangulation we need to know.
Give me a break,
I hate to be the first one to state the obvious, but New Hampshire ceased from being a libertarian stronghold a few years back. They turned over their 2 congressional seats to the Dems in 06 and now there's about twice as many Democrats as there are Republicans. -And they voted for a guy who's endorsed by ban-anything-that-moves Lieberman. McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts and thinks the war is just dandy. Sorry, but NH is not the same state that once nominated Buchanan. Also, from what I gathered when I was up there, the people of NH are either sick and tired or bored to death of out of staters blitzing their little Norman Rockwell paradise and making a bunch of noise and leaving a big mess telling them how to vote.
1) The ads blew. And they blew in a huge way since Paul probably has the most talented and "with it" volunteers of any smaller candidate. But then again, they looked like the result of a guy who doesn't believe in blowing a lot of other people's money.
2) Paul's not a racist, it's a dumb, boring, predictable smear. However, the idea that racism would actually turn off Republican voters is a joke. I've followed the Republican Primaries since 92 and trust me, if anything he probably GAINED a few votes with the old kooks. Suddenly, it's as if noone has ever been to a barbeque with their Korean war vet Grandpa and listened to him tell zipperhead and watermelon jokes. By the way, Grandpa votes Republican.
3)Paul has some of the most intelligent and informed supporters of any campaign, but the MSM decided a while back that they were "unusual" and "unique" and it stuck. They've run a thousand articles like that and now even Paul supporters are starting to believe it. -Ever seen some of the freaks, retards and Sasquatch women at the Obama rallies?
4) Paul started out in this race as a defiant, combative, anti establishment rebel. Anybody remember the first debate? -That wasn't strategy, that was the Doc. He could have been more level headed and presented nearly all of his positions in a more polished way that would have appealed to the GOP.
Instead of being against an "unconstitutional and undeclared war" he could have had a 6 point "exit strategy" endorsed by some retired Army General. Instead of railing against the Fed he could have had a 10 point "tax cut" plan endorsed by some asshole, but he didn't because that's not who Paul is. You can't criticize him for being the guy who got you all excited. His pros are his cons. He's a beer hall libertarian, and he'll always have my vote even if I have to write him in.
Is it just me or is DHDGG's post completely unreadable?
Clearly nobody is paying any attention to this, but of course you are correct. From the context, I think Megan is thinking of Asperger's Syndrome. People with Asperger's (like the narrator of Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime have a specific deficit in the ability to interpret the behavior and reactions of other humans.
Incidentally, I once met a person with Tourette's whose compulsion was to utter the N-word whenever she saw a black person. It's a variant of the compulsion to use obscenities at the most inappropriate settings (I think the word for it is "coprolalia.") But as I say, I doubt that's what Megan's talking about here.
But the locust hordes are no longer descending on my comment section every time I mention the good doctor's name.
If this is true, bloggers will need to find a new way to artificially increase web-traffic.
""And ending on a "hmmmmm" note, has anyone else noticed that the Paul supporters have completely disappeared?"
It seems you'd like to know what they are doing, but I'm not going to tell you! ;-)
Ever seen some of the freaks, retards and Sasquatch women at the Obama rallies?
No, but I also haven't seen any tax-protesters or UCC-spouting "sovereign citizens of the state of ____" in the Obama threads around here.
I don't mean to be rude, but something smells fishy about your claim to agree with what Glen Whitman said.
If you truly believe this, and you care about the libertarian image, then would not the optimal response be to ignore Paul entirely? Does multiple postings on Paul and baiting the more rabid and idiotic of his supporters while ignoring the more reasonable ones serve to minimize the attention Paul is getting? Do you think Paul-bashing will win you brownie points with the social democrats? How many Obama supporters do you think will start considering libertarianism if you support him?
I'm a Paul supporter, though recognize that he is far from an ideal libertarian candidate, and have been an irregular reader of yours since Tyler Cowen first mentioned AI years ago on MR, but I stopped even trying to comment on the Paul posts when it became clear you had no interest in even attempting a rational analysis, such as addressing the serious arguments for free banking against central banking.
Ron Paul is guilty of not paying attention to what people 60 miles away from him were writing and publishing in his name 20 years ago.
Read the words that he actually says and writes.
That is a big pile.
I choose my candidate by the principles they
represent and what these principles mean for
my life here in the USA.
I DO NOT CARE WHO ELSE supports that person.
Get real. BYE
"DHDGG's post completely unreadable?"
completely unreadable
I support Obama. But a very good friend of my supports Ron Paul, so i'm not completely unaware of the things and issues relating to his campaign. In fact, I like Ron Paul as a person, i find him fascinating, and i respect his passion and consistency in what he believes. Therefore, let me offer this statement from Ron Paul himself. It probably wont change the minds of those of you who have already decided hes a crazy, racist, nutjob, but i think its only fair that his side gets told. Maybe some of you are aware of this, maybe not. Either way...here it is.
"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.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
And YOU'RE morally superior? At least we KNOW Dr. Paul didn't write any of that stuff - while we know for a fact you spew your hate speech. Who bought you? Hope you have fun spending that money on $3.00 eggs and $5.00 gas - you're doing all you can to make certain there is Dr. Paul there to save your life.
What a Jerk.
There are few things more immoral than creating dollars backed by nothing to fund unconstitutional wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and slowly destroying the livelihoods of the American middle class.
Ron Paul understands and opposes this.
Ron Paul has the moral highground unlike any other candidate.
I love it. The best the Paulites can do is say 'he didn't write it.' But it was his newsletter and his name. The POTUS signs a lot of things that he doesn't write. A great US President once place a sign on his desk, 'The Buck Stops Here.' That something Paul obviously could never do.
Fellow RP supporters. All who post comments on this Blog are feeding the fire and allowing the fascist author to continue writing such libel. To be truly effective in this battle, we need to simply boycott such writings. If you see a title that is against Dr. Paul, don't click on it. Let the boycott begin. Please no more posts from RP supporters.
