Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:38 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

so since this thread started with kang making a joke about the newsletters, perhaps we can continue the discussion here? here's a twitter feed from a guy who is just culling quotes from over 50 scans of newsletters he found:

https://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter

sooooooo anyone care to offer a plausible defense/explanation for this? this is not just run of the mill stuff. it is vile, ridiculous, ideological racism. not casual racism. seriously ideological stuff. also plenty of total nonsense conspiracy theories regarding the government coming to arrest you, and lots of crap about "new money". two other points for the inevitable "lew rockwell wrote them for paul!" first off, paul was hauling in a ton of money annually from these things. you really think something that generates this much revenue from a person would be something they had *zero* knowledge of? also, there's video now of Paul in 1987 and 1995 touting the newsletters. Then, in 08, he pretended to know nothing about them. so he's clearly lying to some extent here.

and even beyond that, let's say that (and at this point, this is fairly implausible) paul had literally nothing to do with these newsletters. he's still friendly with lew rockwell. shouldn't he explain why he's friends with this guy?
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:58 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
so since this thread started with kang making a joke about the newsletters, perhaps we can continue the discussion here? here's a twitter feed from a guy who is just culling quotes from over 50 scans of newsletters he found:

https://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter

sooooooo anyone care to offer a plausible defense/explanation for this? this is not just run of the mill stuff. it is vile, ridiculous, ideological racism. not casual racism. seriously ideological stuff. also plenty of total nonsense conspiracy theories regarding the government coming to arrest you, and lots of crap about "new money". two other points for the inevitable "lew rockwell wrote them for paul!" first off, paul was hauling in a ton of money annually from these things. you really think something that generates this much revenue from a person would be something they had *zero* knowledge of? also, there's video now of Paul in 1987 and 1995 touting the newsletters. Then, in 08, he pretended to know nothing about them. so he's clearly lying to some extent here.

and even beyond that, let's say that (and at this point, this is fairly implausible) paul had literally nothing to do with these newsletters. he's still friendly with lew rockwell. shouldn't he explain why he's friends with this guy?
As long as his admirers give him a pass it won't matter. Although he'll be unlikely to surpass his current threshold of support. You've seen how the media works. He can easily avoid addressing your legitimate concerns. He may also have a disparate impact if he goes the third party route. We'll see.

At least he is raising awareness of the oft overlooked issues like gold buggery, and denying women agency regarding abortion. To say nothing of his idiosyncratic reverence for his selective application of the Constitution. He matters. Be grateful.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-23-2011, 03:43 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
sooooooo anyone care to offer a plausible defense/explanation for this?
Sure. Weigel.

Quote:
this is not just run of the mill stuff. it is vile, ridiculous, ideological racism. not casual racism. seriously ideological stuff.
All true.

Quote:
and even beyond that, let's say that (and at this point, this is fairly implausible) paul had literally nothing to do with these newsletters.
I think it's possible Paul didn't write them, but he must and does take responsibility for the incendiary writings that appeared in his newsletter.

Quote:
he's still friendly with lew rockwell. shouldn't he explain why he's friends with this guy?
Maybe. Should Obama explain his connection to his racist grandmother? And how many times have you heard this shit: just because you have black friends, doesn't make you not racist. And if that's so, what should we do with these outed racists? Should we have sent Obama's grandma to prison? Oh, hey, where are you going with my Ice Cube records? Death Certificate has a lot of sentimental value.

And just exactly how do you square the newsletter content with his objection to the War on Drugs because it disproportionately hurts black people? Two things here. First, it took a lot of balls to speak out against WoD as early and as often as he did. Kudos for that alone. Second, his appeal to ending WoD is because it's a racist policy that disproportionately incarcerates blacks for the same crimes. This is acknowledged by both McWhorter and Loury.

