I knew I couldn’t trust that Jon Huntsman!
See more at The Atlantic.
Speaking of Huntsman speaking Chinese, I found this amusing, albeit somewhat dickish:
Now, if Huntsman were to become POTUS, he would not be the first Chinese-speaker to do so:
But if he were to overcome the odds, he would not be the first Chinese speaker to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Herbert Hoover, who was president from 1929 to 1933, also spoke Chinese. Hoover learned the language when he worked as a mining engineer in China as a young man, said Spencer Howard of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum in West Branch, Iowa.
Hoover and his wife, Lou Henry Hoover, traveled to China in 1899, the day after they were married. Lou Hoover learned to speak and write Chinese as her husband worked under contract to the Chinese government to investigate mining conditions. The couple’s time in China was not without adventure — they were caught in the middle of the Boxer Rebellion against foreigners.
Howard said the Hoover library has diaries from aides describing how the first couple spoke Chinese as a way of having private conversations in the White House, and that the first lady had a good grasp of the language. President Hoover is believed to have known only about 100 words.
{ 186 comments… read them below or add one }
In response to the first video, in which it is alleged that Gov. Hunstman stands for Chinese values because he speaks Chinese and has adopted Asian kids:
(high-brow version) What could be more true to American values than trans-racial abductions?
(low-brow version) What could be more American than a wealthy white dude adopting some poor colored kids?
Forgive me for including both, but I didn’t have time to run them by the focus groups to see which one played better.
“(high-brow version) What could be more true to American values than trans-racial abductions?”
I hope you are joking here, hamel.
This is the attack video Jashin Densetsu linked to earlier today, with the Rachel Maddow MSNBC report that the source of the attack is suspected to be none other than Governor Asterisk himself, in a false flag operation to give Asterisk the opportunity to cry a little bit before the cameras and tell us how much he loves his sweet little brown babies and paint the Paultards as un-American loonies. They’re loony, all right (see how they tried to put a beatdown on Rick Santorum and family), but if Asterisk is the source of that video he’s as much a scumbag as Jashin Densetsu says. Bro.
Huntsman has a twerpish affect that’s a real turnoff. Regardless of his conservative bona fides, I think his personality is disqualificatory.
#2 –
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/21/foreigners-looking-adopt-japanese-earthquake-orphans-need-apply/
http://www.racialicious.com/2010/01/26/the-dangerous-desire-to-adopt-haitian-babies/
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/haiti-earthquake-american-missionaries-arrested-kidnapping-children-proper/story?id=9736257#.Tw2e7yNnETk
Speaking of adoption, I heard there was a documentary on Korean TV recently about a Korean couple who adopted a Russian girl and raised her in Korea, speaking Korean. I always love it when the tables are turned!
With this roster of clowns 4 more years of the bummer are gettin more and more likely…unfortunately.
I always thought my son American citizenship was a blessing (don’t worry we didn’t drop the baby there, from my ex wife side he has a 100+ years long nativist pedigree) now i’m not sure anymore, to the point that if we move out of Europe i’m tempted to advise him to renounce it.
The double taxation thing is really a turn-off and i’m not sure there are enough benefits to make up for it
“I always love it when the tables are turned!”
That only works if you think of this in racial, rather than in economic terms, given the shabbiness of living standards in Russia pre- or post-1991. More Netizen Kim than the hamel I thought I knew.
It is a mistake to think that the choice for many of these orphans is between international adoption and domestic adoption, when it in fact it is usually between being adopted by any family anywhere or growing up in a grim institution.
I’m neither an adoptee nor an adopter or even any kind of advocate. But I know people who are and I’ve been to third world orphanages, and would hope to keep things in the realm of fact. It’s a classic case of trying not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Oh slim, come on, I’m just being playful.
Brendon –
You’re slipping.
You wrote: “Huntsman has a twerpish affect that’s a real turnoff. Regardless of his conservative bona fides, I think his personality is disqualificatory.”
For someone who elevates himself above others and smugly corrects their spelling errors in his responses to them (typos not included), your use of the word affect should instead read “effect”. No doubt you could twist and mangle the noun version of “affect” to fit your sentence rather than simply acknowledging the correction – and of course, that would be par for the course with you, I suppose.
Oh, and that word at the end?? Maybe you were just being silly saying “disqualifactory”, because unless you are referring to some fictional industrial building that manufactures “disqualis”, “disqualifactory must be just some weird word you pulled out of your ass. No doubt you have something other than an admission of imperfection in mind as a response.
I am happy to help you out in the improvement of your spelling and grammar. God knows we all make mistakes from time to time, as you are so prone to point out to others.
I just can’t wait to read your next 20 syllable (or less) snipe. They are so amusing.
Sorry but anybody seriously thinking that Japan would give their orphans away for adoption is truly one giant ignorant douche
I don’t think for a minute that Ron Paul is man enough to be president of anything, much less the president of the United States. (Well, OK, maybe of an obscure libertarian think tank, but that’s about it.)
BUT, I gotta say, he does impress on his resolute and unapologetic stands on (bizarre) principle after (bizarre) principle, which I guess is Hemingway-esque in a bookish, 90-lbs. weakling sort of way.
He’s also a refreshing contrast to the I’ll-say-anything-to-please-anyone flip-flopping pretender that is Mitt Romney, the living rebuttal that Mormons can, in fact, be the dickish equal of any christianist out there.
But, hey, he’s got McCain’s (!) endorsement, so he’s golden, golden I tell you!
DLB
yeah, but………….
i’d totally bang abby huntsman. she is gorgeous!
He’s “man enough” precisely because he doesn’t flip-flop.
He’s “man enough” because he doesn’t support the U.S.-led slaughter of Iraqis, Iranians, and assorted others.
“Oh slim, come on, I’m just being playful.” I’m relieved.
Hummm…. Mandarin or Cantonese? According to the Chinese government Mandarin is now the “official” Chinese language, but it wasn’t always like that.
like brendon says, there is strong evidence suggesting that this is a fraud and a false flag put out by Huntsman. that tells you all you need to know about Huntsman. this was a calculated strategy on the part of a certified sociopath to advance his own political career.
Poll: Romney, Paul Tie Obama http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109
“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, run neck-and-neck with President Obama in a general-election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll released late on Monday that shows the two front-runners in Tuesday’s New Hampshire GOP primary running stronger against the president than their fellow Republicans.”
to those who feel “threatened” by ron paul, or those who are curious why more and more people are getting behind ron paul, please watch this video.
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/01/ron-paul-accurately-predicts-future-in-2002-speech/
I wouldn’t call websites from fringe groups and smarmy insinuation from Rachel Maddow “strong evidence” — but if Huntsman’s people did do that, it was monumentally stupid and he will pay for it.
Ron Paul’s wide band of support includes thoughtful libertarians like, say, Naya Casey, but also people who proudly post links here calling for homosexuals to be executed (that ain’t libertarian) and a wide range of conspiracy theorists. To me, it’s more credible that part of Paul’s fringe would make a racist video — without any knowledge or complicit from RP himself.
then you haven’t looked at the evidence bro. you’ve just looked at the source and dismissed it based on your bias.
he hasn’t paid for it and it’s unlikely he will. the MSM won’t really look into and even if they did it’s likely they’d cover up for him against someone they don’t like, like Ron Paul.
yeah, bro, because you don’t look at the evidence, you just work of your prejudice and bias.
slim,
there are racists and extreme homophobes in every corner of our society who support candidates of all stripes including barack obama. there is nothing you or i can do to change that. but if you’re truly disgusted by racism and homophobia, you need to look carefully at each candidate’s *policies* and the kind of impacts they’ll have on these social ills. you’ll find that no candidate in our modern history comes close to challenging the status quo quite like ron paul. just look at how he advocates for individual liberty (very good for gays and other suppressed minorities) and to end the drug war (institutional racism). these are policy positions that will allow people to live their lives the way they see fit as long as they’re not infringing on someone else’s property rights. gays who wish to marry each other will be free to do so without the fed telling them what they can or cannot do. and for once in our lifetime, black communities all across america won’t be losing a big chunk of their men and women to prison for non-violent, drug-related “crimes.”
for too long liberals and so-called conservatives (in name only. they’re all big government liberals) have used our political and judicial systems to subvert our principles of liberty in order to control the way people live. and with the patriot act and the NDAA endorsed and enforced by both parties, americans now find themselves at the mercy of its tyrannical government. we are no longer free. rather, we’re all prisoners of our government. and that is one of the big reasons why i’m supporting ron paul.
iMe needs to think harder about this.
We may get another visit from our friend Inigo Montoya, methinks.
(18 syllables!)
#11 DLB
Wow. That was a bigoted comment.
