Pat Robertson (almost) Endorses Ron Paul
This is good. Any positive mention of RP by Christian leaders will help him a lot. I’m a bit surprised that Robertson chose to air this on his program, given his endorsement of Rudy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
More about the meetings between Ron Paul and Neo Nazis at Tara Thai Restaurant in Arlington. [/quote]
Does this story even to be “debunked”? What I’m saying is, who really cares…
I thought I was reading T-Nation, not the Democratic Underground.
For my part, I can tell you that he’s huge on Stormfront. He’s also discussed often on European Nationalist boards.
And what of it?
Whatever opinion you may have of white nationalism, I thought it was common knowledge that these people are predominantly libertarians or small government conservatives with Christian beliefs, so it should not surprise anybody that they are coming out in support of RP. The neocon bloggers are trying to say, “Ha, we got him!”, but it’s all childish nonsense.
Why don’t we let liberals whine about this “racist” BS on some other board and discuss real issues here?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, you seem to indicate that Paul is the only GOP candidate that would have a chance to beat a Democrat. Absurd on its face, the exact opposite is true - he is the least likely to beat a Democrat in a general election.
And, in fact, if we entertain the illusion that Paul were the GOP candidate, nothing would push the US toward a long-lasting Democratic reign than would a Paul nomination, as mainstream voters would punish the GOP for God knows how long for presenting such a feckless, fringe, and ridiculous candidate for a general election.
Hard to take you seriously, Lixy, with this level of commentary.[/quote]
These statements succinctly demonstrate your detachment from reality.
I’m taking this as a bulletin to spend less of my time arguing with you. Thanks for the heads-up.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
These statements succinctly demonstrate your detachment from reality. [/quote]
The height of irony.
Setting aside that so little time is spent arguing with me to begin with - you cower like a child when pressed on hard questions and you haven’t said anything useful since returning as your second (discredited) incarnation - and that I neither like you nor respect you, nor do I think that you write anything particularly interesting, intelligent, or thoughtful…how exactly is this bad news for me?
I didn’t even realize you were taking time to argue with me - news to me, Al. I think of you as the occasional pebble that gets in my shoe on my walk to a worthwhile debate with someone bright - nothing more.
Well, it was clear you thought Paul had a chance at any kind of candidacy - glad to clear that up for you.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Sloth wrote:
More about the meetings between Ron Paul and Neo Nazis at Tara Thai Restaurant in Arlington.
Does this story even to be “debunked”? What I’m saying is, who really cares…
I thought I was reading T-Nation, not the Democratic Underground.
For my part, I can tell you that he’s huge on Stormfront. He’s also discussed often on European Nationalist boards.
And what of it?
Whatever opinion you may have of white nationalism, I thought it was common knowledge that these people are predominantly libertarians or small government conservatives with Christian beliefs, so it should not surprise anybody that they are coming out in support of RP. The neocon bloggers are trying to say, “Ha, we got him!”, but it’s all childish nonsense.
Why don’t we let liberals whine about this “racist” BS on some other board and discuss real issues here?[/quote]
Well, it was mentioned. You see, for me White Supremacism isn’t something I could have ignored. That is, if he was actually a follower of such beliefs. Sorry, but that line of thinking is repulsive to me, if not to you. So, I felt it important to look into this myself in an attempt to settle the matter in my mind.
Let me be clear. I don’t care if both the Neo-Nazis, or the Nation of Islam for that matter, support him because of his small goverment ideals. I needed to be confident that Paul himself doesn’t hold their racial views. I found what I believed to be some answers.
