Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: Porktastic Edition (Sarah Posner & Michael B. Dougherty) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7209)

Ocean 12-06-2011 09:33 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233630)
What irritates me is this idea by medical doctors (some of whom are wonderful people, of course)


Tell me about it! ;)


Quote:

... that they have the sole right to a term that in fact applies to numerous others. A PhD is every bit as much a doctor as an MD.
Yes, I know the pain. I have many friends with PhDs and this is an old joke about who the real doctor is. But the reality is that when you say you're a doctor, people immediately think you're a medical doctor. So, somehow it's a cultural phenomenon. You can't really blame physicians for that. Perhaps because physicians are a much more common staple for everybody they got to own the title in the popular mind at least.

It's like Americans owning the name, when there are other inhabitants of the Americas that aren't recognized as such. It just happens.

Wonderment 12-06-2011 09:47 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233705)
Relevant to this discussion is this Daniel Larison post from 2 years ago that I happened upon (in following up on a response to Walter Russell Mead I'm posting in another thread). It relates to an argument by James Joyner:

Yes, Larison raises some interesting points. I'm beginning to see why both you and TS have misunderstood me on Ron Paul.

Here's the deal: I could pretty much care less if Republicans consider themselves Jacksonians, Neo-cons or Isolationists, or if Dems. consider themselves Humanitarian Interventionists or Realists or whatever. My position is to always try to talk them all down from war and to advocate nonviolent conflict resolution in any and all circumstances.

So for purposes of peace activism I don't really care what Ron Paul's views are on The Fed or if he published racist writings in the past. Likewise, I don't care (again, for peace activist purposes) what Obama thinks about taxes on plutocrats or collective bargaining rights in Michigan. I care about Paul, for example, to the extent he is an ally in opposition to war on Libya and Iran.

Paul as a political phenomenon allows me to open a conversation with Republicans about militarism (particularly US bases around the world, deficit military spending and big government military waste and corruption). Paul's view that there can be no war without a Congressional declaration of war is obviously not a pacifist position, but it is part of my peace activist toolkit. For me, Paul is an ally against Obama and Bush interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and other countries (including War on Drugs countries in Latin America). I am more spiritually and intellectually attuned to Dennis Kucinich, but I believe the peace movement needs people like Ron Paul and Kucinich over the long haul, which I and many peace activists expect to be 100 years or so of organizing against US militarism and in favor of nonviolence, democracy and human rights.

Creating a culture of peace over time requires reaching out to people like Ron Paul and saying, "You know, I really agree with about x, y and z," not "You're a racist and your supporters are Paultards." (TS's term, not yours).

graz 12-06-2011 10:26 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233747)
I'm beginning to see why both you and TS have misunderstood me on Ron Paul.

You underestimate your audience. We get your leveraging of support in furtherance of your oft stated goals for the deeply flawed politico Rep/Mr/MD/Dr Paul. Just don't expect everyone to play along ... well except for the Paultards!

TwinSwords 12-07-2011 12:23 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233646)
When did he claim those views as his own? I think he has responsibility for what gets printed in his newsletter in the way that a newspaper editor owns the bad articles that get printed under his watch.

A better analogy than newspaper editor would be an author who hires a ghostwriter to write his or her autobiography. If Sarah Palin's ghostwritten books contained racist or anti-Semitic remarks, no one would try to excuse her by comparing her to a negligent newspaper editor, because the material was presented as an expression of her views, and she hired the writers.

Ron Paul was the owner and publisher of his newsletters, and he hired whatever writers contributed. Ron Paul was also the ostensible author of everything in his newsletters. Everything in them was written in the first person — in Paul's voice. None of the controversial material was bylined by other authors.

It's simply not credible to suggest that Ron Paul isn't directly implicated by the content of his newsletters.


Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233646)
And for the sake of argument, even if he were a racist before, he's absolutely repudiated the content of the newsletters in no ambiguous terms.