Perhaps you would consider American constitutional forbearance and religious bigotry? Please read Can I Vote for a Mormon? and then consider how traditional American values fit with your own intolerance and bigotry.
“We may get another visit from our friend Inigo Montoya, methinks.
“(18 syllables!)”
19 (unless Inigo is pronounced with two syllables)
I think it was visit which got the short shrift.
Ahhh…
tilly,
please don’t fall for those who are out to demagogue and mislead you. watch the following interview and learn about why ron paul was against the civil rights act. you are perfectly capable of seeing through the media BS. and i feel you getting closer and closer to seeing the light. so, come on. join the movement!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc
All along I thought it was because Ron Paul hated black people.
is that “disqualifies him” in english?
oh, TK…
i’m not even going to try to reason with you. you are an “unlimited government” liberal who thinks you know what’s best for everyone therefore you should have the power to dictate the way people live their lives. good luck with your “constitutional scholar” obama. maybe you’ll understand in your lifetime that big government is a threat to us all when someone you know gets detained or assassinated without due process. nah. who am i kidding? you’ll never understand.
Doesn’t change the fact that by all available evidence, Ron Paul hates black people.
I don’t need your luck — My candidate is going to win. Which is far more than can be said about yours.
It’s a bit rich when Ron Paul followers warn against demagoguery.
As I said before, I wanted to like RP more than I ended up liking him after examination, but I respect his role in the race.
I think Ross Douthat in a recent NYT op-ed gets it right:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-Pariahs-and-Prophets.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
“There are two commonplace interpretations of Paul’s unusual trajectory. To his many sympathizers — libertarians, dissident conservatives and some left-wingers as well — the extremism in his past has nothing to do with the issues that he’s campaigning on today. The case for Paul, as The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf put it, is that “he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies” — scaling back America’s overseas commitments, ending a failed war on drugs, curbing a runaway public sector and reducing the powers of an imperial presidency. The newsletters may reflect badly on his past, but in the current political landscape he’s a voice of reason rather than of madness.
To his many critics, on the other hand, Paul’s present-day positions are connected to his past derangements, because they share the same essentially conspiratorial root. Then as now, Paul blames shadowy elites for the country’s ills; then as now, he flirts with narratives that are straight out of the fever swamp. For all its superficial idealism, the critics insist, his campaign is a conduit through which fundamentally poisonous ideas are entering the mainstream body politic, and thus he needs to be not only defeated but repudiated.
But consider a third possibility. There’s often a fine line between a madman and a prophet. Perhaps Paul has emerged as a teller of some important truths precisely because in many ways he’s still as far out there as ever.
The United States is living through an era of unprecedented elite failure, in which America’s public institutions are understandably distrusted and our leadership class is justifiably despised. Yet politicians of both parties are required, by the demands of partisanship, to embrace the convenient lie that our problem can be pinned exclusively on the other side’s elites — as though both liberals and conservatives hadn’t participated in the decisions that dug our current hole.
In this climate, it sometimes takes a fearless crank to expose realities that neither Republicans nor Democrats are particularly eager to acknowledge.
In both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, Paul has been the only figure willing to point out the deep continuities in American politics — the way social spending grows and overseas commitments multiply no matter which party is in power, the revolving doors that connect K Street to Congress and Wall Street to the White House, the long list of dubious policies and programs that both sides tacitly support. In both election cycles, his honest extremism has sometimes cut closer to the heart of our national predicament than the calculating partisanship of his more grounded rivals. He sometimes rants, but he rarely spins — and he’s one of the few figures on the national stage who says “a plague on both your houses!” and actually means it.
Obviously it would be better for the country if this message weren’t freighted with Paul’s noxious baggage, and entangled with his many implausible ideas. But would it be better off without his presence entirely? I’m not so sure.
Neither prophets nor madmen should be elected to the presidency. But neither can they safely be ignored.”
oh gawd…ross douthat? really? hey! what did mark halperin say? i really need these establishment pundits to tell me how i should think!
TK,
all available evidence? riiiiiiiiiight.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196126/naacp-president-ron-paul-is-no-racist
but who cares what some dude from some obscure organization called the NAACP says, right? btw, how are african-americans doing under obama?
http://newsone.com/nation/boycewatkins/black-unemployment-rate/
please tell me what to make of it all, TK. i need a berkeley-educated liberal to tell me what to think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_16mwNDdGVk
OH, NO!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_16mwNDdGVk
OH, NO!!!
President of NAACP in 2008 was Benjamin Jealous, and he said no such thing about Ron Paul. You apparently can’t even figure out that Nelson Linder, the chapter president for NAACP in Austin, Texas, is not the same person as the president of NAACP. Not to mention the fact that the particular chapter president could not run away from his comments fast enough:
(source)
So yeah, you do need a Berkeley-educated liberal to tell you what you think.
Establishment pundit Ross Douthat articulated what I and many others in my social circle and extended family comprising mostly centrist voters already think.
Ross Douthat is, believe it or not, pretty popular and widely-read in the “racist” Tea Party circles.
too bad the race card doesn’t work against Ron Paul, TK. he still has strong support bro. nobody cares about the newsletters. and you and any other Obama supporters who try to play the race card against Paul are giant hypocrites since Obama hates white people.
What does that say about Ron Paul’s supporters then?
It says they care so much about liberty that they’re willing to overlook suspicious signs of potential racism. Sort of how Democrats care so much about social-welfare programs that they’re willing to overlook actual Klan membership (if you’re a Democrat).
what does it say about Obama supporters then?
You are not even worth pwning, Jashin. Go help iMe get his tail out from between his legs.
you’ve never pwned anyone here bro even though you get into arguments like every single thread bro. you write awkwardly and regularly make all kinds of errors and incoherent arguments. iMe doesn’t have to respond to hypocritical accusations by Obama supporters.
i’ll tell you what our thick-skull liberal friends think, JD. they would rather vote for a goldman sachs-sponsored candidate and allow them to continue to loot america, wage illegal wars and trample our bill of rights than vote for the most qualified and honest candidate available to them. why? because they’re liberals. big government liberals who want to run our lives because they know best. hell, why not? some of them went to berkeley, you know?
hey TK,
for a berkeley grad, you sure have terrible reading comprehension problems. and for a lawyer, your argument skills kinda suck, counselor. where in my post did i say nelson linder was the naacp president? and linder ran away from his comments? he merely stated that that’s how he personally feels. and i would think it should hold some water since he’s personally known ron paul for over 20 years, no? oh, well. whatever you say, mr. unlimited government. btw, do you have a government-issued barcode yet? i want one! oh, i almost forgot…can you come by my house tomorrow morning, pick up my kids and enroll them at the sleeping angels in west los angeles? i’ll need you to pay for their enrollment, too. hey, what are socialist friends for, right?
hey brendon,
the “conservatives” you support (newt, palin, et al) are all a bunch of big spending liberals who have and continue to live off of taxpayer money. i don’t really take your brand of “conservatism” seriously.
ross douthat? gimme a break…you gotta do better than that, man.
To iMe – does Brendon actually support Palin?? Say it isn’t so, Brendon. I mean, please tell us you didn’t at some time in your life suffer a traumatic brain injury that influenced you so.
What it says about Ron Paul supporters is that they, as does Paul, obviously, realize that the accusation of “racist!” hurled against a white person is a cheap attempt to discredit that person and keep him down. At its most basic, it is quite simply an attempt to silence discourse.
Note that a person’s charge of “racism” against Paul gives that person assumed carte blanche to ignore the actual substance of Paul’s positions and further, to encourage others to write Paul off without first listening to what the man has to say.
I think if Paul does fail to be elected, however, it won’t be because of these types of allegations.
Fortunately, this underhanded tactic is quickly becoming the 21st century version of “the boy who cried wolf”.
– Berkeley grad/Paul supporter
Sarah Palin endorses Ron Paul. YouTube it.
I will let Mr. Ta-Nehisi Coates speak here:
Um, no. At least, not yet. Of the candidates in the field, I think Ron Paul’s domestic stances are closest to what Sarah Palin would endorse, but her public statements on foreign policy make it seem unlikely she’d go for Paul’s irresponsible isolationism.
You are not paying me $500 an hour, so I could care less.
One benefit of being a shitty, muddled writer is that you can basically run away from your own statements however you want, because your statements are so unclear. Kinda like the way Ron Paul runs away from his racist rants by pleading incompetence.
And given that you explicitly relied earlier on Linder’s NAACP membership rather than Linder’s knowledge of Ron Paul, this is no more than a desperate attempt to avoid further pwnage.
Sure. I will need your address and phone number.
Well then, it’s certainly a good thing that Ta-Newhoozit Coates wasn’t around when Theodore Roosevelt led this country. Or Richard Nixon, for that matter. He probably wonders how we survived and thrived.
