Yeah, a couple more hundred thousand and he can start his own boat rodeo-show!
Let’s not forget that RP is advocating a system that works flawlessly. I mean separation of powers, constitutionally limited government. That kind of thing. It’s been working without a glitch for more than two hundred years. (I don’t see why libertarians are always whining).
Party like it’s 1776!
I’m not sure if you’ve actually read the newsletters, but I personally didn’t find anything terribly atrocious. The main culprit was the provocative language; the substance wasn’t that special. Everyone just stuck ‘racist’ in front of the word ‘newsletter’ and quoted a few lines out of context, creating controversy out of very little.
Anyway, I digress. I’m not sure why you think Paul’s sincerity is rhetorical nonsense. From what I’ve seen of the other candidates, the guy should be sprouting wings at this point. Even Obama was #6 or #7 on the most corrupt politicians list. And someone like McCain seems to be wading waist-deep in muck.
I said: "…the moment anyone starts…, so I was referring to supporters & defenders. RP may very well be sincere, but I have no interest, any longer, in what he’s selling. Also, comparing him to other politicans is pointless in my view, as I also have no more interest in the comparison of evils as if we’re talking about trading cards, stats, etc.
As for “everyone just putting ‘racist’ in front of the word newsletter”, I think you were talking more along the lines of this: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca.
I, on the other hand, was talking about the following coverage:
http://fusionistlibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/rockwell-rothbard-race-war.html (Admitelly, the comment about who is an a$$hole is ad-hominem on the poster’s part & can’t be vouched for obviously…)
“Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate’s name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists – and taking “moral responsibility” for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past – acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.”
~ “Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters?” by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel, from Reason On-Line
In any case, the many ocassions where he defended such weren’t terribly consistient either; in 2001, he mentioned that his campaign that it would be too “confusing” to attribute the writing to a ghostwriter, when previously remarked some of it were simply “philisophical differences” taken out of context.
You can disagree with me all you like, but I hardly see how having doubts wouldn’t be prudent; to my knowledge, the campaign nor the man himself ever gave a sastisfactory & deserved explanation for said newsletters, and then a little gem like this pops up a month or two later:
*( http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/25/is-this-libertarianism.aspx; I apologize for linking to such a terrible site, but sources are sources)
If anything, imo, the newsletter debacle was a perfect early example of the recent attempts of Libertarian Party & co. moving libertarianism further & further into mainstream politics (bringing the paleo influences along, in this case) as blowback waiting to happen leading to failure of libertarianism utilizing political means & reformism.
I would like to add though that in no way am I generalzing the newsletter debacle with libertarianism, as we all know that the LvMI, nor the entirerty of LewRockwell.com, or the libertarian community(ies), etc., are bastions of racist support.
Overall, I viewed it as a mess for RP supporters, and an odd happenstance for libertarianism that probably just furthered confusion overall, and rekindled generalizations & mis-conceptions abroad in the mainstream. It certaintly didn’t help anyone, except for those opposed to libertarianism.
Why?
Which is also what I was referring to.
Which brings me back to the question of have you read the newsletters? Granted, I am not equipped with the PC sensibilities of most people, but I couldn’t find anything blatantly racist. Merely stuff that looked racist when out of context, but quite different when viewed in context. The only sin I found was that the writing didn’t follow the official political correctness guidelines.
It was a pretty blatant political hitjob.
Haven’t seen that before. I’m not even quite sure what it is. More information would be nice.
I don’t view what he advocates as consistient nor a solution; to put in perspective, I’m an apolitical libertarian with market anarchist leanings; I also do not think reformism will end up working, and I largley do not think the political process itself works. RP just isn’t for me, lol.
Also, I admit to only reading excerpts from the newsletters, but not in their entirerty as I actually I couldn’t find them online. I remember taking part in a debate over @ thelibertypapers concerning when this was news: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/02/25/apparently-the-ron-paul-newsletters-werent-an-anomaly/. That was a little while ago though; I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did post the newsletters via link and I had forgotten about it.