Sure, he got caught. People always retract their outrageous behavior after they've been caught. One really can't trust any of his denials because he has an overwhelming motivation to lie: the world has moved on and outside of Lake Jackson, Texas, there are few places you can openly express the kinds of views Paul expressed for 20 years in his publications.


Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233646)
I think people confuse the positions of weirdo Ron Paul supporters with Ron Paul the man. He does have nutty 9-11 truther supporters and other cranks, but his own positions are based on a solid understanding of history, law and economics.

People don't confuse him with those weirdos. Paul directly caters to them. This is what Wonderment, too, doesn't seem to appreciate. Ron Paul is probably the single most frequent guest on the Alex Jones show -- of which there are thousands of hours of programming on YouTube; people can go look at it for themselves, and witness with their own eyes the kinds of extreme talk that Paul participates in. Paul knows exactly who his base is -- and it ain't a bunch of pacifists like Wonderment. It's primarily composed of the farthest right element of the GOP, plus a significant number of militia types, survivalists, advocates of violent revolution, virulent anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists.

Stephanie made a critical point in an earlier discussion elsewhere: Paul's not a pacifist; he's an isolationist. If he was a pacifist he would not have consorted with and encouraged armed anti-government militias, the kind that spawned Timothy McVeigh, and the type that openly discussed violence in response to Obama in 2008-2010 -- on the Alex Jones show and elsewhere.

badhatharry 12-07-2011 12:45 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233649)
Well, if you don't want to hear it from me or TS, perhaps you'll listen to Reason.

or this Reason.

Quote:

Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase.
I actually had only heard a bit about the newsletters and thought that the main indictment of Paul was his lack of support for the Civil Rights Act. I do think he needs to address this part of his career if he hasn't already.

badhatharry 12-07-2011 01:18 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233761)
Ron Paul is probably the single most frequent guest on the Alex Jones show -- of which there are thousands of hours of programming on YouTube; people can go look at it for themselves, and witness with their own eyes the kinds of extreme talk that Paul participates in.

Right, but maybe you could cite/show video of some of the stuff he has said on the Alex Jones Show that was so extreme. It seems that Paul always pretty much says the same stuff about the Fed and the debt, etc, etc. Does he say Alex Jones type stuff? I kinda doubt it. Or are you just offended that Paul is a guest on the show? Sort of guilt by association.

So, here's a theory... Paul is basically clueless. He's an ideologue who has no notion of how he appears to people. He's guileless. That's why he let Rockwell write for him. That's why he is a guest on Jones's show. That's why his suits never seem to fit. He has no idea about how bad it looks.

sugarkang 12-07-2011 02:32 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233649)
Well, if you don't want to hear it from me or TS, perhaps you'll listen to Reason. (again, I am simply saying that you are choosing to believe the recent stuff at facevalue when it is inconstent with past stuff; not sure it makes sense in that context to fault peole who take the earlier stuff at face value and at least acknowledge the practical calculus which would support the later repudiations):

Like I said before, I thoroughly researched the man since 2007. He's flawed, yes. That's also why I cautioned Wonderment here. I also mentioned the newsletters in this thread right from the beginning. Maybe you think I'm delusional. I say there's a statute of limitations on how long you hold people responsible for things they say. I call that forgiveness. I've been told it's a Christian concept.

So, again, even if he authored all those things, he still has my support. Why? Because since 2007, I haven't seen him stumble once. I have seen him stand up to his own party time and time again. He's nicer to OWS than I am. He treats his adversaries like human beings. He defends a potential Muslim terrorist on the basis that he has rights as an American. Where does that fit into the Islamophobic Republican narrative? And this is all stuff that makes him great just in the past month. Is your test of a man the sum of his sins in the past or how he acts now?