Tell me. Why does Ron Paul get ZERO credit for that? Talking about the newsletters is necessary; it's the media's job to bring it up. But why is this talk always devoid of the context? Why does this topic never bring up the countless times when he has defended minorities or people's right to practice weird religions like Mormonism?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-23-2011, 03:46 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
sooooooo anyone care to offer a plausible defense/explanation for this?
Have you read the Dave Weigel/Julian Sanchez piece in Reason? The explanation (which I do not believe is a legitimate defense) offered is:

Quote:
During the period when the most incendiary items appeared--roughly 1989 to 1994--Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic.
I think this makes total sense. And I don't think it lets Paul off the hook at all, especially since -- as you note -- he's still close with Rockwell and has never given a believeable explanation himself. I don't particularly think Paul himself is racist or is still trying to appeal to racism, but if he was trying to play on those attitudes, it actually seems to me worse than actual racism. I'd forgive someone who acknowledged and publically discussed how he now sees it as wrong and rejects it, but I don't think Paul has addressed it. And in fairness, he can't so long as his story is "I didn't know."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-23-2011, 04:47 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

is this a real post?
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-23-2011, 05:42 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

If you ask me, that explanation only makes it worse. "I'm not a racist, I just made money once by stirring up absolutely vile racism in order to advance my other political goals" puts you in the illustrious company of George Wallace.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-23-2011, 08:49 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
is this a real post?
It would help if you were specific.

If you think:

1. that it's impossible for there to be a ghost writer;
2. RP has been hiding his true racist sentiments in every single audio and video clip for 40 years;
3. that he was insincere when defending minorities, Muslims, Mormons, and any other marginalized group many, many, many times;
4. that he was lying when he rejected the content of the newsletters for decades;

then please say what exactly a person would need to do to clear their name in this situation.

I linked to Weigel because he gives an adult explanation of the newsletters. There's no dodging the issue in that piece. So, if all you wanted to do was bad mouth him, why ask a question as if you wanted to have a real discussion? Just go straight to the slander.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-23-2011, 09:29 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

your post essentially implied that we shouldn't care if ron paul is either a virulent racist or associated with one, because barack obama has a racist grandmother. I think you can see why that's ridiculous? nevermind the difference between friends and family (hint: you can choose one, and not the other) there's another problem here. pointing towards ron pauls policies now as being "pro" minority as some sort of counterweight to these newsletters is idiotic. If I go save someones life, I cannot go murder someone else and someone have it be ok because of previous actions. you can weigh the relative moral merit of a person on some kind of scale if you like, but that doesn't mean normal people will ignore the bad stuff.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-23-2011, 09:47 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
your post essentially implied that we shouldn't care if ron paul is either a virulent racist or associated with one, because barack obama has a racist grandmother. I think you can see why that's ridiculous? nevermind the difference between friends and family (hint: you can choose one, and not the other) there's another problem here. pointing towards ron pauls policies now as being "pro" minority as some sort of counterweight to these newsletters is idiotic. If I go save someones life, I cannot go murder someone else and someone have it be ok because of previous actions. you can weigh the relative moral merit of a person on some kind of scale if you like, but that doesn't mean normal people will ignore the bad stuff.
Also, one of these is not like the other. Here's Barack Obama's description of his grandmother's racism:

Quote:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
And here's Ron Paul's newsletter:

Quote:
"Needlin'," a new form of racial terrorism, has struck New York City streets on the tony Upper West Side. At least 39 white women have been stuck with used hypodermic needles-perhaps infected with AIDS-by gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14. The New York Times didn't find this fit to print for weeks and weeks, until its candidate David Dinkins was safely elected. Even then the story was very low key, with race mentioned many paragraphs into it. Who can doubt that if the situation had been reversed, if white girls had done this to black women, we would have been subjected to months-long nation-wide propaganda campaign on the evils of white America? The double standard strikes again.
Or, if that isn't enough for you:

Quote:
If you live in a major city, you've probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking. It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck.

Such actions have ballooned in the recent months. In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob. What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car.

An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example). I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming
Sure, they're both examples of racism, but they're hardly equivalent.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-23-2011, 10:17 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
your post essentially implied that we shouldn't care if ron paul is either a virulent racist or associated with one, because barack obama has a racist grandmother.
Really? That's essentially what I said? And that's why...

Quote:
I think you can see why that's ridiculous?
If you read my post, I said that RP should take responsibility for the newsletters because it bears his name at the top. I said the same in another thread. Why is it that my words get twisted all the time?

Quote:
there's another problem here. pointing towards ron pauls policies now as being "pro" minority as some sort of counterweight to these newsletters is idiotic. If I go save someones life, I cannot go murder someone else and someone have it be ok because of previous actions.
So you've assumed that RP has written the articles, personally. He denies having written them, personally, but you're just going to completely deny this part, right?

And that's why, since he is guilty of writing them in his own hand, it's crazy to use his defense of blacks and Muslims for decades as some sort of evidence that RP isn't the kind of person who would write those kinds of things. Your analogy is that since RP basically murdered a black guy, it doesn't matter how much community service he does in the guy's neighborhood. Is that right?


Quote:
you can weigh the relative moral merit of a person on some kind of scale if you like, but that doesn't mean normal people will ignore the bad stuff.
My argument is that it's possible that RP didn't write the letters and that everything that he has said on recorded audio and video over 40 years serves not as penance, but as evidence that he's not the type of person who would write those letters.

According to you, there's no denying being the actual author of the newsletter content even though Weigel provides an explanation. If you're already sure he's guilty, why not start talking about what the punishment should be?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-23-2011, 10:33 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Also, one of these is not like the other. Here's Barack Obama's description of his grandmother's racism
Yes, we know that it made Barack cringe. Since she was a racist, all the times that she showed Barack love doesn't negate the fact that she said horrible things about black people and was really afraid of them. I mean, sure she loved Barack, but the kind of racism that she spouted was so vile, so despicable that it's the equivalent of murdering someone. And you know, after you murder someone, it's not like you can bring him back to life or have it be okay because of all the good things she's done. Guilty is guilty.

Hooray for rational thought.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-23-2011, 10:55 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Yes, we know that it made Barack cringe. Since she was a racist, all the times that she showed Barack love doesn't negate the fact that she said horrible things about black people and was really afraid of them. I mean, sure she loved Barack, but the kind of racism that she spouted was so vile, so despicable that it's the equivalent of murdering someone. And you know, after you murder someone, it's not like you can bring him back to life or have it be okay because of all the good things she's done. Guilty is guilty.

Hooray for rational thought.
You should talk to your psychiatrist. I think your prescription needs to be increased.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-24-2011, 12:05 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
You should talk to your psychiatrist. I think your prescription needs to be increased.
Oh, you don't like the exact same rationale when it's applied to your case, huh? Or, lemme guess, it's not the same case? That's because Ron Paul wrote his racism in a newsletter and it was extra racisty.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-24-2011, 12:15 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Oh, you don't like the exact same rationale when it's applied to your case, huh? Or, lemme guess, it's not the same case? That's because Ron Paul wrote his racism in a newsletter and it was extra racisty.
What exactly are you trying to say? Is your argument that we shouldn't care about the crazy racist stuff in Ron Paul's newsletters because Barack Obama's grandmother had some racist sentiments? Since, you know, we elected her grandson President, so that must mean that we're cool with much more virulent and disgusting racism that was expressed (for a profit!) in a newsletter published by someone who is an actual candidate for President?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-24-2011, 01:21 AM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Zeke, it should be obvious. Having a grandparent with racist attitudes and condemning those attitudes is exactly the same as endorsing and profiting first-hand (for decades), from a publication that espouses racist views. Once you cancel out the degree of separation, condemnation, and other messy details, they are mirror images.
__________________
Uncle Ebeneezer Such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-24-2011, 01:50 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
What exactly are you trying to say? Is your argument that we shouldn't care about the crazy racist stuff in Ron Paul's newsletters because Barack Obama's grandmother had some racist sentiments? Since, you know, we elected her grandson President, so that must mean that we're cool with much more virulent and disgusting racism that was expressed (for a profit!) in a newsletter published by someone who is an actual candidate for President?
Great! Now take what you said and turn it into a law. We'll call it DZ's public policy. Good luck.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-24-2011, 02:16 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Great! Now take what you said and turn it into a law. We'll call it DZ's public policy. Good luck.
Oh, I see! This is a fun game; let me give it a shot. Troubadours of Bangledesh live in glass mittens. In space, nobody can interrogate your ponies. Oh frabjous day, Liberals are stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:09 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Oh, I see!
No, you don't. In your world, people that you like are allowed to be racist without consequence. People you don't like get the guilty until proven innocent treatment. Hey, well, anything for the team!
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-24-2011, 11:00 AM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

