I'm done with The Revolution

[Cardsfan2000]

I'm still a staunch libertarian, I wholeheartedly in Austrian economics, sound money, individual liberty, non-interventionist foreign policy, the right-to-life, secure borders and the like.

However, the latest allegations against Dr. Paul are too damning to be refuted. (cnn story below) So barring some miraculous debunking (and I don't mean the ridiculous denial issued from HQ today... I mean proving that the newsletters are forgeries) you can count me out.

I don't believe RP wrote the newsletters as he's never said anything remotely like that and the ideas expressed are basically the opposite of libertarianism. Before a number of these newsletters were revealed,

However, I have to acknowledge the possibility. Moreover, even if he didn't see them, his negligence was ridiculous.

Regardless, I forgive the doctor for his beliefs, (or negligence) and still believe him to be a good man who had a positive influence on this country. However, but the mere possibility of the former makes it impossible for me to support him. (these newsletters are **** scary)

This is very close to home for someone like me... I am very anti-zionism and anti-political correctness (in case you didn't notice) but I am a staunch advocate of individualism and racial equality. People with similar beliefs need to immediately disavow racism and anti-semitism when they see it, so not to be discredited.

The story is going to turn a ton of voters off from the message, sadly. Libertarianism will need a couple years of healing after this one, though the vast network of support Paul mobilized will definitely be worth it.

In other words, I'm keeping my connections.

Well, you guys can't claim I'm intellectually dishonest now can you?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

[Mibrilane #56]

I don't believe RP wrote the newsletters as he's never said anything remotely like that and the ideas expressed are basically the opposite of libertarianism.
Really, the question of whether he wrote the newsletters or someone else did is beside the point - his newsletter had that content for over a decade, and as someone running for a congressional seat, he either (a) knew about the content of the newsletter bearing his name and gave it tacit approval by not having it stopped, (b) actively encouraged that content, or (c) was totally ignorant of the content of his own newsletter. All three options are damning in their own way.

If it was just one issue, it wouldn't be that big a thing - he could say he dealt with it and fired whoever wrote and/or approved the article and be done with it. But, as this is many issues over many years, and the message is somewhat consistent, it's hard to disavow the content without pleading ignorance, and that kind of ignorance isn't going to gain any favor with the voting public either.

I don't know if you saw tonight's Republican debate on Fox, but Ron Paul's answer to the Iranian speedboat question, where he went on a rant about foreign policy that completely ignored the fact that the rest of the candidates had agreed with the captain's restraint in NOT firing on the speedboats (instead of pushing for military response, which Paul was ranting against), and then admitting that he couldn't hear Brit Hume's questions, well, it just made him look incredibly silly. People in the audience actually laughed at him. I must admit, I too laughed aloud when they split the screen to show McCain looking over at Paul with a "W-T-F?" on his face. It would seem that any legitimacy Paul's candidacy may have had might have ended right there.

Also, all of that money raised is impressive, but when it comes from white supremacist groups and Truthers and you don't disown those groups or return that money as unacceptable, you're not going to win anything. Sorry, Ron. I guess it's time to go back to voting against your own earmarks. :wink:

[Cardsfan2000]

Really, the question of whether he wrote the newsletters or someone else did is beside the point - his newsletter had that content for over a decade, and as someone running for a congressional seat, he either (a) knew about the content of the newsletter bearing his name and gave it tacit approval by not having it stopped, (b) actively encouraged that content, or (c) was totally ignorant of the content of his own newsletter. All three options are damning in their own way.

If it was just one issue, it wouldn't be that big a thing - he could say he dealt with it and fired whoever wrote and/or approved the article and be done with it. But, as this is many issues over many years, and the message is somewhat consistent, it's hard to disavow the content without pleading ignorance, and that kind of ignorance isn't going to gain any favor with the voting public either.

I don't know if you saw tonight's Republican debate on Fox, but Ron Paul's answer to the Iranian speedboat question, where he went on a rant about foreign policy that completely ignored the fact that the rest of the candidates had agreed with the captain's restraint in NOT firing on the speedboats (instead of pushing for military response, which Paul was ranting against), and then admitting that he couldn't hear Brit Hume's questions, well, it just made him look incredibly silly. People in the audience actually laughed at him. I must admit, I too laughed aloud when they split the screen to show McCain looking over at Paul with a "W-T-F?" on his face. It would seem that any legitimacy Paul's candidacy may have had might have ended right there.

