General

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Clayton — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:25:58 GMT

The definition of "pal"? Jeez. Should I have said "I never said he was <i>actually</i> friends with these people"? Would that have helped?

You stated RP was "paling around" with racists. Status: False. You've provided no evidence to support your false claim.

It sounds like you think I'm on the side of the people writing all those articles. Obviously they're smear pieces, meant to give as negative of an impression as possible. But that's my whole point. Your entire claim is that the idea of having and accepting the support of these people doesn't matter even to "stupid sheeple public". And I'm saying based on everything I've heard the general public (i.e. anyone not supporting ron paul) say, it obviously does matter, and it does affect their opinion. And those articles illustrate that obviously those in the media believe the general public would be influenced by such information as well...otherwise why would they waste their time composing and publishing it?

Then where was the backlash? How come Paul's numbers didn't go down in the slightest after this? How come they weren't able to follow through and really expose the true "KKK roots" of Ron Paul? Moneybomb after moneybomb kept rolling in and Ron Paul is more popular now than ever before. If this is a solid strategy to discredit someone's reputation, it sure as hell hasn't worked in this case.

Let me go back to my original point. If Politician Bob says "I support white supremacists"... that's news, bad news for Bob. If white supremacists say "we support Politican Bob", that might or might not be news ... if Politician Bob says "I have no idea who the hell these people are" that's the end of it. As for Ron Paul's choice not to "send back the check", a) he already noted that the money would be better used in the hands of his campaign promoting liberty than back in the hands of white supremacists promoting hatred and b) the mainstreamer political campaigns really would rather keep the lid on this can of worms... they receive lots of extremist dough on the DL.

And the crux of the issue is this: Ron Paul is in fact no extremist and, thus, does not attract extremists (except, perhaps, some very confused ones). So the mainstream politicians don't want the the news agencies doing a side-by-side comparison of the campaign contributions from extremists. Because they'll come out with mud on their face, big time. It's a news story that got squashed quickly.

And "your point" is that the MSM is writing smear pieces against RP? What sort of point is that? That the state-operated media apparatus would do everything in its power to try to smear a constitutionalist, minarchist, roll-back-the-Federal gov't, Old Right conservative is obvious. Of course they'll smear him. The question is: did it stick?? Look at the date distribution on the news links. That story came and went in a hurry and when it left the headlines, it was like it had never been there. Ron Paul continued running strong in the primaries for several more months and his fundraising ability was never hindered in the slightest.

some newsletters

They would have used the newsletters to take him down were he to have won the primary (not that that was ever even a real possibility... just speaking hypothetically here). But the newsletters are a completely different issue in terms of political impact. They would have made hay out of that from morning till evening, irrespective of the facts of the matter. They only dropped the issue because they felt that the probability of a Paul nomination was too low to worry about.

Clayton -

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Primetime — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:38:44 GMT

The definition of "pal"? Jeez. Should I have said "I never said he was <i>actually</i> friends with these people"? Would that have helped? It sounds like you think I'm on the side of the people writing all those articles. Obviously they're smear pieces, meant to give as negative of an impression as possible. But that's my whole point. Your entire claim is that the idea of having and accepting the support of these people doesn't matter even to "stupid sheeple public". And I'm saying based on everything I've heard the general public (i.e. anyone not supporting ron paul) say, it obviously does matter, and it does affect their opinion. And those articles illustrate that obviously those in the media believe the general public would be influenced by such information as well...otherwise why would they waste their time composing and publishing it?

Ever heard of Jeremy Wright? Bill Ayers? I assure you, they're both real, friendly, snuggly, warm and fuzzy, love-filled people. Unlike Obama, Ron Paul has not ever associated himself with extremists. And like Obama or any other political candidate, he can't control who walks up to him, shakes his hand or snaps a photo with him.

What's your point? That the media downplays and ignores Obama's extremist associations? I thought that was kind of in the "no-shit" category a long time ago?

And I stand by the assertion that the stupid sheeple understand it. They understand it because the news agencies don't propagandize this issue. And they don't propagandize this issue because all their pet candidates attract extremists like flies on shit. That's why all the links you've provided are from the amateur and junior news punditry... the pros know better than to mess with this issue.