Further, Paul did not author the things you ascribe to him.
And, as I recall, there were cases of demented people running around stabbing people at random with hypodermic syringes, so not sure how that = racism.
Anyhoo, I do not take Coates as any kind of person of importance whatsoever. Except self-importance, of course.
Again, the goal here is to silence someone whose has the potential to build a cross-party populist constituency of disenfranchised white voters, without bothering to get into a critical analysis of his substantive positions.
It’s like calling him an “isolationist” because he doesn’t think the U.S. needs to waste money on overseas adventurism and murdering innocent Afghans and Iraqis. That last point, in my book, makes him as far from a “racist” as possible.
For a guy who apparently believes in hearing what people have to say, that’s a quick dismissal.
Okay, then I ask (as did Coates): “How can we take a man who could not manage a newsletter and promote him to managing a nuclear arsenal?”
It equals racism when blackness is gratuitously associated with random acts of dementia.
I agree with this. It’s the same thing that was done to Sarah Palin. There are very strong forces who, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, do not want “the people” involved with government.
So while I don’t think she has endorsed Paul yet, it does seem within the realm of possibility. Endorsement of a candidate doesn’t mean one agrees with everything that candidate espouses, but rather that the candidate is the best available from among the choices presented.
That said, while I respect Sarah Palin, in the event she were to endorse Ron Paul I might understand her reasoning but I wouldn’t support Paul — except if he were the GOP nominee and the alternative was to vote for Obama.
ross douthat? gimme a break…you gotta do better than that, man.
No, actually YOU have to do better than that, man (bro) if you want to move your candidate away from creepy and cultish to something more effective and lasting. And if you read that NYT piece carefully (and can suppress your argumentum ad hominem reflex), Douthat shows more than a modicum of respect to the Ron Paul movement. It is not reasonable to demand that he be a fawning, uncritical admirer like you guys are.
The racist newsletters were Lew Rockwell’s work, they were indeed racist, they were not fabricated (recall that it was Reason magazine that did the earliest and best exposes of Paul’s checkered past) and they are baggage that must be dealt with by Dr Paul’s camp — if not in the primaries, then later on, when it will be worse. These associations would be politically fatal for most other candidates — everywhere in the democratic world, except maybe Japan and Austria.
Ron Paul so far seems disinclined to make a third-party bid, at least in part to avoid hurting Rand Paul’s future, but he will not be on the ballot in November unless he does so.
“It’s the same thing that was done to Sarah Palin. There are very strong forces who, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, do not want “the people” involved with government.”
This is utter crap. Sarah Palin did not and does not have any serious or original ideas for “very strong forces” to suppress. (Ron Paul of course does.) There is more intellectual substance in a random episode of Laverne & Shirley than in Sarah’s entire written and spoken oeuvre. Reality TV MILF, that’s our Sarah.
this is just more hypocrisy bro. Obama hates white people and Obama’s camp has never dealt with it. certain “associations” are attacked by an unaccountable elite who wants to impose certain PC beliefs. it has nothing to do with democracy.
To Jashin Densetsu –
You wrote: “Obama hates white people and Obama’s camp has never dealt with it.”
OH, yes, Mr. Obama hated his mother and grandparents (as white as chalk) with a PASSION. I hear one night in his Black Panther youth, he egged and toilet papered the family home because he hated them so much – then went inside and went to bed.
Honestly your statement is so ignorant, I shouldn’t have even commented. Obama has many many faults – perhaps catering to the black population to win their vote – perhaps looking away in embarrassment (rather than speaking out immediately) when black leaders like his former pastor say idiotic things. But to say he hates white people? DUMB!
Brendon,
It still scares me that you would endorse her – one of the least intelligent people on earth – for high office. You know it’s getting near the End of Days with I’m agreeing with the Commodore Captain Colonel in #48. Of course, you could always blame it on the Missouri mule blood in ya, eh?
Brendon is the Stephen Colbert of The Marmot’s Hole — that’s how I read him, anyway.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Brendon is like the geeky guy in high school who just got his driver’s license and when he’s at a stoplight and sees some hot girls walk by (the kind he has no prayer of actually ever dating), he yells something out like “Hey, baby, want a date?” And then he ducks – that’s how I read him, anyway.
Well, I guess one possible reason for this is that I am neither convinced that she is “one of the least intelligent people on [E]arth” nor that she is unintelligent at all. The cast of characters who so vigorously advance that line have no credibility; in fact, Sarah Palin’s most vociferous enemies and their tactics are so odious their opprobrium enhances her standing with me. (Cf. wiessej and Jashin Densetsu sniping at me.) Further, I am also unconvinced that the “smart set” — the Rhodes scholars, the Harvard Law School graduates, and various Kennedy family retards — have done all that well by us anyway.
I do not ascribe stupidity either to (non-Northeastern) regional accents or to religious faith. And I am attracted to politicians who come from the hoi polloi rather than hereditary ruling families. Of the people, by the people, for the people, and all that. Hence, I am inclined to see Sarah Palin and Rick Perry as potential Harry Trumans, and I loathe the inevitable Chelsea Clinton Senatorial campaign. Even though she went to Stanford and therefore ought to be appointed by NBC News and the New York Times as my overlord.
wiessej,
people are saying that Ron Paul “hates black people” based on certain associations. if people can say that, then it’s fair to say that Obama hates white people based on certain associations he’s had like his old pastor. if the Obama supporters don’t like it, then they oughta stop being hypocritical and start being fair about it.
When Coates is a candidate for president who has placed at least 2nd in a primary election, then I’ll listen to what he has to say.
Until then, he is simply a self-styled “cultural commentator”, whose views I need not take any more seriously than Howard Stern’s.
Whitewater was a terrible investment. How could we have trusted Bill Clinton to manage a nuclear arsenal?
Bush was a drug user, alcoholic, and “C” legacy student. How could we have trust him to manage a nuclear arsenal?
See how weak this argument is?
But not when Korean-ness is associated with diligence, amirite?
In any event, “demented” was my word, not Paul’s.
TK,
what an ass you are. you’re so full of yourself it’s quite breathtaking. but since you brought it up, i wouldn’t pay an idiot so full of himself like you $5 an hour. and based on your (in)ability to reason, i’d put my family lawyer up against your dumbass any day of the week and twice on sunday. but that’s neither here or there.
do yourself a favor and read this:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/singleton/
and this:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html
don’t thank me. consider it a very generous tip from me, TK. you can use it to perhaps pull your head out of the sand.
a berkeley-educated, $500 an hour lawyer with multi-millionaire friends in high places who can’t make a single argument without resorting to juvenile insults…what else you got, TK? are you the fresh prince of college of preachers?
Ron Paul argues that about 15% of drug users are black, yet over 60% of people convicted and imprisoned for drug crimes are black and that this is a clear indication of institutional racism in America brought about by the federal war on drugs.
No other candidate has the balls to criticize the war on drugs, or the racial injustice stemming from it, yet you can still accuse Paul of being a racist? You’re a halfwit, TK.
And so he let them use his name on a newsletter that he didn’t pay a lot of attention to after he got paid for it over TWENTY years ago! how is that relevant today. Wake the fuck up.
To Jashin –
You wrote: “people are saying that Ron Paul “hates black people” based on certain associations. if people can say that, then it’s fair to say that Obama hates white people based on certain associations he’s had like his old pastor. if the Obama supporters don’t like it, then they oughta stop being hypocritical and start being fair about it.”
So, you’re actually presenting the argument that because some people accuse Ron Paul of hating blacks due to some associations that makes it logically valid that because of HIS past associations, President Obama hates white people, and its fair play to call him a racist? Hmm. Well, Obama was “associated’ with a lily white grandmother whom he loved so much he actually did NOT boycott her funeral just because she was white. As I said, such a retaliatory “tit for tat” assault is just DUMB!
wiessej,
if you think it’s dumb you should tell that to the Obama supporters since they started it. if it’s dumb it’s also dumb to apply the same logic to Ron Paul.
That he addresses this glaring inequity so directly and so bluntly is admirable. Over the last 20 years, Paul’s the only candidate from either party to do so that I can recall.
Jashin, you ARE being an idiot following that line of thought, and you are doing Ron Paul no favors articulating it publicly while expressing support for his nomination. Do you think Paul would be stupid enough to even think, let alone say, such a thing? Instead of fighting stupid with stupid how about you follow Paul’s example and lead BY example. Stop giving support to the accusations that his supporters are lunatics and fringe elements. You’re holding Ron Paul back. Cut it out.
babotaengi,
i never said what i believe or think about it bro. all i’m doing is holding these people accountable for their own logic and standard they’re applying to Ron Paul. the onus is on them.