Where's your man, Obama? Promises a new kind of politics, but delivers the same ole. Promises to get out of the way of state drug laws, believes it's fine for himself to smoke a little weed, but allows the DEA to continue their ridiculous crackdowns.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9546/bamay.jpg

I've forgiven Obama for this, too. I'm pretty sure I'll vote for him next year and that's exactly what I've said for the past six months.

miceelf 12-07-2011 09:24 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233771)
Maybe you think I'm delusional. I say there's a statute of limitations on how long you hold people responsible for things they say. I call that forgiveness. I've been told it's a Christian concept.

Sure. I was specifically responding to your claim that others who evaluated Paul differently were "cherry picking". My point is that when someone has said contradictory things, believing one thing and not the other is necessarily cherry picking, so when you point that finger you have some coming back at you.

As to statutes of limitations and forgiveness, I understand what you are saying. But different people make different calculations about what to do moving forward. There's forgiving the mugger and there's letting him babysit your kids or giving him the keys to the country.

TwinSwords 12-07-2011 10:43 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233784)
Sure. I was specifically responding to your claim that others who evaluated Paul differently were "cherry picking". My point is that when someone has said contradictory things, believing one thing and not the other is necessarily cherry picking, so when you point that finger you have some coming back at you.

As to statutes of limitations and forgiveness, I understand what you are saying. But different people make different calculations about what to do moving forward. There's forgiving the mugger and there's letting him babysit your kids or giving him the keys to the country.

Furthermore, the question really hasn't been one of whether to forgive Paul. Rather, the question has been over the simple facts of what happened. Sugar has been trying to mislead people about the newsletters since he started talking about them, and I've been calling him on it. I'm inclined to believe people deserve forgiveness if they repent, and Paul is no exception. And Sugar is right: Paul does take some honorable, principled stands on some important issues. But again: the reason this has dragged on is because Sugar has been lying about the historical record in an effort to conceal the truth, and I've been refusing to let him get away with it.

miceelf 12-07-2011 11:05 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233789)
Furthermore, the question really hasn't been one of whether to forgive Paul. Rather, the question has been over the simple facts of what happened. Sugar has been trying to mislead people about the newsletters since he started talking about them, and I've been calling him on it. I'm inclined to believe people deserve forgiveness if they repent, and Paul is no exception. And Sugar is right: Paul does take some honorable, principled stands on some important issues. But again: the reason this has dragged on is because Sugar has been lying about the historical record in an effort to conceal the truth, and I've been refusing to let him get away with it.

Well, there is a metaphor for forgiveness that invokes burying the sin in the depths of the ocean. So perhaps this is just a heroic act of grace.

stephanie 12-07-2011 11:40 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233747)
So for purposes of peace activism I don't really care what Ron Paul's views are on The Fed or if he published racist writings in the past.

This is a level of not caring, including about the way in which the views in question connect with other views, that I just can't go along with.

If you believed that Paul was a racist now, for example -- or let's say instead of Paul the candidate in question was Pat Buchanan, who we've seen as a presidential candidate and who has largely isolationist views these days, as well as various other ones I suspect you find troubling -- would you root for him to win Iowa? To win the Republican nomination? Vote for him for president?

I get what you are saying about encouraging the conversation, and I'm not totally sure what I think about this myself. Indeed, I probably would be happy if Paul won Iowa, but that's colored by the fact that I'm certain he wouldn't even challenge for the nomination, even so. I absolutely could not vote for him for anything, including in my primary. But could I see going to a caucus for him with the intention of arguing the foreign policy/security points within that context, especially if I shared your take on the issues more closely? Yes, I think so. (On the other hand, I'd really love to go to a caucus or even vote in a primary that mattered.)