ok so...I'm not sure Paul wrote them. you may be right, and there's certainly some evidence to suggest it's unlikely paul wrote them. I think it's still possible, but it's kind of besides the point, and you dodged this part. I'll find the videos if I must, but in 87 and 95 there's interviews with paul touting the newsletters as something people should read. so he obviously knew about them. he also then denied knowing about them in 2008. so he's also obviously lying about it. so again...it doesn't really matter if he wrote them. he knew about them, and thought people should read them. so he probably had a pretty good idea about what was in them. so shouldn't he say something? and maybe you can address his need to explain his relationship with lew rockwell without discussing barack obama's grandmother?
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-24-2011, 05:14 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Focus on the, not the person. This is especially advisable with candidates who, like Paul, Cain or Gingrich, have no real chance of being elected.

Examples:

It is true that Cain was an anti-Muslim bigot. Did that inalidate 9-9-9? No, his tax plan had to be discussed on its merits.

It is true that Gingrich is a serial aldulterer. Does that invalidate his anti-gay views on marriage? No, his opposition to gay rights has to be discussed on its merits.

It is true that Rick Perry had "******" on a property under his control. Does that invalidate his views on border security or job creation? No, his jobs and immigration proposals should be discussed on their merits.

It is true that Rick Santorum supported the criminal torture of predominantly Muslim detainees. Does that invalidate his views on support for Israel? No, the views should be debated on their merits.

Same for Ron Paul.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-24-2011, 05:15 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
No, you don't. In your world, people that you like are allowed to be racist without consequence. People you don't like get the guilty until proven innocent treatment. Hey, well, anything for the team!
And in kang's world, any word can be strung after any other word, in any combination, regardless of whether they result in sentences that are consistent with anything that's been actually said by others or has, in fact, happened in the outside world. Hey, anything that makes you feel better about yourself!

Insert pastry reference here:
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-24-2011, 05:53 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Focus on the, not the person. This is especially advisable with candidates who, like Paul, Cain or Gingrich, have no real chance of being elected.

Examples:

It is true that Cain was an anti-Muslim bigot. Did that inalidate 9-9-9? No, his tax plan had to be discussed on its merits.

It is true that Gingrich is a serial aldulterer. Does that invalidate his anti-gay views on marriage? No, his opposition to gay rights has to be discussed on its merits.

It is true that Rick Perry had "******" on a property under his control. Does that invalidate his views on border security or job creation? No, his jobs and immigration proposals should be discussed on their merits.

It is true that Rick Santorum supported the criminal torture of predominantly Muslim detainees. Does that invalidate his views on support for Israel? No, the views should be debated on their merits.

Same for Ron Paul.
Politics is hard, huh?
Even on this rinky-dink site you can't control the peace narrative that you obviously desire. Carry on if you must -- what else can you do?
Consider that your object of hope (Dr. paul) may be doing your cause a disservice. Good luck with all that.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-25-2011, 11:20 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Andrew Sullivan re: Ron Paul: Oops

I find this more surprising than the original endorsement.

Quote:
But the words and sentiments in those newsletters cannot attach themselves - even by mere appearance - to a potential president of this country. I see that now. Maybe my admiration for Paul's courage and his extraordinary resistance to the authoritarianism and intolerance in his own party blinded me to this. But you can't be both the solution and the problem. And so, until Paul fully explains this incident, in the kind of way Michael Tomasky recommends, I have to say there is an alternative, as I described at length in the endorsement: Jon Huntsman. He's what my super-ego tells me is the right choice. My id remains with Ron. But I write with the rational part of my brain, or at least I try to.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-25-2011, 03:41 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Andrew Sullivan re: Ron Paul: Oops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I find this more surprising than the original endorsement.
I don't know what part of his psyche or brain Sullivan writes with, but one of his parts is either intoxicated or on the verge of psychosis. He should know better than to be all over the place endorsing, quasi endorsing, unendorsing candidates. At this point he should keep his mouth (pen/keyboard) quiet for a while until he knows what he's talking about and in the meantime keep his impulse control in check.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-25-2011, 05:04 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
ok so...I'm not sure Paul wrote them. you may be right, and there's certainly some evidence to suggest it's unlikely paul wrote them. I think it's still possible, but it's kind of besides the point, and you dodged this part.
I don't ever dodge anything.