Ron Paul is about 80% on target–it’s the isolationist bit that scares me. However, Paul is the only candidate calling for the wholesale dismantling of a number of federal agencies and departments–something very necessary. We are way beyond the point where half-assed spending measures around the edges are useful. Douthat’s point that the political class has failed us is spot on.
Also, I’m all in favor of creative destruction in the financial sector–you bet big but wrong on Greece, Argentina, sub-par mortgages or the next debacle, college debt–you fail. No more moral hazard. No more big bonuses reflecting government bailouts instead of smart fund management.
It’s like the first real piece of puzzle found to the otherwise complete unfathomable mind of yours w.r.t your support for Palin.
Having said that, so what was it with Dubya? Was it his inner retard shone through and overrode everything stacked against him? (i.e.The Yale degree, family pedigree etc.)
In fact, I’d say what you’re is that you are more like a die-hard true red commie naive romantic who is yearning for a true classless and anti-elitist society, very dangerous, it would have been “Off with his head!” a couple of centuries ago.
Ron Paul Receives Major Evangelical Endorsement from Dr. James Linzey, President of Military Bible Association http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/460818637.html
PHILADELPHIA, Penn., Jan. 12, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul received a major endorsement from Evangelical leader Dr. James Linzey, president and founder of the Military Bible Association.
In a statement to Congressman Paul, Rev. Linzey stated: “Having thoroughly examined your political philosophy and finding that your platform is 100% in line with the Constitution of the United States of America, and examining your political record to find that you have consistently upheld the Constitution and thereby faithfully represented your constituency, and studying your statement of faith to find that your faith and religious experience is 100% compatible with Evangelical Christianity and Orthodox Christianity, I hereby endorse you for the Office of the President of the United States of America. I wish you Godspeed!”
Dr. Linzey later stated, “Among the six remaining GOP hopefuls, two are evangelical — Ron Paul and Rick Perry. But the tell-tale sign of being qualified for the presidency is not faith, but loyalty to the Constitution which defends the open expression of faith. Ron Paul seems to be the candidate most loyal to the Constitution according to the records. So when other evangelical leaders endorse GOP contenders of other faiths and traditions, some of whom have received funds from special interest groups, and are not as loyal to the Constitution as is Dr. Paul, one must necessarily ask, ‘What is their agenda?’ because they certainly are not endorsing the most qualified nor the most evangelical. If evangelicals wish to make faith an issue, then they should take a closer look at Dr. Paul’s statement on his web site, ‘Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.’”
Don’t people hate Jesus due to his certain associations, i.e. Christians?
yuna — Thanks for your contempt. With respect to my respect for George W. Bush, I’ll have you know that when faced with the choice between Dubya and Al Gore in 2000, I did not follow my gut instinct and slash my wrists, but rather I pulled the lever for Ralph Nader. My top political principle is to reject the scions of political families — this is job one. I believe in the people. One and done — the kids should get a real job.
However, after 9-11 I came to respect George Bush very much as a leader, although I profoundly disagreed with him on social policy (the Medicare Part D prescription-drug giveaway), on runaway spending, and on some civil-liberties issues. National security was more important to me. I do not have an objection to Guantanamo Bay, nor to waterboarding enemy combatants. Fuck them.
I did not and do not think Bush is a retard and I resented the constant utterly unprincipled and unhinged attacks on him from the left. Who opposed Bush, and how they opposed him made it easy for me. And when presented the choice between George Bush and John Forbes Kerry in 2004, although I did not vote for Bush the first time, it was easy as pie to choose Bush over Kerry.
George Bush did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, although his Medicare giveaway contributed to it. Military spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, although said to have totalled a trillion dollars over 10 years, actually constitutes an exceedingly small fraction of the total Federal spending over that 10-year period. The US budget, remember, was about $25 trillion over that period. Four percent for those wars? I’ll take it.
What caused the financial crisis was the Community Reinvestment Act and American banks being frog-marched by Congress and the Justice Department to abandon prudential standards to loan money to people who couldn’t pay the loans back. It’s not racist to deny credit to people who have no money, even if those people are black and Hispanic. Responsibility for the real-estate bubble and subsequent crash lies at the feet of the Democrats who pushed their social-justice agenda onto banks, and a Federal Reserve Bank which was too chickenshit to take away the punchbowl before it was too late. Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, in particular, ought to be executed.
Yes, Federal spending grew 50% over George Bush’s presidency, and the Republicans share blame for that. However, people forget that through 2007, deficits were shrinking under Bush — to about US$160 billion for FY 2007. Increased tax collections were closing that gap before the music stopped. What I found particularly galling about Barack Obama and the Democrats during 2009 and 2010 is that they decided to double down on stupid. The Federal budget is now approaching US$4 trillion, with almost 45% of every dollar spent being borrowed. This is ruinous.
This alone means I must vote those Democrat bastards out.
#80
“Vote Brendon Carr for President”
Hmm. Shouldn’t the word “respect”be saved that for people who deserve it more? like Lincoln? I can even try to understand hating the anti-fans enough to vote for him (some anti-fans bring fans the same way as some supporters drive support away) , but to go from that to “respect him as a leader”..it still unnerves me..
If you really want to get the democrats out, you and other Republicans better start campaigning for Paul. He’s the only candidate who has any hope of attracting a large enough independent vote, youth vote and converted democrat vote to oust the Obamanator.
And of course Brendon is right about the fact that Democrats are equally silent about the racial inequality in the judicial system, but Ron Paul is not: http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20120112/OPINION02/201120317/Ron-Paul-becomes-lone-GOP-voice-unequal-justice
He’s obviously a man who believes in liberty and justice for ALL, and won’t hide his beliefs even if it will cost him votes. To argue that a man who would make that argument in a presidential debate is racist is utter stupidity.
Even I question his non-interventionist foreign policy (to call it “isolationist” suggests the intellect of a 7 year-old), but his clear desire to cut agains the current and really change the federal government for the better is patently clear and much more desirable than treading water for another four years with any of the other presidential hopefuls.
Actually, I can see how that argument is extremely strong.
Depends on how gratuitously such association was made.
Given that I am a well-educated liberal, I already read those articles and was unimpressed. By the way, you have now totally run away from defending Ron Paul for his racism, or alternatively, his inability to monitor a simple newsletter.
When his own words clearly show racist paranoia, how can any reasonable mind NOT accuse Paul of racism?
It is relevant because it shows his judgment.
Oh, so he’s not a racist, he’s a man who is capable of errors in judgement? Thanks for the clarification. Now I suggest that you start working on your future presidential aspirations, TK, as I strongly suspect you are the only one here who can claim to be incapable of errors in judgement.
He’s a bloke. Of course he has made errors in judgement. That this is the worst his detractors have on him only supports his worthiness. Or maybe HAL should be nominated for president. “Hello, Dave.”
He is either a racist or a person with poor judgment. Either way, he is not presidential.
Oh don’t worry, I have way, way more criticisms of Ron Paul that are significantly worse — like the moral bankruptcy of libertarianism in general. But this is the most convenient, and easy enough for dumb people to grasp.
same shit can be said about Obama. how can any reasonable mind NOT accuse Obama of racism?
your arguments suck bro. they boil down to:
he’s “racist” (and by your own logic and standard this applies to Obama too, so by implication your argument is that Paul and Obama are racists)
and he’s “evil” (using a bunch of other words to not make it sound as silly and stupid, like “morally bankrupt”)
and since “racist” is just another word for “evil” these days, your whole argument boils down to a meaningless and substance-less one of just saying that he’s “evil” or “bad”. it’s like saying he’s the devil, or a witch, etc. just dressed up in fancier language.
oh and you also want to order other people what to do.
since if you’re calling Paul a racist then you’re also calling Obama a racist and thus also evil, you can’t use that as an argument against Paul and in favor Obama. so the only one you have left is that you want to order other people what to do. good luck with that bro. nobody’ll buy that shit. we have enough liberal lawyers. nobody likes liberal lawyers and we want them out of our lives.
“But this is the most convenient, and easy enough for dumb people to grasp.”
So you consider the people who buy into your characterization of Paul “dumb”. I think I can go along with that.
TK,
in my previous comment i called you a couple of names. they were totally uncalled for. i apologize.
now.
i don’t need to defend ron paul from your charges of racism (anymore) because i’ve already posted a video clip from 1988 that pretty much contradicts those views expressed in his newsletter (penned by lew rockwell). in case you missed it, here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_16mwNDdGVk
and others including your fellow berkeley graduate have done a much better job explaining why this “issue” isn’t as big as you’re trying to make it out to be. that said, and this goes out to YUNA also, did you know that abraham lincoln was a white supremacist?
http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of, making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -Abe Lincoln
as i said over and over, what matters to me isn’t with whom he has associated or how he (mis)managed his own newsletters 20 years ago. because like JD pointed out, the golden boy of goldman sachs barack obama has his fair share of sketchy associations (rev. wright, tony rezko, bill ayers, etc) as well as having (and continues to) colluded with financial terrorists on wall street. what matter to me are paul’s policy positions. there’s no better alternative and no one, i mean NO ONE is offering anything better overall.
here’s another article for you to chew on, TK.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/okay-progressives-whats-your-alternative-to-ron-paul/251188/
look out. more and more “progressives” are waking up to this fact.