It's true what you say, if a libertarian comes across as a lunatic then they are not doing libertarianism much good. But neither does pandering to them. I think most americans are dumbed down fools living in a dreamworld, and I watch in horror as the dollar loses its value and global oil production peaks and we are steamrolling right off the edge of a cliff. And all most people can do is laugh at those who point this out. HA HA HA you stupid loon. The worst part is I dont get a consolation prize for being right. That is, up until 2007. That's when I decided to try and profit from what I know that most of the sheeple dont know. And what did I do? Buy solar! lol FSLR up almost 1000% in 2007. I dumped my 401k, defied the ponzi scheme, and now I only wished I had more to invest.
You dont want to talk about real issues? Fine. But dont come crawling to me when you lose everything you stupid yuppie. You're not taking away my 2nd amendment either! That's all I have to say to anyone who hasnt woken up yet. There is simply no excuse for it anymore. You were warned. Now reap what you sow.
See, I dont care if I sound like a loon, because I've got the facts on my side. And the facts are ultimately what drives the market. Look around, america will be overtaken by China as the worlds largest economy in just a few short years. You think all those burger flipping jobs are gonna be around 5 years from now? Starbucks? The strip malls that require wasting massive amounts of fossil fuels just to shop? We are so stupid its obvious why Ron Paul doesnt stand a chance. The only reason I supported Ron Paul is because I wanted there to be some historical record of what happened to this country, why it happened, and what we could have done about it if we werent a bunch of pathetic brainwashed fools. I want the constitution to survive, I want what it represents to survive. As far as the dumbed down masses who continuously and repeatedly forsake the incredible wisdom of the founding fathers: you get exactly what you deserve. Shame on you. I hope calling me a loon makes you feel better about yourself, because it sure as hell isnt going to change a thing.
The sea to shining sea is just plain loaded with red herrings.
We actually consider (You Tube CNN Debate)
1)should illegal aliens get drivers licenses?
2)should water boarding be allowed?
3)what will you do to stop black on black crime?
4)what would Jesus do?
presidential debate issues.
The answers are
1)hell no they shouldn't be here
2)hell yes use a hammer if it saves an American
3)same thing you do about white on white crime
4)same thing Jesus always does(watch)
While everyone, save Ron Paul, blissfully ignores the recent comments of Comptroller General of the United States. Our CPA!
"...the U.S. government is on a burning platform of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic health care under funding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon...."
Is he a radical wacko too? He REFUSED to sign off on the budget because he can add and subtract!
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate for President of the United States if you'd like to leave behind a United States.
I think you better give ol' Ron some slack on the racism, homophobia and anti-semitism conspiracy theories.
None of that will matter much when the dollar is worth a nickel and unemployment is 30%.
The other candidates (all of them) will continue the present insanity (several will even add to it) unless and until we run out of "ink or paper" to print new money.
The words of someone who can speak of Ron Paul's tenure as their local State Representative:
I live in Dr. Pauls district and I have watched him for many years.
People do not know he has won three times as a non-incumbent.
Tom Delay split his district and Ron STILL won with even a greater percentage then the election before!
Neoconservatives have wanted to take our district for 20 years!
Ron beats them every time!
He has won 10 consecutive times.
3 were non-incumbent elections.
Who does this?
With no corporate backing in this HUGE OIL district?
They(NEOs) even enticed a Democrat (Laughlin) to switch parties and join them in trying to defeat Ron by promising him he would run unopposed. What an EMBARRASSMENT for them!
LOL!
The only problem was, Ron NEVER agreed to this and the neoconservatives ended up spending a million dollars (alot for a house campaign) to unseat him and AGAIN FAILED with a larger percentage of the vote from the prior election!
They ignore him!
They do not report on him.
He drives hours with his grand daughters to be at a vets side when he receives a metal.
He has delivered hundreds of babies for free to minorities that could not pay.
(at one point he and his partner were the only OBGYNs in our district for years!
NO ONE was EVER turned away!
He has secured private loans for hurricane relief, citing we will NEVER rely on the FED like Katrinas did.
He is so smart.
He is often underestimated.
He is like the nerd in the back of the classroom that has an Einstein mind with a spotless, clean record who is only in his job to do the work of the people.
He is not bought and paid for..
The lobbyists walk past his office in congress with a wave and a smile.
Nothing happening here, they say!
97% of his campaign donations here come from individuals. The next closest is Sheila Jackson-Lee of D-Houston who gets 67% from individuals.
He wont even ask for a donation!
He makes no phone calls, NOTHING.
Once a year a little mailer comes with the bills he has written, the state of our district and his wifes famous recipes!
Nothing about a contibution!
In the back of the mailer there is a little envelope with a disclaimer and a stamp.
Thats it!
It is so cute.
He wont EVEN ask!
He made BP build and fund a burn center after several mishaps and their employees not having proper treatment.
He has secured private loans for our new bridge to the Island so the fed would have no say in HOW, WHEN,WHERE,WHY it should be built.
The bridge finished on time, on budget and was done by local contractors who will stand by their work and we got a HELL OF A DEAL!
You will notice the media ignore him!
This is normal for him.
They do this every time, yet he still wins.
The make mistake after mistake.
They have not allowed the other candidates to attack him BECAUSE HE DOESNT exist!
HUGE MISTAKE!
He knows they will absorb 20 times more MSM punches then he will.
Watch how he lies below the radr aloowing them to rule each other out while ignoring Ron!
Then when its time he will pounce.
He will use their own corrupt platforms and vile, vulagar disregard for the Constitution against them.
He will make it so they can not say a word to him.
HE IS CLEAN!
He does this every time!
Its quite amusing to watch.
Especially here in our district.
The people ACTUALLY win here!
He knows the vast majority will consider him the underdog!
He knows this is what built America.
The fringe built America.
The fringe must be protected.
This is why America is different.
The minorities are given a bigger soap box than the general public.
He will NEVER silence the KKK or Stormfront.