Sloth, would you say that black nationalist groups such as the NAACP, or black supremacist groups such as the Nation of Yahweh and the Nation of Islam, are really more benign than white nationalist groups such as Stormfront? Are they that different in their aims or methods? If Barack Obama received support from the NAACP or Nation of Islam, would that denigrate his candidacy?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth, would you say that black nationalist groups such as the NAACP, or black supremacist groups such as the Nation of Yahweh and the Nation of Islam, are really more benign than white nationalist groups such as Stormfront? Are they that different in their aims or methods? If Barack Obama received support from the NAACP or Nation of Islam, would that denigrate his candidacy?[/quote]
Oh, I’m not worried about what groups support who. The beliefs of the candidates is the only thing I’m considering. I’ve seen nothing to convince me that Ron Paul subscribes to racist ideologies. Therefore, I’m still comfortable supporting him.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Let me be clear. I don’t care if both the Neo-Nazis, or the Nation of Islam for that matter, support him because of his small goverment ideals. I needed to be confident that Paul himself doesn’t hold their racial views. I found what I believed to be some answers.
[/quote]
There are other answers, but this one is offered without comment:
[i]
24 May 1996
San Antonio Express-News
English
(Copyright 1996)
A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.
Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.
He said his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”
Paul’s Democratic opponent, Charles “Lefty” Morris, said many of Paul’s views were “out there on the fringe” and that this fall voters would judge his commentaries.
Morris’ campaign distributed selected writings by Paul this week.
Paul, a former congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats.
He said he’d produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.
Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation’s capital.
Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:
“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Paul said this week. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.
He also wrote: “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.”
[/i]
I don’t know. Read these Dr. and let me what you think. I think it’s best you read them for yourself, instead of me trying to paraphrase.
I just don’t know. My problem is that I’m going to be stuck without a candidate if I believe he wrote such a thing. I’ll have to think on it, but I invite you to share your thoughts on these explanations.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
Touches upon this issue well into the NYT article.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t know. Read these Dr. and let me what you think. I think it’s best you read them for yourself, instead of me trying to paraphrase.
I just don’t know. My problem is that I’m going to be stuck without a candidate if I believe he wrote such a thing. I’ll have to think on it, but I invite you to share your thoughts on these explanations.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
Touches upon this issue well into the NYT article.[/quote]
Thanks for the nod…
It is easy for one to disclaim that racist comment in a newletter, written over one’s signature. Ordinarily, I might take a man at his word and leave it at that, but there are other examples, and a whole lot of baggage, that lead me to think that Paul is a “crypto-racist.” And he keeps raising barrage balloons that smack of racism (no need to bring up the Civil War again!), although perhaps not so blatantly as many candidates of the '60’s through the '80’s.
And then there are the Paulistas themselves, some crypto-racists like Nominal Prospect, wack-job anti-Semites like JTF, Storm-Front and others. Pro-Paul posters here have pleaded the aforementioned not to be so ostentatiously stupid, because it makes their pantomime candidate look so bad.
Defend him from them as you may, Sloth, their smell sticks to him like green on beans.
From that NYT article, which I first read in July:
[i]
The head of the Pasadena Meetup group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters asking for guidance:
“We’re in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other ‘wackos’ for their beliefs whether that is simply because they’re liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. . . . We absolutely must focus on Ron’s message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next ‘Star Trek’ convention or whatever.”
But what is ‘Ron’s message’? Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats. The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers–and anger-- are of a considerable magnitude. [/i]
Anti-war liberals meet anti-government proto-fascists with phasers on stun?
With respect, Sloth, if you–a thoughtful and meticulous person–feel “unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats,” are you better represented by this man, whom I contend is a crackpot imitating a patriot?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
With respect, Sloth, if you–a thoughtful and meticulous person–feel “unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats,” are you better represented by this man, whom I contend is a crackpot imitating a patriot?
[/quote]
Yes. Yes, I’m best represented by him, and not by any fault of my own. It’s says more about the Republicans, than it does about me.
I want deep cuts in the size, spending, and reach, of our government. I see a nation shouldering a pretty hefty national debt. I see entitlement programs straining and ready to burst as the boomers prepare to jump on the government teat. Not to mention that I’m opposed to wealth redistribution fundamentally. And, I see a tax burden that would likely have the Founders raising up another army.