Thanks.
That only shows Ron Paul will say anything is expedient for him to say. He was out in the political wilderness when those newsletter were written, and no matter who wrote the newsletters (truth is, we will never know,) there is no denying that Ron Paul profited from them.
Distraction is a sign of a weak argument.
You are wrong.
Read it already, and it doesn’t apply to me. I am an old-school Democrat in the mold of FDR, who built the American Empire of whose glory you are all a beneficiary. I like big government, labor unions working in cutting-edge manufacturing, huge infrastructure projects and victorious wars abroad. In fact, those things are the whole point of being an American, and Ron Paul wants to abdicate from all of them. If you want to have no impact on the world while being completely untouched by the big bad gub’mint, go live in a shack in the woods. I want to live in America that can make the whole world to do its bidding.
To iMe –
First, just hang it up. TK has no intention of reading for comprehension anyone else’s post if he sniffs out the fact that your opinion differs from his own.
Second, you wrote: “there’s no better alternative and no one, I mean NO ONE is offering anything better overall.”
That is a matter of opinion. Mr. Paul’s positions may seem quite refreshing, but one must look at the long term impact of what his policies would have if implemented. Too often, people want to run away from something they dislike into an area of uncertainty that will ultimately become worse than what they were running away from. I strongly believe that if there were no other nations on earth with which to interact, Mr. Paul would be a great candidate for President. However, there is an internationally sensitive economy out there, complex international relationships and obligations, etc., and Mr. Paul’s positions on many things related to those are simply overly simplistic and cannot EVER realistically be implemented. His manner of speaking to interviewers is like they are small children and he is teaching them to ride a bicycle for the first time – like his is the only possible – or the only practical – solution. Ron Paul will not be elected President – and if he is the most electable candidate the Republicans can put forward, many MANY moderate Republicans are going to simply cross the line and vote to re-elect Obama, or they will not vote at all. If Ron Paul is the Republican Presidential candidate come November, Mr. Obama’s will be elected to a second term by a VERY significant margin.
But, I do not believe voters will continue to support Mr. Paul as the primary season continues. One unrelated factor that may play into it is the fact that Ron Paul is 77 years old. By the time of the November elections, he will be 78, eight years older than the oldest US President ever elected (Ronald Reagan). His position on illegal aliens (albeit correct in my opinion) will disenfranchise him from the Hispanic vote, even possibly in his own State of Texas. I just believe that if sitting in debate against Mr. Obama, Mr. Paul will appear quite the nut job to the American public in general, and whether he is correct or not, an old man whining to 300+ million who won’t listen.
NO IT’S NOT. Agree or disagree with Ron Paul and his ilk (and believe me, I disagree), but they are a very real and genuine part of the American political and social tradition.
oh, man…don’t even get me started on FDR! we’ll just have to agree to disagree. you like big government, i prefer individual liberty.
wiessej,
i prefer old & wise (paul) to young, naive & hopelessly corrupt (obama).
No one said they are not a part of American tradition.
If so, then don’t say that they want to abdicate from all that has made America great. After all there are some aspects -emphasis on some-that we’d all heed/consider seriously if we want to keep this country great.
If so, then you ought to be profoundly angry about the way waste, fraud and abuse (gold-plated weapons systems and useless contractors like you-know-who) and runaway social spending are poised to strangle the American military. Britain is well along the path the US is on, with its National Health Service and truly barmy welfare state sucking up more and more of the budget. Britain’s Royal Navy, by the way, which once straddled the globe, now has just over 30 combatant vessels.
Oh I am. But above all I was profoundly angry at Iraq War, because it violated an important lesson from Sun Tzu: Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. America had a good thing going with Afghan War, and Bush had to piss it away.
Wow. Never heard it expressed so, well, frankly before (as I recoil in abject horror).
aw, tilly, you’re coming around! that’s my boy! you’re getting closer…you’re getting closer…
#100: Yep, that’s exactly what Jefferson, Adams, Washington et al. had in mind when they created a U.S. that would be safe for Big Labor and massive infrastructure projects and would make the world do its bidding. Yes, that was their whole point of being American.
@iMe:
I figured you say something like this. Just for your information, I’m not coming around to anything. I see in Ron Paul and his ilk a lot that’s admirable and worth pondering over. But that doesn’t translate into me diving head first into the Kool Aid. I’ll do business with this faction went it’s suitable (i.e. stop needless interventionist wars, draw down the “War on Drugs”). But once you guys start thinking you can start enacting your other loony ideas…well…that’s when my side has to hammer down.
To Brendon @#98 – snicker…snicker…snicker…ohhh, Brendon…if a contractor is useless, why is he hired and paid for a service that is a stated requirement for which there is no one else to perform it? You are so humorous in that cowardly sort of way you project so well. I love it.
To Charles – in total agreement. Interesting ideas from Ron Paul…but practical? Nahhhh…not most of them.
….etc. to @98 – and why is said term of service re-newed through each stated option year? Oh….just trying to insult…nice try, my sniping buddy.
To iMe @#95 –
To harken back to Monty Hall on “Let’s Make a Deal”, I prefer neither Paul nor Obama. I am hoping for something better from behind the curtain that Carol Merrill is standing next to.
@TK
That’s too Teddy Roosevelt for my taste (but then again, I never had a Teddy Roosevelt phase like every single one of my friends).
I like Ron Paul. I like that he’s in the process and finally getting his voice heard. I’d never vote for him, however, because I have several fundamental problems with his positions as well as libertarians in general.
I don’t think he’s a racist, but I do think that he has a severe problem with public communication as well as management. This whole racist newsletter thing reconfirmed that opinion for me. I actually like him best as where he is now – as a House representative. Hell, if I lived in his district, I’d probably vote for him if he ran for the House (and even Senate) seat.
Carol’s doing well, it seems.
http://www.carolmerrill.org/CarolMerrillBio.htm
It could also be that the organization picking up the stated option year is also worthless.
This, sir, is the very crux of the problem, and goes to the heart of the “waste” (and possibly “abuse”) portion of waste, fraud and abuse. I also question your assertion that Uncle Sucker couldn’t possibly find another non-Korean speaking washout officer to repeat what he’s learned about Korean society by reading the Korea Times and trying to pick up students at Helios.
I’ve worked on several defense-contracting disputes, and know enough about that industry to tell you the stated requirements mean nothing. There is a well-known practice known as “wiring”, where the requirements are written to force a desired outcome in favor of a preferred party — whether it means the selection of a certain supplier or the retention of a buddy in a certain job.
Now, come on Brendon…sitting there as you do in your Korean law firm’s office (where you’re not allowed to practice law, because after more than a decade in Korea, you’re still not licensed – or is it because you safely and lazily choose not to), and where your most significant daily contributions are spell/grammar-checking English translations of Korean legal documents you didn’t even author, is hardly “useful”.
I appreciate you taking a break from Facebook’s “Words With Friends” (I bet you even use cheat sites to make sure you win every game, huh?) every once in a while to level an insult or two. It certainly is refreshing.
Please spare me your sophomoric interpretation of what is and is not “useful” as far as the US Department of Defense’s cooperation with the ROK Ministry of National Defense is concerned. Your gross ignorance in such areas is glaringly obvious and not even remotely worth debating with you about. I mean after all, you work at a Korean law firm that finds it useful to employ an American law school graduate who can’t even practice law!! Oh, the irony!!
I would also suggest that your fixation with pedophilia (repeated references to sexual attempts with students) might be a symptom of something that runs a little deep in your past and may require counseling to finally overcome. I mean, for real, I mention a single episode from roughly 9 years ago that involved me and a co-worker farming the ignorance out of two female college-age young women, and you have transformed it in your psyche (and here) on more than one occasion into some sort of sexually intended pick-up attempt. Please get help.
I don’t have any idea where you keep coming up with the Korea Times thing. Is that supposed to be an insult? I kinda feel the way a white guy feels when a black man calls him a “cracker”. I am sure you mean for it to elicit some kind of emotional response, but the arrow missed it’s mark.
It’s 2012, Brendon…must you continue to snipe and duck? Every time you do it now, I close my eyes, picture your 1987 buck-toothed high school yearbook photo (thank goodness you got the dental work done), and laugh.