He would never go against Code Pink or the Black Panthers or LULAC.
He feels the ACLU holds the views/best interest of the public.
So does ELF and PETA!
He views ALL of these groups are the same in the eyes of the law. Exactly the way a Federal official should view these groups.
It is not their place to silence ANY ONE!
Our Constitution grants them rights to be HEARD, NOT SILENCED!
Whether we agree or not.
If one of them breaks the law or encroaches on anothers liberties then Ron has a jail cell for them.
NEVER must we silence the KKK or the Black Panthers.
Ron feels these groups are the only true check on our corrupt government.
He seems to feel that these groups would unite and join together if a foreign invader were to come to American shores.
Maybe armies like…lets say Blackwater, for instance!
I agree!
I am not a racist and neither is Ron. Libertarians cant even be racist, because most refuse to even acknowledge a group one belongs to.
They choose to look at people as humans and not Black Humans or Female humans..
Rather individuals.
Ron will win!
He always does.
Tom Delay and Karl Rove refer to Ron as a Democrat.
They are wrong.
He is a Constitutionalist with Libertarian leanings.
He is a strict fiscal Republican with liberal social values based on individual liberties.
He would NEVER go against the people.
He views this as his only true power.
He knows we give him his power and we can take it away.
Ron Paul supporter here. You noted in your article that you thought we disappeared. We're still here, growing, and watching! Just wanted to let you know.
How many racists with secret hidden agendas to keep minorities down have:
-provide FREE healthcare to these same immigrants who just flat out cannot afford it?
-Openly protested the "War on Drugs", which unfortunately mainly pertains to minorities?
Bottom line is racism only exists if you ALLOW it to exist. It sucks that there are people out there that really are ignorant and do judge others by their color, religion, sexual orientation or even nationality. But the more we listen to them, and the less we try to educate these simple minded folks, the worse the problem will get, not better. i believe Ron Paul stands for an idea, and he as a person is not as important as the man himself. If someone else were running on the same ideals as him, then I would advocate their message just as much as Paul's. Remember, its not the person that gets the "Paulites" so excited, it is the message.
In all honesty, when have you ever seen a group of youngsters (mainly in their 20's) listen to the words of a 72 year old man before? He is the oldest candidate in the race, yet appeals to the youngest voting group in teh country. Even if we dont win this time around, the country is more or less ours, because as life goes on, the middle-aged group that is currently runnig the country will become old, and as such, American tradition reveals that you all will most likely loose your voices, because you will be considered "old adn useless". You might as well make it ieasier for yourselves by proving you are not really too late to save. Join the rEVOLution old folks, the future already has!!!!!
Please, RP supporters. You are seriously feeding the fire. If you must argue this article, write one yourself and post it here: www.nolanchart.com.
I haven't the time right now to read 101 comments so if someone's already said this forgive me.
Megan, regardless of whether or not YOU personally supported the Ron Paul candidacy/movement/whatever, as you said, for this brief period he was the public representative as such for libertarianism. What has happened is damage not just to Paul and the Paulites or Paulistas or Paultards as Wonkette so cutely dubbed them, but to libertarianism in general for obvious reasons.
Less nuanced individuals might hear your political opinions in the future and recognize them as congruent with those of that wild-eyed candidate in question, making them all the less acceptable in polite society.
It is for this reason that while one might not have supported Paul, it may be somewhat inappropriate as a libertarian, large or small "L", to sneak a subtext of subtle jubilation into the silence following his defeat.
he middle-aged group that is currently runnig the country will become old, and as such, American tradition reveals that you all will most likely loose your voices, because you will be considered "old adn useless"
Yes, everyone knows once you reach AARP age, your political influence disappears. Especially if you're part of a major demographic bulge.
Actually, in your two quotes, you showed two viewpoints that actually are close to the types of issues Libertarians face.
Then you talk about this argument: Ron Paul airs a lot of wacky theories...if he was a racist, he would air them too.
You say you aren't convinced about that argument.
Well then, after all, you don't get Libertarians. You should be absolutely convinced about that argument.
Ashame, for a moment, I though you had some real insight or understanding...and then the illusion slipped away.
Libertarians aren't racist...it has nothing to do with racism. Libertarians are on the fringe...as are racists. (As were democrats in the soviet union). It's not wrong to be on the fringe, it is wrong to be racist.
Libertarians have read Ayn Rand. They believe words have meaning. If they were racist, they would speak about it at length and debate it.
But nevermind, I was a party chairman for the Libertarian party. I know the party has some people you can call 'nutty.'. And, that isn't good, and was always troublesome. But it does not have any problem with racisim. It is all about freedom...freedom of speach, freedom to carry guns, even the freedom to medicate yourself, as you choose.
There may be debate on abortion (whose choice, Mom's or Babies?)...some debate on immigration, all though most I knew were pro-immigration (in contrast to Paul).
but...the only talk about race, would have been on how to attract more people from various races into the party.
The New Republic, if they really know Libertarians...then they know they are essentially lying to their own readers.
TNR wants you to believe Ron Paul talks in 'code.' How ironic, because Libertarians would never talk in code, (and therefore are sometime even niave in not understanding how liberals routinely talk in code...ever heard a feminist really talk about how she feels about men in public?). No, liberals push for special rights for women, but never admit to it as such, using code to promote their agendas in public, and talking frankly only in back rooms.
Because of this liberal trait...its so easy for them to be duped into thinking others also practice this same type of habit. But libertarians do not... they are from the Ayn Rand camp...believing in words, to the point of being a very entrenched religious belief about how you use words.
No... if you want to be honest, and I don't know you, but if you do... get it right. Libertarians have plenty you can question, but trying to label them as racists... is going beyond real criticism, into the world of fiction.
I mean to type in 'County Chairman'....not 'Party chairman'...
typed too fast...anyway, I was on the inside in a very minor role, but never witnessed anything but the freedom philosophy being discussed.
And...some people loved their guns so much, they brought them to meetings... they weren't dangerous...just a little strange.