Also, all of that money raised is impressive, but when it comes from white supremacist groups and Truthers and you don't disown those groups or return that money as unacceptable, you're not going to win anything. Sorry, Ron. I guess it's time to go back to voting against your own earmarks. :wink:

OK mib, where do I start.

1) The newsletter was published for 20 years monthly, with hundreds of copies. Only two over a period of a few months when RP was out of Congress were racist. (Read The New Republic and see for yourself.) The other comments were conspiratorial and pointed out politically incorrect facts about MLK's plagiarism and philandering, as well as complimenting David Duke's policies. (though renouncing his past) Before crying racism, please recall that Duke (lyingly) claimed to be a changed man at the time (see below video) and was claiming to support equal rights for minorities. He turned out to be a fraud, but context is everything. (1)

2) Our movement had nothing to do with white supremacists and truthers. These people do not have money and they make up a miniscule proportion of our voters. I was a precinct captain, and I can tell you that less than 3% of our voters (according to a poll on the matter) hold such views. Libertarianism is inherently incompatible with Nazism (i.e. fascism) and thus these individuals merely supported RP because he was:
anti-establishment
supportive of any (including hateful) groups right to free speech.

3) RP may be a racist, (that possiblity, again, is why I am now not voting for him) but this has nothing to do with his views on foreign policy.

4) Even if he wrote it, libertarianism is not about racism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClduCE2yXzA

[Mibrilane #56]

OK mib, where do I start.

1) The newsletter was published for 20 years monthly, with hundreds of copies. Only two over a period of a few months when RP was out of Congress were racist. (Read The New Republic and see for yourself.) The other comments were conspiratorial and pointed out politically incorrect facts about MLK's plagiarism.
My comments weren't specifically about the racist stuff, but all of the content. If one has something published in their name and this stuff makes it into the documents:

a) He knows about the content and has approved it, which is why it is in his newsletter.

or

b) He knows about the content and doesn't approve of it, but it gets published in his newsletter anyway.

or

c) He doesn't know the content of his own newsletter.

My point is, all three options are negative and cast him in a bad light.

2) Our movement had nothing to do with white supremacists and truthers. These people do not have money and they make up a miniscule proportion of our voters. I was a precinct captain, and I can tell you that less than 3% of our voters (according to a poll on the matter) hold such views.
I didn't say the movement was about white supremacists and truthers. I said that Paul has accepted campaign donations from those groups. Ron Paul is not the libertarian movement. He won't even admit he's a Libertarian, he says he's a Republican.

3) RP may be a racist, (that possiblity, again, is why I am now voting for him) but this has nothing to do with his views on foreign policy.
I'm hoping you meant to say "not voting for him". :wink:

His foreign policy is the reason he's not taken seriously as a mainstream candidate - his comments at tonight's debate merely emphasized that. Again.

4) Even if he wrote it, libertarianism is not about racism.
Well, I never said it was, so we're in agreement on that one.

I actually agree with many libertarian platforms, but isolationist foreign policy is not one of them, so I've had reservations about Ron Paul from the get go. That and the tacit approval of trutherism (either to gain campaign contributions or because he agrees with it - I don't know) have turned me off of him as a POTUS candidate. These days I'm hoping Fred Thompson starts to do better - he's a true conservative with a much stronger grasp of reality based foreign policy.

[Cardsfan2000]

My comments weren't specifically about the racist stuff, but all of the content. If one has something published in their name and this stuff makes it into the documents:

a) He knows about the content and has approved it, which is why it is in his newsletter.

or

b) He knows about the content and doesn't approve of it, but it gets published in his newsletter anyway.

or

c) He doesn't know the content of his own newsletter.

My point is, all three options are negative and cast him in a bad light.


I didn't say the movement was about white supremacists and truthers. I said that Paul has accepted campaign donations from those groups. Ron Paul is not the libertarian movement. He won't even admit he's a Libertarian, he says he's a Republican.


I'm hoping you meant to say "not voting for him". :wink:

His foreign policy is the reason he's not taken seriously as a mainstream candidate - his comments at tonight's debate merely emphasized that. Again.


Well, I never said it was, so we're in agreement on that one.