The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?pagewanted=all

The Los Angeles Times:

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/12/ron-paul-learns-what-happens-candidates-embrace-religious-extremists.html

MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

Yahoo News:

http://news.yahoo.com/white-supremacists-rally-around-ron-pauls-newsletter-scandal-211335526.html

Slate.com:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/26/ron_paul_and_extremism_discover_it_again_for_the_first_time.html

New York Magazine:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/how-ron-pauls-libertarianism-supports-racism.html

...You were saying?

Perhaps you could take the time to look at the "amateur and junior news punditry" and notice that they're largely in the business citing larger news sources...and then look at the sources they cite.

And if you'd really like to have some fun, go ahead and suggest that people viewing him personally as a racist doesn't matter either (as it seemed Neodoxy did). I'll be happy to post link after link from "pro" sources going on and on about some newsletters you probably heard of, and the whole issue of being an anti-semite being pretty important to a lot of people. Unless of course you're now going to tell the front page of NYT isn't "pro" or mainstream media...in which case, I'd love to learn what is.

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Clayton — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:20:10 GMT

I never said he was actually friends with these people

Pal.

As for the picture with the white supremacist, Ron Paul specifically disavowed any association with him and told reporters that he takes photos with hundreds of people per day and he cannot control who walks up to him and in no way would he endorse or want to be associated with white supremacy or any kind of racial superiority. I don't have the cite, look it up for yourself.

The point is that I was following the news when they were trying to hype this up. It flopped then. Do you think that no left-wing extremists attend Obama rallies? Now that he's President, they might have the resources to screen each and every person who gets to shake hands with the President or appear in a photo (but I doubt that), but this certainly wasn't the case during his campaign.

Ever heard of Jeremy Wright? Bill Ayers? I assure you, they're both real, friendly, snuggly, warm and fuzzy, love-filled people. Unlike Obama, Ron Paul has not ever associated himself with extremists. And like Obama or any other political candidate, he can't control who walks up to him, shakes his hand or snaps a photo with him.

And I stand by the assertion that the stupid sheeple understand it. They understand it because the news agencies don't propagandize this issue. And they don't propagandize this issue because all their pet candidates attract extremists like flies on shit. That's why all the links you've provided are from the amateur and junior news punditry... the pros know better than to mess with this issue.

Clayton -

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Primetime — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:09:50 GMT

@Clayton:

Is Ron Paul being friendly with white supremicists not what was to be taken from the piece in the very first link in the list I gave you in that list? The entire article was nothing more than "hey look, here's ron paul taking a picture with the director of a white supremicist group and his white supremecist son. Ron Paul is getting endorsed all over the place by extremists and racists, and he doesn't disavow their support. Don't look at us, we're just supplying facts. You draw your own conclusions. The end."

I never said he was actually friends with these people, my whole point is that any sort of association obviously does matter to plenty of people, and this idea that "Even the stupid sheeple public understand" logic and their opinion of someone isn't negatively affected by him not only gaining but accepting the support of self-identified racists, is just crazy.

I mean, I don't know who you associate with, but it can't be much average general public. At the very least I would guess your real life interactions are either quite few, or largely made up of pretty highly educated people, or both. Outside of actual Ron Paul supporters, the view of Ron Paul is "kooky crazy old backwater uncle Ron from Texas with his old man racist anti-semite tendencies and racists associations/supporters. He's crazy because x,y,z. The news and everyone else told me so."

What's even crazier is that you openly acknowledge and use the term "stupid sheeple public", and yet allege that a mass of stupid sheep actually have and put in practice the intellectual capacity to say "just because this one guy happens to appeal to and gain the support of a bunch of white supremicists and extremists, and he put his own name on racists comments, and accepts money from various racist groups, and doesn't disavow their support...that doesn't mean he's a racist or that I should in any way have even the slgihtest negative opinon of him because of any of this whatsoever..."

I mean really?

Neodoxy:
I was asking in terms of why it should affect why one would support him in terms of policy prescription, not in terms of whether or not it would affect his political career.

I though we was talking about overall public opinion. That was the whole point. I said it doesn't look good when your ideas are already called crazy as it is, and then actual clinically crazy people come up with essentially the same ideas. Clayton challenged this idea (surprisingly enough) and suggested that "even the stupid sheeple public" don't end up with any negative opinions of anyone just because he is supported by racists or people that are commonly aggreed on as "bad."

This whole thing started cuz I made a comment about overall public opinion (which is usually based on little more than how things "look"). If all you were asking was why someone being racists should affect why one would support him in terms of policy prescription, then I'm not sure what made you even ask.

But to answer your question, obviously it shouldn't matter. But people shouldn't be murdered either. I was kinda talking in terms of what actually happens, ya know what I mean?

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Neodoxy — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:49:16 GMT

"Is this a real question? You honestly need someone to explain why an openly racist person would never gain public favor? Do you honestly not understand why the enemies of Ron Paul worked so hard to associate him with racists and racist comments?"

I was asking in terms of why it should affect why one would support him in terms of policy prescription, not in terms of whether or not it would affect his political career.

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Clayton — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:01:07 GMT

and/or pal-ing around with white supremicists

Cite or GTFO.

Clayton -

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Primetime — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:49:06 GMT

Neodoxy:
Why does it matter whether or not Ron Paul is the most ardent racist who ever lived?

Is this a real question? You honestly need someone to explain why an openly racist person would never gain public favor? Do you honestly not understand why the enemies of Ron Paul worked so hard to associate him with racists and racist comments?

Clayton:
So you're linking to HuffPo to show that the "general public" had a negative reaction to Ron Paul on the basis of the decision of neo-Nazis to support him?

Well, that was one of many links illustrating the negative tone surrounding it. A large part of the proof of the point is in the fact that those articles exist in the first place. If it's really so meaningless to people, why exactly is it so easy to find so many sources focusing on it?

Clayton:
This is the rule: It matters who you support. It doesn't matter who chooses to support you. Hitler believed 2+2=4... does that reflect badly on mathematicians? Even the stupid sheeple public understand this.

I think you're making presumptions about the general public that are a stretch, to say the least.

Milton Friedman had to explain to the current President of Iceland that gravity works the same regardless of whether the country you're in is a dictatorship or republic.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3D7JXggLOY#t=37m3s

And it sounds like you're suggesting that someone accepting the political and monetary support of, and/or pal-ing around with white supremicists (or, in Neodoxy's case, actually being one) makes essentially no difference to the general public. I honestly don't see how you could be a functioning human being with eyes and ears, and possibly even begin to think such a thing.

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Clayton — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:04:05 GMT

Neo-Nazis are pretty cool

Actually, I've known a couple in my time and they're just generally reactionary, egotistical assholes who sincerely believe that being white somehow makes them superior to other non-white races.

Clayton -

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Clayton — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:01:57 GMT

a) Whittle is generally annoying, even just in his demeanor. I hate that fake furtive crap.

b) Whittle is hard-right; like any Bush-era neocon, he does lip-service to small government.

c) In his last video on election day, he was pathetically begging libertarians/anti-statists to go out and vote for Romney. It was really sad and lame. And it shows where his true loyalties lie: Republican Party, 100% right-down-the-line.

Clayton -

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Buzz Killington — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 05:49:19 GMT

@Prime: Neo-Nazis liking Ron Paul's positions that have nothing to do with race is evidence that Neo-Nazis are pretty cool, not that Ron Paul is bad.

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Buzz Killington — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 05:28:06 GMT

Holy rainbow-colored pony shit!

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Jargon — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 04:52:25 GMT

We are you guys trying to make an enemy of Bill Whittle? I didn't find his "insane rantings" to be so very insane at all. He's talking about the rebirth of an ethos of heroism, completely voluntary of course. He's not a neocon either, he just happens to toe the party line on republican foreign policy but he's not out there waving pamphlets of bomb-strapped muslims in your face.

@ Clayton - you were being sarcastic right?

This is what we were talking about in the other thread with Obama winning the election being the best case scenario. Republicans are getting 'radicalized' or drifting away from the state. Aside from Bill Whittle not being a party-line libertarian, what exactly is the problem here?

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Prime — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 03:41:11 GMT

Maybe I'm losing it a little bit myself, but I actually found the parts of this that I watched to be motivational.

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Clayton — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 03:16:02 GMT

@Prime: So you're linking to HuffPo to show that the "general public" had a negative reaction to Ron Paul on the basis of the decision of neo-Nazis to support him?

This is the rule: It matters who you support. It doesn't matter who chooses to support you. Hitler believed 2+2=4... does that reflect badly on mathematicians? Even the stupid sheeple public understand this.

Clayton -

Re: Bill Whittle goes off the deep end...dreams up libertopia?

Neodoxy — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 02:53:57 GMT

Prime,

Why does it matter whether or not Ron Paul is the most ardent racist who ever lived?

Also