Anyway, one last point...WHO CARES. If a person is strange, it doesn't mean anything about right or wrong of a person's arguments. A strange person can know 2+2=4....
The thing about Ron Paul, is he talks the truth about the War in Iraq. The truth about the government and its spending. On many issues, he talks about things, no one else will speak about.
Although I've been quite vocal online against Paul, I nevertheless don't think he's racist and consider the newsletter thing to be unimportant. It's like when they tried to blame Falwell for the Tinky-Winky thing.
I think there's enough Paul actually says on birthright citizenship, "the North American Union", etc to make him a fringe candidate. I still tend to think he got fifth in New Hampshire largely because he gets fourth or fifth in most every scientific poll. Although I think it's plausible he would've got fourth if it weren't for the TNR deal.
I am a Ron Paul supporter. I continue to work on spreading the word. I have donated twice so far and have signed up to be a precinct captain here in NC. I think it is a sign of how strong Ron Paul's message is that he gets 10% in Iowa and 8% in NH considering the media treats him like a non entity. I can only imagine how many people would vote for him if all candidates received equal and fair coverage. If only the news stations would report the news instead of making the news. When the American people realize we can bring our troops home, drastically reduce the size of government and allow the hard working people to keep a lot more of their hard earned money then a lot more people would vote for Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who understands why our American dollar is devalued and has a plan to fix it. He is the only candidate who talks about reducing the size of government and paying off our massive debt. He is the only candidate for whom I will vote.
Of course he wrote them. Is this the new line the Paul supporters are taking -- that these newsletters are forgeries of some kind? If he'd been shocked about them at the time, he'd have done something about them at the time. If he were shocked about them now, he'd tell us now who wrote them (I'm sure he could easily find out). If he didn't write them, he obviously approved every word. This is not a man unconcerned about his message -- THAT he has NEVER been.
Ron Paul was a national nobody at the time these came out, and nobody had any reason to carry on for years counterfeiting his statements as if it were multi-year South Carolina primary. No Karl Rove minion sat up nights in the 90's fabricating statements to attribute to the obscure Ron Paul. What was published under the name of Ron Paul (especially if it didn't hurt him with his Texas constituents one bit) was BY Ron Paul.
"What concerns us isn't what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but that civil government will equate the sterile act of two rutting men with the life-giving act of husband and wife."
Hmmm, you sound pretty concerned about bedroom activities to me. How about the sterile act of two married people using contraception? It that when f888888ing becomes "rutting"?
I think Ron Paul is an interesting candidate and it's refreshing to hear some truths that other candidates don't seem to touch on.
However, like other candidates, he seems to be somewhat short on specific solutions to some of the more outlandish ideas he proposes.
Get rid of the IRS - The government has to have operating revenue. So who is supposed to collect whatever fair/flat/etc.. tax? The dept. of fair tax collection?
Get rid of the Federal Reserve - So who is supposed to regulate the monetary supply?
Congress? We've all seen how well they handle money.
I've gone to the website and read papers. I just don't see a plan.
Maybe some of you can link me to the plan.
Hey Bob,
Who's regulating the money supply right now?? Private bankers are creating money as debt--debt owed to themselves by us. Understand how it works.
The Plan? CONGRESS could regulate the money supply at--guess what--zero cost to the public! No debt! No interest! 'CAUSE PAPER MONEY HAS NO VALUE. It's just a tool to facilitate trade. Paper money can be provided for free by the state--with the amount scientifically regulated so it doesn't lose its value, ever! (look up colonial scrip)--or private parties can introduce gold and silver currencies that actually hold their value--because they have INTRINSIC value--and can just as easily facilitate trade.
The IRS? It's a moral question of should the government be able to tax your labor. That is, force you to give up a portion of your earnings, whether or not you can pay your rent. No. This is oppressive. Hell, it's prohibited by the 13th amendment because it's a form of forced labor isn't it? 20% or so of your labor is to pay the federal government. The assumption that the IRS and the income tax is necessary, is false. Eliminate the INTEREST and DEBT we owe on the worthless paper we're buying from PRIVATE BANKERS, and you've just cut about the same amount that is collected in income tax.
Look up the Grace Commission.
Hi Bob,
Since you asked a sincere qeustion, I will try to answer as best as I know how.
RE: The IRS. Getting rid of the IRS is more of a metaphor for getting rid of the Personal Income Tax, than anything else, which is what he has said would be his goal. Personal Income Taxes supply from 40-48% of Federal Tax Revenues in a given year. The remainder comes from Corporate Taxes, as well as various fees and tarriffs the goverment levies (You can see the pie chart in the Form 1040 the IRS mails out each year). Obviously, we would still need a bureaucracy in place (i.e. the 'IRS') to collect this revenue.
Can we get there? In order to reach this ambitious goal we would need to put the Feds on a diet, basically going from a $3 trillion budget to under a $2 trillion budget. This would require cutting spending to the same levels we had in the mid-90's (i.e. not impossible). If you'd like to see how Dr. Paul gets there, check out Article 1, Section 8 of our US Constitution. Obviously, things would need to be phased out, in some cases over many years. But to his point, we really don't have much choice...we're going broke.
RE: The Federal Reserve. You mention Congress in jest, but actually that's what The Law of the Land says (also in Art 1, Sec 8). While Dr. Paul would ideally like to see the Fed abolished, he has said that this would be impractical given how it is so interwined with both the gov't and the private sector. As an alternative measure, he would like to simply 'legalize competition.' This would allow firms to offer competing currencies backed typically by gold, or some other metal. People could use these currencies anywhere that private firms were willing to accept them, much like retailers decide which credit card(s) to accept, or whether they will take a check or not.
Citizens will decide whether these alternative currencies are worthwhile, or whether they will continue to use money backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government (or both). In recent years, a gold-backed currency would have much more value than its dollar equivalent. Whether that continues or not is for the future to see.
Peace be with you.
This would require cutting spending to the same levels we had in the mid-90's (i.e. not impossible).