I actually agree with many libertarian platforms, but isolationist foreign policy is not one of them, so I've had reservations about Ron Paul from the get go. That and the tacit approval of trutherism (either to gain campaign contributions or because he agrees with it - I don't know) have turned me off of him as a POTUS candidate. These days I'm hoping Fred Thompson starts to do better - he's a true conservative with a much stronger grasp of reality based foreign policy.

Libertarian foreign policy=non-intervention. Not isolationism.

The rest of what you said makes sense. And again, those are reasons I have rescinded my support of Paul.

Paul is a libertarian, but not the face of the movement. I still like the guy, but politically he's done. We need a new leader.

White supremacists are idiots, but they have their right to free speech too. Political contributions are a form of it.

Fred Thompson actually sounds libertarian when he talks about federalism. (I.E. he's personally socially conservative, but believes in states rights' on issues like abortion and civil unions) However, his performances (with tonight as an exception) have been so bad on the campaign trail. As NRO put it, who would've thought that a movie star would have substance but no style.. (you'd think quite the opposite)

Fred is soon to be politically irrelevant because he's got no chance. He's polling at 5% right now in South Carolina, (where he has to win) and it's only going to get worse after New Hampshire "blowback."

[Mibrilane #56]

Libertarian foreign policy=non-intervention. Not isolationism.
That depends on how you define "intervention". If you mean letting our allies, whoever they are, "go it alone" while we "defend our borders" because we don't want to "intervene", then non-intervention is isolationism.

White supremacists are idiots, but they have their right to free speech too. Political contributions are a form of it.
I didn't say they couldn't contribute to candidates, I'm said that anyone accepting such contributions isn't going to win any elections. I think history has borne this out.

Fred Thompson actually sounds libertarian when he talks about federalism. (I.E. he's personally socially conservative, but believes in states rights' on issues like abortion and civil unions) However, his performances (with tonight as an exception) have been so bad on the campaign trail. As NRO put it, who would've thought that a movie star would have substance but no style.. (you'd think quite the opposite)
Fred is a no-BS guy, so when people ask him BS questions (especially the press), he calls BS. This has not endeared him with the press.

His "style" is slow and reasoned. People want an all glad-handing baby-kissing candidate will be disappointed that he doesn't love each and every one of them as a personal friend. But, as for performance, he's been strong in every debate. He's just not a populist. I personally like his dry wit and the fact that he's consistently conservative and hasn't waffled all over the place, and that he isn't a RINO.

Fred is soon to be politically irrelevant because he's got no chance. He's polling at 5% right now in South Carolina, (where he has to win) and it's only going to get worse after New Hampshire "blowback."
Almost everyone in the room of Fox's focus group thought Fred won tonight's debate, and a good third of them said it changed their vote. If that happens state-wide, he may just pull out a win - the Republican field is very divided at the moment.

Also, we know polls can be crap. The only poll that counts is the actual vote.

Personally, I think he's running for Vice President - note how he doesn't say anything bad about McCain. In fact, his dressing down of Huckabee during tonight's debate helps McCain tremendously. A McCain/Thompson ticket would be a solid ticket for the Republicans, although if it came down to it being someone else with Thompson as VP, I'd prefer Romney/Thompson. Thompson brings some conservative gravitas to any other candidate who might be perceived as a RINO (or who might actually be a RINO). Huckabee/Thompson wouldn't be a bad ticket either, but I think Thompson's lit the fuse on that bridge.

Then again, Reagan and Bush went at eachother before the convention and then teamed up, so anything can happen.

If Hill+Billy gets the nomination, I'll vote for the Republican regardless of who it is as a vote against Hill+Billy. Same goes for Edwards. I really can't stand those people.

If it's Obama vs. Huckabee, I might have a difficult time making up my mind - it will come down to the "intangibles".

[Avondale_Larry]

Ron Paul will soon be a forgotten name in an otherwise overcrowded presidential campaign.

He would never be elected, even if his latent racism hadn't come to light. He's on the fringe of a wide collection of topics. Americans don't elect fringe candidates.

The next president will be Obama, Hillary, or McCain.

All the rest are merely window dressing.

[Passepartout]

To me Paul has crossed the line on a
Lot of things and that he says
Extreme stuff on people on
Different races and all of that. :mad2:

[whythecardinals]

I voted for Ron Paul,today......

PS....... I don't believe anyof that racial crap, but I do believe in change!@:paranoid :idea: :idea: