FAQ: Ron Paul and his Racist Newsletter
Ron Lawl provides a convenient FAQ rebutting the myriad excuses made for Ron Paul's longstanding activities with racists. Part of The Ron Paul Survival Report blog.
Added to the Topical Issues category in the main index of Critiques Of Libertarianism
Thanks to corespondent LoonyRonPaul for this suggestion!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Fortunately for the world or unfortunately for you, Ron Paul is...... irrelevent. I watched him on Meet the Press and literally had to shield my eyes and cover my ears from the way he was embarassing himself with his blatant racist comments. Only the ignorant and the extremists of the population vote for him, the rest of us forget his name after he's mentioned. A good thing too because that man has some quirky ideas.
Thanks for the link though. If I ever get the interest up to read about an absolutely inconsequential presidential candidate, I shall be sure to remember this and take a look.
Geoff
I think it's a sad reflection on the state of the world where someone like Ron Paul can make even the kind of headway he has.
I actually kind of see Ron Paul as similar to Mike Huckabee in one aspect: he's the Right's rhetoric come back to bite them in the ass. Paul is the ghost of conservatives' past, racism and all.
But where I think Huckabee is a more-or-less decent human being deluded by his convictions, Paul is worthy only of contempt and pity.
I have to say, there are some things I like about Paul and there are some problems I have with him. I appreciate his general worldview, but his supporters are the intellectual equivalent of those who supported Ralph Nader, which says alot about him.
The question is: why on earth would an "anti-libertarian" website devote any time or effort into attacking him? Politically, he is an absolute non-entity, and he owes his extinguished "popularity" (notoriety?) solely to his Iraq war opposition(something I expect Mike and James here would find wholehearted agreement). The only thing I can guess is that Mike is really terrified that Paul's noble cause of bringing about the downfall of the "Bush-Nazi" regime will be too easily confused with (or eclipse) Paul "noxious" libertarian tendencies. And that we can't have.
@john: Since you called my name ;-) I think I need to comment. I mostly agree. Ron Paul represents a section of the Republican party fed up with the war in Iraq.
However, his charisma can't be discounted. It can be really hard, just from listening to him, to tell that there could be anything wrong with his character. His message as a whole is key, too. He validates the feelings of those who are disturbed by the current political environment in general, and he offers an easy answer.
He's a lot like a cult leader in those respects. The general behavior of so many of his followers bears this out, I think.
As for why we would spend so much time and attention on Paul... well, I can't speak for Mike, but I have rather enjoyed Mike's coverage for personal reasons. It wasn't that long ago the Ron Pall-bearers were spamming every site I went to. And here where I live, in Alabama, I've seen more signs for Ron Paul than for any other candidate (even for Huckabee, who ended up winning the AL primaries!). So yeah, I'm annoyed.
James,
I have to disagree that "charisma" is one of Paul attributes. Paul had the same luxury that every "principled" and moderately articulate politican with no chance of winning enjoys: he can take defiant stands that he would never take if he thought he had an honest chance at winning the Presidency. Sure, its a recipe for resounding success among certain elements in the college crowd, but at the end of the day, its unserious, motivated by nothing more than juvenile self-flagellation. The fact that Paul taps into "the feelings of those who are disturbed by the current political environment, and offers an easy answer" is the trademark of any candidate in his position. In fact, this year it seems to be the position of the frontrunners.
But, I am sorry you're so annoyed by the Ron Paul signs and the antics of his ardent supporters - who I agree seem to enjoy making a spectacle of themselves. But hey, it's the primary season. Rest assured that Paul is more principled than egomaniacs like Ralph Nader (who Mike Huben here actually supported in the GENERAL election, if you can believe that), and he wont be running some ridiculous third-party candidancy that gives the Presidency to Obama or Hillary. Oh wait, somehow I think you might prefer that. Hmmmmm...
"The only thing I can guess is that Mike is really terrified that Paul's noble cause of bringing about the downfall of the `Bush-Nazi' regime will be too easily confused with (or eclipse) Paul `noxious' libertarian tendencies."
Hahahahaha. I want to bring up this choice quote from Ron Paul yet again: "When it comes to international [global warming], the first thing is, we should overdo some of the statistics and some of the reports about global warming [...]" That's right, if the science doesn't obey you, you must redo it! That's freedom!
And why do I get the impression that John is just another mindless Ron Paul fanboy?
@ John:
"Oh wait, somehow I think you might prefer that. Hmmmmm..."
Nah. I'll be glad when this game is over. And honestly, I don't care for the idea of someone running just to make sure someone else wins/loses.
Also, much as I detest McCain's pandering, I think his nomination and Huckabee's second place is a good step forward for the Republicans. Heck, even Ron Paul's popularity is good to some extent. I think it's about time the party had to deal with the reality that their voter base are not all good little neo-cons.
And I'm still only mostly-jokingly considering writing in "Richard Nixon" for president. Any suggestions on another dead president who should be his running mate?
Why would I bother posting on the insignificant Ron Paul? Here's some recent email I've received.
Thank you for putting up so much information about libertarianism that is not written by a libertarian. I never really gave much thought towards libertarianism before. I have been given the "are you a libertarian?" card before, looked at it, did not find it appealing and threw it in the recycle bin. However, my interest in it was sparked in the recent months due to all the Ron Paul stickers, billboards, and lawn ads that seem to be popping up everywhere here in Austin, TX. All the ads say "Google Ron Paul!" I did, and I still could not understand his appeal to so many people. So then as you know, trying to find any forum that was anti-Ron Paul was difficult( at least one that offered some intelligent response, mostly they consisted of "Ron Paul sucks" etc.) and it was even more difficult to find any forum that discussed the short comings of libertarianism, until I finally
found yours.
Thank you for being the teacher you are, and making resources available for others to study and make their own conclusions.
And I'm still only mostly-jokingly considering writing in "Richard Nixon" for president. Any suggestions on another dead president who should be his running mate?
Millard Fillmore.
The Milhaus and Millard ticket.
I'm going to repost this from the Libertarian Troll Bingo thread below because it's relevant:
I discovered Mike Huben's site about 4 years ago. I even e-mailed him once with a thank you, like this other fellow whose. I also had a question Mike was kind enough to answer. I return to the site often as I haven't read half of the stuff there yet. There's tons of stuff. I'd hardly call it "anti-libertarian". Many of the best critiques come from other libertarians. Mike "consorts with the enemy". Look for that picture of him with David Friedman. Instead of being a trollish prig, you should spend some time reading at the site, John.
My only complaint is that some of the links are stale but I usually find the source material with google. I should probably alert Mike to these and give him fresh links. Everyone I turn on to the site thanks me profusely. They should be thanking Mike.
John, you are a sad, little man with very few redeeming qualities and a mediocre intellect.
Geoffrey, if you think you look like Billy Bob Thornton, it must be his character in Sling Blade. Some women are attracted to that sort of thing.
Thanks again, Mike.
;-)
"John, you are a sad, little man with very few redeeming qualities and a mediocre intellect."
hehehe...Bosch, you're breaking my tender heart.
I expect you'll be forlorn for many years to come but I have nothing to do with it. Your own failed ideologies are to blame. Nothing fails like... failure.
Apparently we've reached a point where the term "socialized medicine" actually polls well...
Post a Comment