Not impossible if you're willing to kill off the Boomers en masse, since the big-growth items in our budget are Social Security and Medicare.
This would allow firms to offer competing currencies backed typically by gold, or some other metal.
Thus creating currency risk right here in the domestic economy, vastly complicating tax collection and compliance with securities laws, encouraging speculation in domestic currencies with the attendant ill effects on small savers, causing extra friction in perfectly ordinary transactions, and possibly requiring Thomas Cook to set up offices all over to handle regional currencies.
Now, this might be a good idea despite the drawbacks, but it does have some substantial drawbacks. Indeed, our country had competing currencies at one time, and they caused all kinds of problems even though they were all backed by metals.
Megan,
Yes, Great idea! Libertarians for Barack Obama. Or how about ... People who want to privitize social security for Obama.
What's that? you don't think it will work?
Don't kid yourself.
The majority of republicans against the war voted for.. guess who... JOHN McCain.
Don't ever overestimate the intelligence of the Republicans. You treat them like morons and I think it is well within their intelligence limits to be facinated by your cockeyed logic. Well, except for those troublesome Paulites who probably see your imbicile-like ranting as so much babble and have moved on.
So Megan, what you are say is, you and your friends are tolerant of diversity, as long as it is from a pre-approved list. I'm sorry, but that isn't a very good credential for a civil libertarian. Avram Grumer got it right instead, when he said, " I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire." Any true civil libertarian would be out in front on this, defending Dr. Paul's right to any wacky opinion whatsoever; Instead they are all ducking and running for cover. For shame.
To Drew,
"We may certainly agree that the State should not be involved in marriage, but if it is going to be involved, and use our tax money, we are perfectly within our rights to demand that the State supports real marriages and denies the benefit of its imprimatur to "unions" that are destructive of the society in which we live."
Notice the line about "AND USE OUR TAX MONEY"? If you thought about Ron Paul's general position (that we shouldn't be taxed on our income to grant entitlements and exceptions to others) you'd understand that his position isn't bigoted. Why should I pay taxes so that a pair of straight guys can get "married" so they can live out "Chuck and Larry"?
If you want the state to recognize "marriage" as a legal definition, then you must accept the state's right to DEFINE THAT WHICH LEGALLY CONSTITUTES marriage. Want gay marriages? Get the fed and the state (and the bible) out of defining what marriage is.
Bob (above) wants to know what the plan is to regulate the money supply if we get rid of the FED.
Bob, the plan is to not regulate the money supply. The value of money depends upon its being scarce. Sand wouldn't work. Gold works because nature regulates the supply by keeping it scarce. That's the main reason why humans - for many centuries - keep choosing it as the best money. Easily printed paper (counterfeiting) is the choice of politicians, who then claim their role is to "regulate the supply", which generally means don't allow the press to ever slow down. The paper doller is now worth HALF what it was in 1985. Oil, as Ron Paul has pointed out, keeps going up in dollars, but is flat when priced in gold. Ponder that, Bob. Study Austrian economics. Ron Paul did.
If only we could get a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich/Alex Jones ticket. Then we could call the mother ship and get them all beamed up at once.
Why is Alex Jones on the ticket? Ah, er...balance. Hey it makes as much sense as the prisonplanet theory that supremacists and separatists blew up those buildings on 9/11.
Rob Lyman (above) writes:
"Indeed, our country had competing currencies at one time, and they caused all kinds of problems even though they were all backed by metals."
Rob needs to read some economic history and be more specific. SOME competing currencies caused problems due to fractional-reserve banking (otherwise known as counterfeiting-by-the-bank). Honest currencies did not cause problems.
The governmental solution was to (don't you love it?) make fractional-reserve banking (counterfeiting) legal! Then to centralize the swindle into a gigantic PRIVATE counterfeiting racket called the Federal Reserve System in 1913. What cost $1 in 1913 now costs $21.13. But what cost an ounce of gold back then now costs a bit less than an ounce of gold today. Paper can be printed. Gold cannot.
The most important thing to understand about the swindle is who wins. The counterfeiters win because they are the first users of the money before the new (phoney) money is in circulation so they use it at current prices. Later the loss of scarcity of the paper money causes prices to go up and the later spenders (wage earners, fixed income pensioners, etc) pay higher prices.
The most important thing to understand about THAT is that real wealth (homes, college educations, wheapons of war) flows to the early spending counterfeiters (bankers, politicians) and away from everyone else. That's why it is nicknamed the "hidden tax".
Study Austrian Economics and Vote Ron Paul. Among a host of other issues, he understands the nature of money, something not taught in the government schools.
you're blog is of pour quality !!! GO RON PAUL
poetryman69 (above) shows us his large intelligence by snide sarcasm and satire. It is a widely known fact that the most intelligent people on the planet are snide and condescending and can't be bothered to actually engage in a debate with those who don't think like them because that would be to assume that the intelligent ones had to prove what is so obvious to them - that they are intelligent. Poetryman69 just knows. That's all we need to know - that he just knows. And sarcasm and snide to anyone who doesn't share his views. Yea! Sarcasm and snide to them all.
You tell 'em, poetryman69!
The reason your blog has been ignored is because these allegations have no backing. Where is the proof? They are so vague and convoluted, almost as if you are in desperation to find some dirt on Dr. Ron Paul. Even if all of the speculations are true, that does not mean that Dr. Paul was directly involved with the few semi-controversial statements. And who sets the standard for controversy: you, the liberals, the media?
Hopefully you do not out-do yourself in these political adventures of yours.
Cheers!
Honored. Poetryman69 is quite that gaper. His comic just about does it. Congrats Poetryman. You should write another poem about your aspirations of others' aspirations down at "The Starving Artist Rotello". You'd work great there. And while you're there, read some more up on your Shakespeare good chap.
Best!
Megan, we're out canvassing neighborhoods and getting together with other Ron Paul supporters.
Believe me, the meetups have only accelerated and the numbers are still growing larger.