Please stick with topics, unless you enjoy making me laugh.
wiessej — Your ignorance on the legal profession doesn’t build confidence in the value of your pronouncements on other matters. It’s like you live in an alternate reality.
Brendon – this constant insulting mentality…it’s an illness with you, right? That’s why you can’t stop. I feel sorry for you. Honestly, there are other ways to build self-confidence. Really. Learn to do something athletic. Develop a hobby…something…there’s a whole world out there.
Here is what I like about Obama: he is the most pragmatically nationalistic president in recent memory. Everything he says is couched in terms of national interest, national security and national competitiveness. Obama constantly warns America that other countries are catching up fast (with Korea being his favorite example in this regard,) and tells Americans that we must stay ahead of the game. That is in our national interest.
And to such ends, Obama is rarely ideology-driven. Does an American citizen pose a threat to national security by becoming a terrorist? ACLU might want a trial for him, but Obama administration simply eliminates the threat. Obama stopped fighting the war we can’t win (Iraq), but fought the war we can’t lose (Libya). Liberals might detest federal assistance of large companies, but Obama administration poured in money to avoid an economic meltdown. Obama administration also approaches education in terms of national competitiveness, and social policies as a way of showing off the greatness of America. I like all of that.
The only annoyance that I have with Obama is that Hillary Clinton would have been just as nationalistic and pragmatic, but far more ruthless about getting shit done. Instead of the dithering with the Republicans who were obviously not in the mood to cooperate, she would have simply decapitated them. But as he got into a groove as the president, Obama has learned to fight dirty — which is an essential characteristic for a politician who wants to actually do something beyond talking. So he’ll do just fine, and I expect good things in his second term, which he will no doubt have.
Peace, out.
You guys…
@99
What pretentious twaddle. The US effort in A might have been better than in I; but it certainly wasn’t because it comported with Sun Tzu’s maxim
Oops…Brendon…
You wrote: “Your ignorance on the legal profession doesn’t build confidence in the value of your pronouncements on other matters. It’s like you live in an alternate reality.”
..ignorance ON? the legal profession?? replace the word “legal” with “military” and that paragraph fits you perfectly…
I just couldn’t resist your poor use of grammar…unintentional, I am sure.
Get help, Brendon…
I’m somewhere between Wedge and bumfromkorea on Ron Paul, but where Wedge says 80% I’m down around 55%. Like Tilley, I can see certain transactions getting done. Radical tax reform, soft drug legalization, cutting bloated government … I live in closed-primary DC as an independent, so won’t be voting until November.
Ron Paul has already done a service in working many underappreciated and neglected conservative principles into the debate and setting grassroots organizing and fund-raising examples that may point the way to less costly, more representative politics in the future. There’s a kind of “sound money and individual liberty” populist ring to the message but no warmongering or nationalism. His foreign policy ultimately amounts to having no foreign policy. Some people might want that.
There will come a point pretty early in the GOP race — delegate-rich states generally having closed primaries — where Romney sews up the delegate numbers and clinches it, leaving to Dr Paul the decision of how best to leverage his 25-30 percent, with Romney or with Gary Johnson or alone. Contrary to my sense that there are a lot of young independents without fixed views and looking for “change” who will go for Paul, recent polls I’ve seen have Romney and Obama tied in a 2-man race, but Obama winning handily if a third party candidate runs.
What will the purists want the good doctor to do?
Brendon, So I take it you’re not a Keynesian…If national security is one of your litmus tests, then could you really justify voting for Paul over Obama if that were the choice? Your loathing runs that deep?
gmm — Good question! Ron Paul v. Barack Obama would be another of those slit-my-wrists choices. It would pose a real philosophical conundrum.
Ultimately, I think I’d go for Ron Paul, for two reasons: (i) probably incapable is preferable to proven incapable, and (ii) fiscal disaster is a national-security threat all by itself.
I’m with Tilly: Paul is wrong about a lot, but when he’s right, he’s really right. And he’s right about the things the other candidates are wrong about or avoid completely. That makes him compelling.
slim,
in the latest CBS poll, ron paul ties obama in a head to head matchup.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109
tilly,
i know you’re running late but you’ll get there eventually. don’t worry, bud. i already saved you a seat.
heads up to brendon carr: Sarah Palin Questions Mitt Romney’s Honesty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8EWPNWQtmY
Brendon, I guess it will just be a plug-your-nose-and-vote (for Romney) situation in the end…the wrist-slashing for you will be when Obama is re-elected! There’s a huge cut-out of him outside a bakery here in Ottawa that he made a surprise stop at–you’d love it.
The Founding Fathers had a very narrow definition of being an American, now didn’t they? They did get the federal republic thing right, though. Too bad Jefferson himself fudged on his fidelity to the Enumerated Powers Clause in order to, in the words of one of my second graders, “buy the country” from France.
If Ron Paul is as principled as many of us give him credit for, he’ll stay faithful to his ideals. In a two-party race, I would favor Obama, but if Ron Paul runs as an independent, I might vote for him and other independents and alternative party candidates to put a dent in the two-party oligarchy that your link to Douthat’s NYT op-ed piece explained so eloquently.
Check this out: According to this Politico article by Steven Rattner, Obama’s Wall Street guy, Bain Capital earned an 88% annual return under 15 years of Romney’s management. I knew it was good, but never expected that good. No wonder he got rich. A dollar invested with Mitt Romney in 1984 would have been worth US$12,953 in 1999. Holy smokes. Nearly 13,000% ain’t bad.
I wonder what rate of return America’s earning on Obama’s “investments” in winners like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, the California High Speed
FailRail project and General Motors?you’re an idiot bro. you don’t realize that FDR and the old left were a different animal from your post-60s new left progressivism and at odds with it. FDR was closer to national socialism. he basically unionized the whole country and put the picket lines at the country’s borders. it’s completely different from the extreme social liberalism plus globalism of the new left.
obama is not a nationalist at all bro. he’s internationalist, globalist, and imperialist.
I cannot countenance being corrected on matters of the English language by a person who writes as badly as you, knave. It was in fact the abiding sloppiness of your written expression that first alerted me to your low quality, beneath the standard of intelligence and conduct which should be expected of a commissioned officer.
I await your next communique informing us how funny-looking I was as a kid, 26 years ago. That’ll show me.
Imperialist is actually a good descriptor for Obama, as he seems to fancy himself the ruler of an alien people inferior to his Royal Highness.
…ahh..but are you sure it’s “ON matters”?
Yes.
Good God….you took me literally on that last one? Oh….forsooth!!!
To Brendon @131 –
You wrote: “Imperialist is actually a good descriptor for Obama, as he seems to fancy himself the ruler of an alien people inferior to his Royal Highness.”
Wait a cotton pickin’ minute!! The guy was talking about Obama!! You are describing yourself!!
I’d invite you to kiss my ring, but actually I am thinking of another word.
It’s not surprising – I can guess, considering your preoccupation with that sort of thing of late. Gads, Brendon…stay on topic…talk about politics or something.
How’s that phrase go – ‘tongue-punching his dirt star’? Wait, that’s not one word, is it?
…but that he was literally thinking of it!! EEEEEEEuuuuuuuuwww…
Come on now, Colonel, your 20+ year career in the military and subsequent employment with the world’s most conformist private organization should have given you ample practice.
And now at #141, after HE was the one mentioning it so frequently, supposedly I am the one focusing on…gulp (excuse me, I almost threw up) on the perverse things…Politics!! Politics, Brendon!! You’re sinking…
Let’s get back on topic.
Interesting you bring up California High Speed Rail. Which you aptly describe as “fail”.
Why was Korea able to build high speed rail in a relatively short time and watch it become a success and California was not?
Well, for starters, Republican and Democrat presidents have decided it was worth trillions of dollars to destroy and re-construct Iraq and Afghanistan and that was a better use of the money than rebuilding America. California high speed rail would’ve been a drop in the bucket compared to the money already wasted on needless foreign interventionism.
I call that treason.
Not to mention FDR was a racist.
LOL
Please, let’s not forget how FDR illegally interned American citizens for the crime of looking like you. And you dare call Ron Paul a racist.
dogbertt — It depends on your definition of “success”. KORAIL’s KTX high-speed rail line pays its operating costs if one ignores the cost of the land rights purchased and the cost of constructing the railbed — i.e., the infrastructure. KTX can pay for its advertising, fuel (mostly electrical) costs, and staff salaries from ticket sales, and turns a reasonable operating profit, but KTX cannot service the loans required for its W18 trillion construction cost.
If California high-speed rail were worth it then the private sector would be all over it. It’s not like there’s a lack of money sitting around looking for productive uses.
Do I need to bring up the example of Great Northern again, the only efficient, not-bankrupt-in-15-years cross-country railroad which took no government assistance whatsover?
This brings to mind one good thing Obama has done: He’s almost gotten NASA out of space. From here on out the big gains in space will come from commercial ventures, not from huge, wasteful, bureaucratic, over-regulated government space programs.
Or China.
Weren’t most US presidents up through Nixon racists judging by remarks they made about people of color?
@Sonagi: that’s exactly my point — they were and this fact completely undermines TK’s argument that Ron Paul’s alleged “racism” somehow makes him “unpresidential”, while other former presidents’ actual racism did not.
@Brendon: I wouldn’t expect either Korea’s HSR or California’s HSR to be self-sufficient. The U.S. government has long subsidized transportation, whether by car, train, or automobile.
My point is that the countless U.S. public funds used to rebuild Iraqi and Afghan infrastructure would’ve been much better spent put to the same purpose domestically. I really don’t see how any American can disagree with that.
Woops …. Meant to write “by car, train, or plane”.
I would have thought, that the overall *direction* we strive for, at least in the United States of America, is *away* from racism, not *towards*? i.e. previous cases should not justify the future? Unless, we want to go back to the days of the Old Testament?
However, on sexism and women’s rights, I have a different opinion.
yuna,
we as a society can always *strive* for better race relations but no one can or should try to change people’s behavior or thoughts through laws. such actions by the government or our elected officials do nothing but trigger resentment. but if you allow people to be free instead, free to express their thoughts, free to share ideas and creativity, free to participate in the market and exchange goods and services, then you are creating an environment for more organic growth of harmony and better understanding of one another. unfortunately, too many of our friends *cough*liberals*cough* think it’s better and more expedient to just force people to do things against their own freewill.
Wow. I had thought that you were just joking earlier, but you are seriously justifying Ron Paul’s racism in the 1990s with the past presidents’ racism in the 1930s and 40s. That pretty much shows where you stand.
If laws cannot be allowed to change behavior or thoughts, why have any laws?
The flip side of that is you admire FDR, while being willing to excuse his racist actions (such as internment) because he is a product of his (not so long ago) times.
In other words, FDR’s racism was real, put into practice, and caused untold anguish for countless citizens. With Ron Paul, the best you can do is come up with a few untoward remarks in obscure newsletters that Paul himself did not author. Weak.
I admit I don’t think Paul has a chance of winning, but that won’t be because of half-baked allegations of racism. As I noted previously, minorities have come to realize that the charge of “racist!” is an effective tactic that can be used against white people they do not like and want to silence. That’s all you’re doing with this.
That said, America needs a president who will actively foster racial reconciliation. Is Ron Paul that man? Probably not, although as someone pointed out, he’s the only Republican candidate willing to address the issue of discrepancies in sentencing for drug crimes, for which he deserves credit.
I am, also, in general against prohibiting thoughts through law, but I didn’t read the general argument here in the same way as you. I think people are just arguing against voting for a candidate who, in their mind, might have expressed racist thoughts, rather than trying to get him banned from running by law.
At a tangent, but I wonder what the verdict had been if he had killed Muslim civilians.. “Gravity” and “singularity”, maybe the judge is an armchair physicist..
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/norway-shooter-anders-behring-breivik-to-get-new-psychiatric-exam-due-to-gravity-and-singularity-of-the-case/
Is this guy insane? Is he insane only because of his actions? If he had just posted those youtube videos but had not carried out his attacks would he have stopped at being your run-of-the-mill racist?
had -> would have
Spare me your desperate dance. I had already moved on from that topic, and you dragged it back in with your egregiously false equivalence with Ron Paul and FDR.
TK,
i failed to elaborate so i’ll give it another go here.
laws should be used to prohibit people from hurting others ie violence, invasion of privacy/property rights, fraud, etc. but we shouldn’t have laws telling people with whom they must or must not associate (hello, NDAA), what they can or cannot do to their own body, what they can say, write, where they can or cannot go, do, say, eat, smoke, drink and what have you as long as they’re not hurting anyone in the process.
but i do finally agree with you on one thing. (obama and his cohorts have absolutely no regard for our laws) why have any laws? hear, hear!
(obama and his cohorts have absolutely no regard for our laws, SO) why have any laws?
Spare me your condescension; you’re no law professor.
There is no false equivalence between Paul and Roosevelt. If you argue that Paul is “unpresidential” because he is a racist, logical consistency requires that FDR’s racism also have you judge him “unpresidential”. Otherwise you need to pick an arbitrary year between 1945 and 2012 when racism becomes sufficient trigger for such judgment.
I do not know what you mean by “desperate dance”. I have never believed Paul would win the nomination, much less the general election.
You are correct.
You are correct again. Racial gaps are concern of our politicians and media only when the gap appears in standardized test scores. Speaking out about a serious problem that most white politicians don’t give a fig about belies accusations of him being a racist.
Unlike other Ron Paul supporters, you are not arguing that Ron Paul is not racist. It is not as if that argument is particularly convincing (especially without painting Ron Paul as incompetent,) but at least it is a reasonable argument that attempts to put some distance between the argument-maker and racism.
Rather, your argument is that it is totally fine for Ron Paul to be racist, because past presidents from 70-80 years ago were also racist. Not only that, your argument is that racial minorities cannot even question that Ron Paul might be racist, regardless of a prima facie evidence that Ron Paul might be racist. Such lines of argumentation do not disavow racism; they embrace racism. They ignore the considerable progress of racial equality that has been made in those 70 to 80 years. (No thanks to Ron Paul’s brand of civil libertarians, I might add.) They see racism as a mindless distraction rather than a deleterious reality minorities must endure.
Not even the most dedicated Ron Paul supporters would make this argument, unless they also embraced racism. But then again, everyone here knew that about you, so why I am even making this point?
Ok. Allow me to unpack a little further and ask a few questions, if you don’t mind.
- Are you opposed to laws like RICO, which often punishes no more than an association with organized crime?
- Are you in favor of allowing people sell their bodily organs? Under your ideal regime, can people sell their bodily organs even if they will die in the process? (For example, sell their heart for $10 million, so that their children may have a good life?)
- Are you in favor legalizing all drugs?
- If a single mother with an infant child incapacitates herself with crack cocaine, does not count as “hurting anyone else” under your definition?
to dogbertt & others who don’t think paul can win the general election…
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/south-carolina-santorum-fades-newt-and-paul-rise.html
think again!
that “ron paul can’t win the primary/general election” is a media-driven narrative spewed by the likes of michelle obama’s bitch rachel maddow and stupid hacks like sean hannity. 40% of americans now ID themselves as independents. once our brain-dead republican voters realize that mitt romney is just another john kerry circa 2004, they’ll abandon his sorry ass without thinking twice. so it’s either ron paul or bust, baby!
Go back and reread the quoted text. Dogbertt is not acknowledging that Ron Paul is racist. In fact, he clearly casts doubt on the accusation with this earlier remark that I quoted:
In the text you quoted, Dogbertt is accusing you of a double standard with regard to racism making a president unfit for office. I agree with you that the US is a very different country than it was 70 years ago, and attitudes that that public not only tolerated but actually embraced then are abhorrent to many voters now. I realize how far we’ve come when I struggle to explain segregation to my Hispanic elementary school students, who cannot fathom visible discrimination in everyday life. Some are not blind to present inequalities. Yesterday a third grader told me, “White people are better than black people.” What he meant was “White people are better off than black people.” Every year when the topic of segregation comes up a discussion ensues among the students about whether brown children would have gone to school with white children or black children. It is fascinating and provocative to see our country and its history through these kids’ eyes.
- Are you opposed to laws like RICO, which often punishes no more than an association with organized crime?
you’ve cornered me here as i am not as well equipped to articulately argue about the RICO act per se. that said, sure, i’m against racketeering and would like to see those who commit crimes prosecuted. but only if they are found to have directly engaged in racketeering, not if they’re loosely tied to a criminal organization. and this is another area where i have some beef with our criminal justice & regulatory bodies. the examples i’m about to cite may not be directly related to RICO but as we’ve seen at the highest level of government as well as wall street, the guy(s) who actually masterminded/ordered/perpetuated the crime almost always go unscathed. take valerie plame’s case for example. or the greatest financial fraud committed in history which is still on-going. who went to jail? nobody. but who get to write memoirs and make millions afterwards thanks to their billionaire friends buying up all their books? who get multi-million dollar bonuses, bailouts, get cabinet positions at the white house, get jobs on the board of directors at one of the TBTFs and so on after the dust settles? the very fuckers who either masterminded/ordered/perpetuated the crimes themselves. why? because we have a very corrupt government that’s in bed with the biggest white collar criminal organizations in america. so what good are these laws if they’re almost never properly enforced? and don’t even get me started on our *wonderfully* humanitarian military industrial complex.