I think the sticking point for me here is that I see your connection of Paul's popularity with the creation of a culture of peace as basically wishful thinking. The argument about the foreign policy issue being, largely, part of the culture war seems to me correct. Paul and his more isolationist followers take up that aspect of the culture war in another way, but it's still about the culture war. That's why I don't think it's just timing that Paul is more successful than someone like Johnson. The people who form his base care about the issues that you want to dismiss as not important. As long as the primary division is the culture war, I think that creates political dynamics that basically are antithesis to the type of discussion you want and the kind of results you want.

miceelf 12-07-2011 12:00 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233799)
If you believed that Paul was a racist now, for example -- or let's say instead of Paul the candidate in question was Pat Buchanan, who we've seen as a presidential candidate and who has largely isolationist views these days,

Pat Buchanan also highlights the fact that one doesn't necessarily get on the peace train for noble reasons. As much as I enjoy watching Mr. Buchanan on TV, he's a pretty raging anti-semite, and that underlies his criticisms of US foreign policy as much as anything else.

Wonderment 12-07-2011 03:09 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233799)
If you believed that Paul was a racist now, for example -- or let's say instead of Paul the candidate in question was Pat Buchanan, who we've seen as a presidential candidate and who has largely isolationist views these days, as well as various other ones I suspect you find troubling -- would you root for him to win Iowa? To win the Republican nomination? Vote for him for president?

Yes, I would love for Paul to win Iowa AND the nomination. That way we would have a debate on national security and militarism between Obama and Paul that the whole world would watch and learn from. Obama would trounce Paul in the election, perhaps take back Congress, pass liberal legislation and appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court. Win-Win. What's not to like?

Quote:

I think the sticking point for me here is that I see your connection of Paul's popularity with the creation of a culture of peace as basically wishful thinking. The argument about the foreign policy issue being, largely, part of the culture war seems to me correct. Paul and his more isolationist followers take up that aspect of the culture war in another way, but it's still about the culture war. That's why I don't think it's just timing that Paul is more successful than someone like Johnson. The people who form his base care about the issues that you want to dismiss as not important. As long as the primary division is the culture war, I think that creates political dynamics that basically are antithesis to the type of discussion you want and the kind of results you want.
Possibly. We'll see. The Paul fans I've met in California are definitely not right-wing culture warriors. Perhaps it's different in Iowa, but out here they tend to be atheist libertarians with a paranoid streak who hold Dem. economic policies in contempt. His views on drugs (legalize heroin) don't really seem compatible with family-values culture voters. In other words, he's drawing on an eclectic set of views. I think he's VERY different from Buchanan, who was a Vietnam hawk, a Nixonite, Reaganite, traditional Cold Warrior and staunch American Exceptionalist.

But again, I am NOT a fan of Ron Paul. I care about him only to the extent that he's articulating a foreign policy view (dismantling US militarism and non-intervention) that I support.

badhatharry 12-07-2011 05:11 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233634)
Free movement of people (potential workers and consumers) as well as goods (free trade) seem to me to be key aspects of libertarianism.

Abortion is actually an issue on which there's more room for dissent, it seems to me, depending on whether you see the embryo/fetus as a person.

I think there are many libertarians who believe that nations have the right to have borders and enforce their border laws, which is Paul's view.

stephanie 12-07-2011 06:16 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233859)
I think there are many libertarians who believe that nations have the right to have borders and enforce their border laws, which is Paul's view.

Whatever people who like to call themselves libertarian say, it seems inconsistent with the theory behind libertarianism in much the way trade restrictions would be. Clearly nations have a right to impose trade barriers or tariffs, that's not the issue. The question is whether they should. Libertarian theory would say no.

Alexandrite 12-08-2011 01:03 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233859)
I think there are many libertarians who believe that nations have the right to have borders and enforce their border laws, which is Paul's view.

It's not actually known if this is his view, or if it's a clever pandering, he's very fast on diverting the subject into conservative dog whistles. The Austrians were in favor of "Freedom of Trade of Labor across borders", that where ever there is the free trade in labor you have peace, and that labor mobility was an essential element to preventing wars.

He also is against the fence, since it will be used to keep Americans in, a rather ridiculous view on the face of it (though I did read a magazine piece on a small town in southern Texas that was having trouble due to it...).