The other candidates are fundamentally flawed. We're sticking to our man and there will be no compromising.
I think you're going to miss our attention once we have President Paul in office.
I think you're going to miss our attention once we have President Paul in office.
You have to wonder... are they really crazy enough to believe that'll happen? And what will they do when it doesn't?
Libel is illegal, good sir.
Please cease your senseless attacks against Dr. Paul when they're clearly unwarranted and false.
Freedom lovers will never disappear, while you are busy here trying to discredit the first real option America has had for a Presidential candidate in fifty years, we are out trying to save our country from imploding on itself. We are supporters of Ron Paul because of his strong limited government view points, he is the best option and is the only honest option, he refuses to tell you what you want to hear, rather he tells you how it is whether or not it fits into your current view of U.S. Politics.
May you have war and big government.
You know - I be likin Mr. Paul befo he make dem bad statements. Guess I be too tired to vote in any case after I pick up dat welfare check.
In the end a racist is a racist and it always comes out. My other question - why did this idiot Ron Paul actually think that the memos would NOT come out? Is this Presidential Judgement?
Google: Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays
I like RP's intelligence. I like his insight and understanding of US history and the constitution. And I like what is clearly the most sincere campaign since Eisenhower. But I fear the machine may be far too advanced for him to overcome... but I'll still vote for him.
Oh... and I'm friends with an anarchist. A rock-throwing one. Doesn't mean I agree with him or would join him in throwing rocks. But he's interesting to talk to... Those newsletters ARE a red herring... just one of the mighty machine's gears, I'd wager...
Just another of the swarming locusts for Ron Paul...
I am SO TIRED of people criticizing Ron Paul and neglecting to mention that the alternatives are much worse!
At least RP has real insights that he stands behind, CONSISTENTLY. These other politicians (i.e. Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain, Huckabee) will say anything and do anything to get elected. They will change their views IMMEDIATELY upon getting elected, going to the highest bidder. Remember George Bush II, the a**wipe, who said "humble foreign policy"?! The guy's a complete megalomaniac.
At least with RP, you know where he stands. With the others, who freakin' knows?
Anti-war, Anti-government, anti-Patriot Act, pro-sound money, pro-balanced budget. Go Ron Paul!!!
I am a permanent resident in US. I will apply for US citizen straight away if Ron becomes president.
But I doubt Ron has a chance, because most Americans are too stupid to understand what Ron is saying.
Americans are suckers for feel-good motivational speakers like Obama.
I'm a Paul supporter and I'm the kind of guy who hasn't really posted in various other articles that show up due to my news.google.com alert that shows up every day. I don't post because other people seem to make the points rather well and to post would simply be a rehash of the same. Given that the comments to this article take up 90% of the page and the article itself only takes up 10%, I'm willing to bet that I might rehash some of what other people have said, but here goes anyway...
You can go ahead and research Ron Paul's record ... the Congressional record and find some positive statements that he has made about Rosa Parks at the time he was voting against giving her a medal. He voted against giving her the medal because it was costing tax payers money and he didn't think it was a good use of taxpayer money to give people medals. He did volunteer to chip in some of his own money if some of his other collegues wanted to do the same. None of them did.
I invite you to read this CNN piece on the subject. It does a much better job of covering than you do. What do you think about the fact that a "main stream" media outlet of the sort that Ron Paul supposedly will never be a part of has done a better and more fair job of covering this subject that you have lambasted him for?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/?iref=mpstoryview
At the end of the article you will find pertinent quotes from Ron Paul that deal with the two of the subjects you bring up; making Libertarians look bad (hint, he says that Libertarians can't be racist because racist is collectivist) and racism (hint, he says the war on drugs unfairly targets black people and he happens to be against it).
Now, if someone really hated black people and thought that they were dangerous to society, wouldn't he be all for something like the war on drugs that "locks up those damn jungle bunnies and keeps their nigger culture away from us good clean white people?" Keep in mind, I live in Long Beach California and have lots of friends who aren't white like me.
It's really interesting to see CNN post this on the day of the South Carolina debate. These stories flooded in on the day of the New Hampshire debate. Wolf Blitzer discussed this with Dr. Paul:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pLUmfZWIZsc
This "news story" makes it appear that this is breaking news although it has been already addressed. Although it attempts to make the appearance that it is balanced, it does Ron Paul more damage than good. For example, the title of the story should be "Ron Paul states that he did not write letters against blacks, gays." So please explain to me why CNN has re-hashed this story when Wolf Blitzer had already addressed this and Ron Paul has addressed this many times. I hope the motive was not to do damage to Ron Paul instead of report the news.
I sure hope that people scroll down far enough to read this. Here is another good piece that tears your argument to shreds.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=224327
to: NH....ummm, last I checked "Jewish" was not a nationality but a religion.
um... we're still here.
Ron Paul rocked tonight!
Paul's negligence regarding his newsletter is bad for sure.
But what about McCain at the debate saying he doesn't want to trade for burkas?..or Thompson talking about sending muslims "to meet their virgins?"
I wonder if the Paul letters contained the same type stuff but directed at Muslims or immigrants if we would cringe so deeply?
Does the severity of racism depend on the target? Is there a discrepancy here?
The reason the Paulites have disappeared from your blog is we're all out working the streets recruiting more paul supporters... for me its 2:30am so I have time to read some of this junk.
Michael
It is a shame to live in a time when speaking the truth gets you labeled a "lunatic." We have a disturbing, pun intended, situation in this country when those of us who cling to falsehoods that drown us and even in our very last breath proclaim the lies as truth and the truth as lies. Could we be any more disfunctional. The plan to dumb us down has worked brilliantly.
I commend Dr Paul for stepping forward on a platform that makes people so uncomfortable about their own belief systems. Hopefully we will see that those beliefs have been massaged into us to make it easier for those who have an agenda they can achieve without it's citizens having the backbone to contest.