- Are you in favor of allowing people sell their bodily organs? Under your ideal regime, can people sell their bodily organs even if they will die in the process? (For example, sell their heart for $10 million, so that their children may have a good life?)
if that’s what they choose to do, who am i to say, “no!”? i am not god. i only play one to my boys at home.
- Are you in favor legalizing all drugs?
i am for legalizing all drugs. why not? alcohol and tobacco are drugs. they’re legal. prohibition doesn’t work. and if you think outlawing them has done wonders for our society, then you’re out of touch.
- If a single mother with an infant child incapacitates herself with crack cocaine, does not count as “hurting anyone else” under your definition?
we have thousands and thousands of single mothers who are broke, addicted to heroine, cocaine, crack, meth and what have you all across america. yes, it’s tragic and i feel for their children. but instead of treating them like criminals, shouldn’t we treat them the way we treat alcoholics? also, to more directly address your question, yes, they would be “hurting” their children. but with “intent”? i don’t think so. now, if they were forcefully injecting heroine to their kids, yes, that should be criminal. but if they’re destroying themselves and leaving their children at peril, that’s her family’s problem, her community’s problem and our government shouldn’t get involved because we simply cannot save everybody. hell, are we saving everybody now with all of our laws and regulations?
people make bad choices everywhere you look. and some of these problems are created by our government through egregious laws and senseless regulations. sure, there are grey areas in all matters but at the end of the day, freedom is about making choices for yourself, not choices being made for you regardless of what you want or don’t want. freedom comes with responsibilities, rewards and consequences. you either trust that people are capable of making decisions for themselves or you don’t.
I never said he is. My argument does not depend on that.
I reread the relevant comment:
And I amend my earlier remark to clarify that you think Dogbertt did not argue against Ron Paul being racist when in fact he did in the comment I quoted.
He expressed clear doubt about accusations of racism against Ron Paul in the context of a debate with you a out whether or not Ron Paul is racist.
Ok iMe, a few additional questions:
- Are you in favor of open borders and free immigration?
- Should we eliminate all forms of government programs in which government is providing cash or cash equivalents to people? (E.g. Social Security, unemployment benefits.)
- Should we eliminate all publicly assisted corporations that almost certainly will not exist without public financing? (Amtrak, for one.)
- Should we eliminate public services of all kinds? For example, should we eliminate firefighting? Or police service? Or public education? Or roads and electricity grids?
Feel free to tap out if this gets too cumbersome. I just find it fun.
Wow, the only desperate dance on display is that of tk’d awkward ana embarrassing efforts to misconstrue Dogbert’s position by deliberately attributing to himone after another red herring that works in just the way Dogbert says, i.e., dishonestly pulling the race card out of his sleeve
I know. He always argues in such a specious manner, I don’t know why anyone would ever want to convince him to change an opinion (Ha!) – all you’d end up with is more specious arguments, but this time in support of your side of the debate.
Besides, after his comment about enjoying the power and America projects overseas, it is pretty clear all he is doing on the Marmot’s Hole is trolling conservatives. Nothing he writes can be taken seriously.
Ron Paul can win. Vote and campaign for Ron Paul; convince your friends and family to vote an campaign for Ron Paul. He’s the only one interested in making the country better. All the rest are just salivating at the thought of being called “Commander and Chief” and the kickass pension. Money and bragging rights. They ain’t gonna change shit.
Ron Paul’s age does not discount him for presidency – people once thought there would never be a black president. if anything, it makes him a more reliable candidate: he ain’t thinking about paychecks or party affiliations; he’s thinking about America and his legacy in it. He actually wants change because it’s needed and it will probably be the last thing he ever does. That’s why he’s always talking about the “movement” he has fostered – because he hopes that even if he loses it isn’t all for nought.
I hope America wakes up and doesn’t need another four years of bein raped and pillaged from inside before it cottons on to what Paul is talking about.
Vote motherfucker.
More on the “success” of KTX — JoongAng Daily reports today that one-third of KTX’s total annual revenue of W100 billion (about US$87 million) goes to debt service. That means the W18 trillion construction cost constitutes 180 years’ total revenue. California would do well not to duplicate the success of Korea’s high-speed rail line, even though it is admittedly quite cool.
Seats suck
Did you buy the “regular” seat or the “first class” seat? I find the first class tolerable, although not worthy of the moniker.
First class every time. Neither the seats nor any other aspect of the service is so deserving
In first class, do they still come up the aisle with a cart and offer you a fifty cent can of cold coffee for two bucks? I was annoyed by that back in coach, but if they pulled that number on me when I’d paid for a first class ticket I’d be right pissed.
The innovativve business model of the transportaiton industry…what used to be coach is now “first” or “business”, what used to be cattle boxes is now passed for coach
@180
Bingo
- Are you in favor of open borders and free immigration?
i don’t like immigration in general because i think multiculti is a huge fail and i think we ought to make it much tougher to obtain legal status. that said, i agree 100% with ron paul that this is an economic issue more than anything. if we had a thriving economy, we would all be crying for more workers to fill the holes in our labor force and immigration wouldn’t be a huge issue. but because our elites from both parties have plundered our wealth, people are now left to fight for leftovers and it’s creating a lot of resentment toward illegal immigrants.
- Should we eliminate all forms of government programs in which government is providing cash or cash equivalents to people? (E.g. Social Security, unemployment benefits.)
i’ve been paying into SS for almost 25 years now so i’d like to get at least some of that money back. but i loathe the idea of our gov’t mandating anything so it would be nice if people can opt out of social security and keep more of their money. besides, SS is insolvent and has become nothing more than a ponzi scheme. currently, they’re taking money from everyone’s paycheck to pay our seniors because our politicians – both dems and repubs – have stolen everything from SS to pay for their illegal wars and other wastes. simply put, i don’t trust our politicians with my money and neither should you because all they ever do is look for ways to line up the pockets of their friends or waste it or buy votes (corporate & social welfare).
- Should we eliminate all publicly assisted corporations that almost certainly will not exist without public financing? (Amtrak, for one.)
why does our government assist corporations in the first place? why do they pick and choose winners? every time they get involved in something, they just mess up the market and cause inflation. trust the market and allow it to work. capitalism isn’t bad unless central bankers and politicians decide to dictate its terms which is what we have right now.
- Should we eliminate public services of all kinds? For example, should we eliminate firefighting? Or police service? Or public education? Or roads and electricity grids?
well, the feds aren’t responsible for local policing and firefighting. and public schools are funded at a local level, too. but a lot of funding comes from collecting property taxes which i think ought to be eliminated. i own a home. i paid good money for it. so why is my city collecting money from me every year for owning a home? and if i don’t pay my prop tax, they can come and pretty much take my house away. this means even though i paid good money for my home, i don’t really own it. makes absolutely no sense. if we eliminate this tax alone and offer 1-2% interest rates on mortgage loans (remember, TBTFs get 0% interest rate to borrow money from the fed then loan it back to our gov’t and earn 3% interest), people would line up to buy homes. but they would never do that because it makes too much sense for the mass and not enough profits for the banks. yeah. what a wonderful system, ain’t it?
None of this is true. SS is not insolvent and won’t become insolvent. The trust fund that politicians and their media tools liks to scaremonger people about was set up by Carter in the 70s specifically to address the future imbalance of retired versus working people that would strain the pay-as-you-go system. The trust fund will be depleted by 2042 when the majority of boomers will have passed away if our life expectancy trends continue. No problem to see here, folks. The average Social Security beneficiary pays in about 10% more in FICA taxes diverted to SS than what he or she will collect over a lifetime. Social Security is and will remain solvent. Congress has been dipping into the trust fund to pay other expenses like pointless, wasteful foreign wars and overpriced health care, but SS is in no danger of insolvency. You and I will get our money unless enough in our generation start believing the lies and half-truths printed in the media and give up our money without a fight. Though SS is a pay-as-you-go, it is NOT a Ponzi scheme, which depends on an exponential pyramid of growth. Our government put aside money to get us through the boomers and after that pay-ins will equal payouts. Our population of working people may grow through immigration, but our population of retired people isn’t likely to expand suddenly. In fact, it’s more likely to contract given our stagnant life expectancy and statistically, physiologically growing population of people whose lives will be shortened by diseases of civilization.
Medicare DOES pay out more than what it takes in in FICA, an expected imbalance considering how much we overpay for health care compared to people in other countries.
gbevers: “Vote Brendon Carr for President”
I’d vote for him – in both the primary and the general…
By the way, for a guy who spent 2 years in Taiwan as a missionary, Huntsman speaks Mandarin with a rotten accent.
You must log in to post a comment.