Sometimes I think he just pretends to be a crazy old person who can't hear the question so he doesn't have to answer it.

badhatharry 12-08-2011 07:19 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexandrite (Post 233959)
It's not actually known if this is his view, or if it's a clever pandering, he's very fast on diverting the subject into conservative dog whistles. The Austrians were in favor of "Freedom of Trade of Labor across borders", that where ever there is the free trade in labor you have peace, and that labor mobility was an essential element to preventing wars.

He also is against the fence, since it will be used to keep Americans in, a rather ridiculous view on the face of it (though I did read a magazine piece on a small town in southern Texas that was having trouble due to it...).


Sometimes I think he just pretends to be a crazy old person who can't hear the question so he doesn't have to answer it.

I got that from his campaign website but maybe Lew Rockwell wrote it. :)

I somehow doubt a fence is the way to do. One smart thing Perry said is that if you build a twenty ft fence, people who sell 22ft ladders will get rich. I think the best way is to punish employers but that will never happen.

Recently there was a lot of stuff about how Paul is a racist because of his old newsletter and a kook because he appears on Alex Jones. My notion is that he doesn't have a grasp of how the public perceives him. He is mostly intent on his message and everything else takes a back seat in his mind. It's kind of refreshing really and is probably part of his appeal.

badhatharry 12-08-2011 07:27 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233872)
Whatever people who like to call themselves libertarian say, it seems inconsistent with the theory behind libertarianism in much the way trade restrictions would be. Clearly nations have a right to impose trade barriers or tariffs, that's not the issue. The question is whether they should. Libertarian theory would say no.

I guess I would need to see that written down somewhere and certainly there are many shades of libertarianism. I once had a tiny email conversation with Nick Gillespie. It was over something in Reason Magazine. I was complaining about his stance on immigration and how much it cost us in extending benefits to illegal persons (I almost wrote illegals!). He said that his program would do away with any kind of benefits so that wouldn't be an issue. I guess that might also end part of the draw.

But then of course there would be all kinds of other issues to address when hospitals would no longer be compelled to treat everyone. No simple solutions anywhere.

sugarkang 12-09-2011 03:55 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233784)
Sure. I was specifically responding to your claim that others who evaluated Paul differently were "cherry picking". My point is that when someone has said contradictory things, believing one thing and not the other is necessarily cherry picking, so when you point that finger you have some coming back at you.

What cherry picking was I doing exactly? Believing one thing while denying real evidence of the other would be cherry picking. I've done no such thing. If I blindly supported Ron Paul, why would I bother to caution Wonderment? Why would I mention the newsletters right from the beginning? Please address these points as they are not rhetorical questions. I'm fine with you pointing the finger at me, but I think your analysis is off.

I've weighed the pros and cons and I'm comfortable with my decision. I'd prefer Gary Johnson, but I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If the GOP is as full of homophobes, Islamophobes and xenophobes as liberals on this board say, then it would seem that Ron Paul would be the perfect check to those destructive elements. An outright left-leaning libertarian wouldn't be as effective. Change happens incrementally and I'm willing to be patient.

Quote:

There's forgiving the mugger and there's letting him babysit your kids or giving him the keys to the country.
Do you really want to go with this analogy? I get what you're trying to say, so I'm just going to assume that you had no ill intentions. However, some people might find that kind of language incendiary. If you were criticizing the President, someone might even say that your words were motivated by deep-seated racism. People see what they want to see.

http://inlinethumb60.webshots.com/33...500x500Q85.jpg

miceelf 12-09-2011 07:13 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 234053)
What cherry picking was I doing exactly? Believing one thing while denying real evidence of the other would be cherry picking.

Perhaps the problem is simply that we have different definitions of cherry picking.

sugarkang 12-09-2011 04:07 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 234060)
Perhaps the problem is simply that we have different definitions of cherry picking.

Apparently this guy is a cherry picker, too.

miceelf 12-09-2011 04:10 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 234116)

Well, we agree on that.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.