The only thing crazy about Paul is wanting to take the time to have to educate the other candidates, the media and the dumbed down citizens. At least people in foreign countries can see the situation with clarity. Perhaps that is what we should all do. Look at our own situation as if we were looking from across the pond.
Funny, how "now" this comes up on Dr. Ron Paul when the GOP race enters South Carolina which has a large African American population. This is such a smear that I can't believe the typical American could even believe it to be true. Let alone about Ron Paul who is right about being the only GOP candidate even remotely concerned about discrimination against minorities and everyone for that matter. He's the only GOP candidate that talks about real issues and change. Real change. Not lip service. The rest of the pack is just your typical war-mongering, lip service deceivers that we have seen and heard for years. Sad that the vast majority of Americans still fall prey to these deceptive games. Hard to believe that 70% of Americans want out of the Iraq war, and even more want "No War At All" to resolve issues abroad, but they all flock to McCain in NH who wants nothing but war to solve all the worlds problems. Are we crazy? And why is it that the other GOP candidates look at other foreign lands and nations like they are a state within the USA? When is this type of policy going to stop? That is what is insane and "true" Americans need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul is trying his best to showcase a failed policy that his other GOP competitors want you to believe is the best for the USA and the world. We need to stop worrying about the rest of the world for awhile and fix things here at home for a change. Stop forcing people to do things as we do, which has not been so great the past decade or so. Our nation is broke, people are broke, others hate us, we can't secure our own border.....but you listen to any other GOP candidates they will tell you War will solve our problems, foreign policy has nothing to do with "terrorism" and our monetary system is just fine. Wake up "my friends". Things are not fine.
I'm a libertarian (if not an anarchist) and I was initially pleased that I would have Paul to support. However, I don't have much trouble believing that he is either a racist or overly accomodating of racism. I don't have trouble believing it because Mr. Paul "doesn't accept" the theory of evolution. If he is unencumbered by evidence in one matter, it is more likely he would be unencumbered by evidence in another.
With the evidence available to anyone who cares to review it, not accepting the theory of evolution is damning evidence of both poor judgement and hubris.
Have you ever did any homework on Ron Paul?
What about the Fed?
It's easy for you to be for your freedom, it's just everyone else's you have a problem with?
The economic disaster Ron Paul talks about will come to pass and he will look like a prophet. you have to have a brain and be able to think past knee jerk emotional politics. I don't know if America is ready for it, but look out here it comes. We will not go away, we not be silenced and will strike the largest blow for freedom since the revolutionary war. Ending the Federal Reserve. Mention that one in public and see if too are not labeled a nut case.
If you do your homework on the fed it reads like a sci-fi, hollywood couldn't dream up a better horror flick than the FED.
Rob needs to read some economic history and be more specific. SOME competing currencies caused problems due to fractional-reserve banking (otherwise known as counterfeiting-by-the-bank). Honest currencies did not cause problems.
I’d be delighted to be more specific, although I’d think that experts in economic history such as the posters here would hardly need it.
I had in mind the economic friction caused by the pre-civil-war banknotes, which, for a merchant or a bank in Georgia, posed the difficulty of knowing whether the First Rothschild Bank of Philadelphia was solvent, or indeed if it existed at all. Thus, it could be hard for travelers or merchants to use banknotes from home, which of course both hindered trade and rendered the alleged benefit of banknotes—ease of transport as compared to gold—nugatory (to use a lovely word from that same era). Obviously that particular problem is mitigated with modern communication and federally chartered banks, but not eliminated.
I would think that the problem of exchange-rate risk in a competing-currency system, as well as the difficulty of collecting taxes in multiple currencies, would be obvious. Yet if all taxes are collected in a particular currency, it will be very surprising if any competing currency gets off the ground. As with weights and measures, a single medium of exchange has substantial economic benefits.
And once again I’m confused by the objection to fractional reserve banking. The business model for banks is borrow short, lend long. This has been the business model for banks since there have been banks. That is, fractional reserve banking is more or less how banking has been done since before Moses the Levite came down from Zion and told the assembled tribes not to charge interest. In the absence of either fractional reserves or something that is functionally indistinguishable from it, there is no such thing as a credit market, and that is a bad thing.
I think it is important to remember a few things... not only has the Republican Party lost its way, but most Republicans lost their way as well... including me. When I realized that it's Ron Paul's message that makes so much sense, I realized that Dr. Paul is NOT offering anything new... he is simply stating the position of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Constitution. It's so simple, really.
Be gentle to you fellow Republicans!... even if they do not yet realize that Dr. Ron Paul has out-Republicaned the Republicans! I think one of the reasons why so many young people "get it" sooner than old farts like me is because they have not lived with the Republican Party as it is to know any better... it's Ron Paul's message that makes so much sense... NOT the Republican Party at the moment!
This Ron Paul supporter hasn't gone away, but I have seriously reconsidered my support for the Congressman. I don't understand how this could fail to give all of his supporters serious pause, even if it has no bearing on his actual policies. I've been a grassroots activist for him, and here's my personal take:
"Congressman Paul,
I would first like to thank you, because this could end up sounding harsh. Like any good doctor, your goal has been to first do no harm - and this principle is clearly at work in your many (sometimes lonely) years defending Americans and the Constitution from our government's oppressive turn. It takes personal and moral courage to see the big picture and declare that your nation's government has gone bad. It takes superhuman dedication to actually make progress towards a solution, as your have by educating and activating so many millions of Americans. And so it is with genuine sorrow that I withdraw my support for your candidacy. While the ripple effect of your message still shows me a glimmer of hope for this nation's political future, and you may yet win back my vote, I can no longer in good conscience be involved with your Presidential campaign.
As you know, the voluntary contract is supremely important to libertarians. Now, in light of recent revelations, your supporters will have to decide whether you remain the candidate that they had bargained for. You have always espoused a clear set of values, which are backed up with decades of consistent voting. Your stubborn insistence on providing a rational explanation for each of your positions has had the wonderful effect of elevating the discourse at every forum you attend. Even if one doesn't agree with you on every issue, the philosophical points of contention are easy to locate - simple name calling and sloganeering have never been your m.o. The unspoken contract between you and your supporters has been founded on their clear understanding of where you stand - and also how you got there.