I think political hit-job is possible, but more so in the postcard rather than the newsletters, as the postcard would be far easier to create. The postcard, asfar as outiside of the debate, I’m afraid hasn’t been more throughly explained then what was discussed at the liberty papers permalink, so it’s very possible it may have been manufacutred political fiction; it certaintly has an air of exaggeration that seems outrageous.
I did not mean to say you’re completly wrong, the end of story, so I apologize if I came off as such; but I still have not un-just suspicions concerning RP’s character though.
I meant hitjob in the sense that the TNR article was released a day or two before NH. With no time for any kind of response. The postcard could be fabricated, but I don’t really know anything about it. It just looks weird; it seems to be a composition, but I have no idea how the different parts relate together. Is the picture separate? Why is the letter corner there? And so on.
Nothing wrong with that. I just felt like interjecting about the ‘racist newsletters’ thing, since most people seem to be hung up on that.
Did I write that? I’ll give you a hint. The answer is no.
Not at all sure how this is relevant to the discussion at all. You are the one who brought up age first by assigning a false motive to me. [*-)]
Que? Although I do find it funny that you have labelled me arrogant for my discussions with Nicky. Are you his Dad?
And you work for a system that… ???
But the real question is, have you managed to stop sucking off the evil system too, or are just complaining about Paul?
Right, I don’t think even Paul will dispute that. However, his approach is different than ours. We argue on internet forums, he goes into the belly of the beast and tries to effect change.
Which will fail, as Reformism has time & time again.
And anarchy has succeeded when? Oh right, we’re going to see anarchy in the 23rd century. [8-)]
Celtic Ireland (one of many on a list): 650-1650
As for the 23rd century; I’m sorry, I don’t have my crystal ball with me.
I don’t work for a system per se yet, but what he’s advocating (basically trying to reverse the direction of growth of the government) is not going to work and will not solve the issues of having the government / the state in the first place. That is a different topic though :).
As for social acrobats earlier in the thread, I was half-testing how far the “unseen” sarcasm might go.
Although, if you do find that somehow one cannot have said to be educated, unless it is by use of private instiutions and/or the state’s faculties, and possibly said credentials showing proof of such, I would find it a little arrogant considering the opportuntiy of autodidactism the Internet provides us nowadays.
That isn’t to say there isn’t merit in some of the earlier mentioned options though (state certified education may be required for a certain job, if one wishes to get such a job, for exmaple). You’re right though, it wasn’t really relevant ;).
This seems like a pointless argument. Any and all forms of government and anarchies can/will be subverted. So arguing that one societal system is ‘eternal’ is silly. Anarchy will give way to a central government, as a Minarchist government will grow stronger.
On a long enough time line, the survival rate of every society drops to zero…
I don’t know how the hell you equate driving on monopolized roads with actively dancing with the beast. In one example the person does it to survive, in the other they do it to extort money and make a quick buck for producing nothing - er… but hope and love and warm fuzzy feelings that tickle my feet.
I really just wanted to know 2 things.
-
Is Nicky sucking off the state, but because that information is not as available as Paul’s, it allows him the opportunity to wage relentless personal attacks on not only Pauls tactics, but his morality as well? And to a lesser degree, has Nicky had to provide for himself, independent of family, community, and country? Because I find trying to be economically and socially independent is a lot tougher than it looks, and “tends” to take the starch out of the toughest critics of compromise.
-
Where my supposed “Ad Hominems” were.
But I have work to do. That darn “survival”. Always getting in the way of endless ideological debates. [:)]
The question is quite simple. If Paul is sucking of the system, and you are criticizing him vehemently for it, have you also stopped sucking off the system? For instance, do you attend a private or public school? If private, who pays for your schooling? How did they get the money? Are they willing participants in the government machinery of enslavement?