I don’t need the National Endowment of the Arts, or the Department of Education. I no longer want my tax money being used as welfare (foreign aid) for other nations.
I also see a Republican party hell bent on sticking it’s nose into the private lives of consenting adults.
And then I look at the mainstream candidates. Hmm, which moderate-liberal candidate do I choose from?! Which “Here’s what I’ll have the Government do for you” candidate do I endorse? Huckabee? Rudy? Romney? Thompson? Heck, Thompson acts like he doesn’t cares that he’s running. I think Ron Paul is actually beating him in some Polls now.
Dr. I understand your concerns. Honestly, I do. But for me, I either stay home, or vote for the guy closest (even if he’s kooky) to my own beliefs in small federal government, local government control, and individual rights. Unfortunately, some (or all) of those beliefs or also held in high regard by kooks. Hell, maybe I’m a kook by association.
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
There is no shame in being thought a kook or a crackpot. Most great thinkers have been thought of as such.
Again the question, for which I am becoming convinced there is no satisfactory answer. If not Ron Paul, then for whom does a voter favoring individual liberty, limited government and free markets vote?[/quote]
We seriously have to de-ice Goldwater. I really wish Thompson had a stunt double or something to campaign for him. If I thought the guy would actually do something I could vote for him if Paul starts getting trounced in the polls. I could also vote for Gingrich if he would have ran. Frankly, I think Paul and Gingrich are just about the only real throwbacks we’ve got to 1776 right now. Unfortunately the Republican party moved past and embarrassed Goldwater for his positions, leaving Americans to choose to vote R for a slow demise or D for a quicker one instead of working toward continued American prosperity and greatness.
mike
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth, would you say that black nationalist groups such as the NAACP, or black supremacist groups such as the Nation of Yahweh and the Nation of Islam, are really more benign than white nationalist groups such as Stormfront? Are they that different in their aims or methods? If Barack Obama received support from the NAACP or Nation of Islam, would that denigrate his candidacy?[/quote]
Yes.
Yes to which, Zap?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yes to which, Zap?
[/quote]
I think Obama accepting support from the NAACP and the Nation of Islam reflects poorly on him. These are organizations that promote divisiveness between the races although though the NAACP may be more benign than Stormfront.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth, would you say that black nationalist groups such as the NAACP, or black supremacist groups such as the Nation of Yahweh and the Nation of Islam, are really more benign than white nationalist groups such as Stormfront? Are they that different in their aims or methods? If Barack Obama received support from the NAACP or Nation of Islam, would that denigrate his candidacy?[/quote]
The problem, Varq, is that while I don’t care for the NAACP, you simply can’t make a legitimate comparison - people don’t view the NAACP and Stormfront to be on equal footing, especially the general electorate. Qualitatively, the organizations are different - even if you think they deserve to be on equal fooring. They aren’t.
Further, while an endorsement by the Nation of Islam might hurt Obama some, Obama doesn’t have a problem with mainstream voters. It might knock him down a peg or two, but generally speaking, he appeals just fine to mainstream America, so he can have a quirky endorsement or two and claim “hey, I can’t control what those guys do.”
Paul has no such luck. He needs every advantage at this point to convince mainstream voters that he deserves their attention - he already has the baggage of being a fringe character. He needs to overcome that presumption, something Obama doesn’t have to deal with. As such, every fringe association - even if by accident - confirms his fringe status, so he needs to distance himself. He doesn’t - so the impact of a Stormfront endorsement is exacerbated.
Paul has a resume that includes being associated with white supremacists (something that might not be entirely true, but the connection flirts with failing the “smell test”) and appearing on Alex Jones’ conspiracy nutbag show on a fairly regular basis. Not good - even for a rebel candidate.
You may be interested in the Politics of the Desirable, but I am interested in the Politics of the Possible - and if you truly want libertarianism to take hold in American politics, support for Ron Paul is setting you back years, as a practical matter.
We annoy AQ. They kill Bhutto. Our fault. No wonder lixy likes this guy.