This transparency is what made your refusal to return a Neo-Nazi's donation so justifiable and, in its way, honorable. You had done your part and represented yourself clearly - you stood for limited government and you stood against racism. If a Neo-Nazi found something in your platform that appealed to him, that's fine: but it was money poorly spent if he was expecting to influence you. We have always assumed that you give the same message to every audience, and that this message is constitutional, intellectual and dignified. Your refusal to return that single controversial $500 donation (one of over 100,000, after all) had a clear libertarian rationale, and served to reinforce your image as the most high-minded candidate. You were the one who didn't pander.
Yet it turns out you have pandered for years - to the worst elements in your constituency. I refer to the revelation from The New Republic that the political newsletters written in your name (for years) contained countless bigoted statements about just about every scapegoated group in America. The hatefulness of the newsletters is heartbreaking, and the stupidity is just embarrassing.
Let me present people with one of your many statements denouncing racism:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” -The real Ron Paul (not ghostwritten)
This is how you talk and I believe it's how you truly feel. It sounds like Ayn Rand speaking on the subject, and you did after all name your son Randall after her.
I can imagine marginal groups being legitimately drawn to your message of limited federal government (i.e. them opposing hate speech laws, or being frightened by the feds' killing of the Branch Davidians). But it had to be natural policy outgrowths of your pure, constitutional principles that attracted them. Actively reaching out to such people completely changes things. And it almost makes it worse that you allowed a ghostwriter to do this dirty work in your name, so that you could maintain your spic-and-span image. Perhaps building a following on the sort of moronic, cartoonish hate mongering found in your newsletters was a necessary evil if you, a truly anti-establishment candidate, were to be elected to Congress. If so, it can't have been worth it. You'll forgive me if your Presidential run left me with the impression that you valued intellectual and moral honesty over vote-whoring. Of course, it's even worse if these bigoted ramblings represent your deepest held opinions.
For almost a year now, I have defended your honor and my own against charges that you were racist. These claims were flimsy for the longest time - often based on an ideological opposition to libertarianism, or the simple identity politics that you're an old white Christian Texan Republican (surely racist!). After The New York Times published an article stating that you had monthly meetings with a white supremacist group and then almost immediately retracted the entire factual basis of their article, I felt confident that the worst of the closet-digging was done with, and that there were no skeltons to be found. When I learned that a few racist quotes had appeared in your newsletter, I was satisfied with the explanation that they were isolated within the long history of a ghostwritten publication, and that you in no way endorsed their content. At worst, they represented a lapse in tact and judgement, but not an ongoing pattern. But I'm simply swayed by the weight of new evidence presented in the New Republic article. Even though its timing indicates that it is a standard "hit piece", the facts remain as they are (It may be proven to be a complete fabrication, but I doubt it, especially considering your reaction. And what's wrong with an accurate hit piece? I wouldn't mind seeing one about, say, Hillary Clinton).
I can no longer campaign on your behalf because I've got no defense for what you've had published in your name. Sure, I could canvass door-to-door and point out that you're the lesser of nine evils, and that your actual policies like ending the War on Drugs will help America's blacks more than anyone else's will. But that's not enough, and it's certainly not inspiring. It could be that you're not as inspired as I thought you were. Founding father material? And just when you thought American politics might shed its nightmarish quality...
Others can vote for you - I still may - but I can't promote you any longer in good conscience.
Going back to the notion of a voluntary, informed contract - this is not what I had bargained for. As you once said, "I have my flaws, but the message has no flaws." I will continue to fight for the message, but I've got too much self respect, not to mention respect for blacks, gays, Jews, and any other group slandered in your newsletters' pages, to continue to fight for Ron Paul, the man.
Sincerely,
Grant Valdes Huling"
From my blog:
http://shoestringcentury.blogspot.com/2008/01/open-letter-to-ron-paul.html
If you remember 3rd grade math. 1+1+1=3 . If you want to balance a budget, repair the economy, and help people personally. Put the power back in their hands. Borrowing Money from China + Spending Billions on Overseas Countries + Bailing Out Bankrupt Companies; does not = Fiscal Responsibility. If America REALLY wants change, they have to change the way they VOTE. No more voting for the prettiest person, no more caring that they're 6 feet tall with hair, and no more buying the line "I'm a Christian, so it's okay for me to kill Muslums". If America wants Change, we must do it one citizen at a time. 1Vote + 1Vote + 1Vote = 3 Votes for Ron Paul. If you want Freedom, it begins 1Vote at a time.
If you remember 3rd grade math. 1+1+1=3 .
What on Earth did you study in 1st and 2nd grade math?
Wow....very hostlie tone....
The reason why your not getting as many hit's is the net is now saturated with Paul coverage mostly divisive, or disengenuous. So the Locust hordes have their handful on the net with the established pigs.
Please read this:
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html
FYI the Paulites are busy canvassing the streets of their respective cities.
Dr. Paul is not God, therefore not a perfect man. What people like you fail to do is comparing the voting records of each candidates. If the sheeple would all stop watching American Idol for 10 minutes and look him up they'd find out that 10 terms Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has the most integrity. He's an honnest man and he puts his life on the line going against the Establishement. He doesn't take ANY money from lobbyists and isn't part of the CFR. Just for that he's my hero.
PS.: If this country would vote with hand-counted paper ballots only we'd win by a landslide.
Ignorant pundits like Ms. McArdle will lead America to financial collapse.
Ron Paul is the only one talking about the financial problems the US is in, and people in the media don't give a shit.
I challenge anyone to google Ron + Paul + prisonplanet and google Ron + Paul + stormfront. You’ll see that Ron Paul has strong support amongst the kooks and antisemites. Before you hand your cash over to Ron Paul decide whether you are a kook, an antisemite, or both.
Actual writing by Ron Paul on racism
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.