Here's what the public record says. The newsletters came out in the 1980s-1990s. Most of the newsletters concerned itself with hard money, supposedly (gold and silver). In the late 1990s, he acknowledged writing some of them. Some time later (early 2000s?) he said that he didn't write any of them, but because the newsletters bore his name at the top, he was advised to just take full ownership because it would be confusing to explain to the public. Since early 2000s, he has denied having written them. In addition, for the past decade or so, he has repudiated all of the racist content and has been quite vocal about protecting minority rights, especially those that are most unpopular and never adopted by political candidates.

So, let's game this out:
1. If he personally wrote the newsletters, then he's lying through his teeth and I would withdraw my support for him.

2. If he didn't write the newsletters:
a. he knows who did, but wants to protect him (allegedly Lew Rockwell) because of any number of reasons: loyalty, friendship, whatever; or
b. he has a vague idea who wrote them, but it was some ghostwriter with only a cursory relationship to him and his newsletter business; or
c. he has no idea who wrote them because he was a shitty manager of his business. The excuse he gives is that he was practicing medicine and the newsletter was its own organization that he did not oversee. He admits to being negligent in allowing the racist comments to get through and takes responsibility in his capacity as the editor or boss of the organization.

Quote:
I'll find the videos if I must, but in 87 and 95 there's interviews with paul touting the newsletters as something people should read. so he obviously knew about them.
Yes, the newsletters weren't racist 24-7. I believe he said the newsletters were mostly devoted to hard money.

Quote:
he also then denied knowing about them in 2008. so he's also obviously lying about it. so again...it doesn't really matter if he wrote them. he knew about them, and thought people should read them. so he probably had a pretty good idea about what was in them. so shouldn't he say something?
I think he should say something, but I also understand why he's so frustrated. There are so many videos of him rejecting the content in them and he's done so for twenty years. There's nothing else in his long service record that he's done wrong, so they keep pestering him about this one thing. I think HE thinks he's answered it sufficiently. Personally, I don't think he has, but I also don't care. If you look above at all the possibilities, as long as he personally didn't write the newsletters, then his policy positions, which are far more beneficial to marginalized inner city blacks and citizens of Mexico than Obama's official stance, completely justify voting for him.

Some people legitimately want to know what happened, but for the most part it's just politicians using whatever weapon they have at their disposal. Most Paul supporters know the entire deal. It's any potential new ones that need to be apprised. If he wins Iowa, he should probably be proactive while he has all the press gathered in one spot.

Quote:
and maybe you can address his need to explain his relationship with lew rockwell without discussing barack obama's grandmother?
I don't like Lew Rockwell, but I guess it has to do with their past as Austrians along with Murray Rothbard. Do you really want to go the guilt by association route? I think it's fine to look into things, but don't you think people went way over the line with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright?

Discussing Obama's grandma is necessary because you're talking about some kind of moral outrage about RP's supposed racism. You need to establish what the criteria are and apply them uniformly to everyone -- even your favorite people.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-25-2011, 06:31 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Andrew Sullivan re: Ron Paul: Oops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I don't know what part of his psyche or brain Sullivan writes with, but one of his parts is either intoxicated or on the verge of psychosis. He should know better than to be all over the place endorsing, quasi endorsing, unendorsing candidates. At this point he should keep his mouth (pen/keyboard) quiet for a while until he knows what he's talking about and in the meantime keep his impulse control in check.
but if he eliminated those types of posts, there would be less 95% less content on his blog
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-25-2011, 08:16 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Andrew Sullivan re: Ron Paul: Oops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I find this more surprising than the original endorsement.
Neither are surprising. He is a flake.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-25-2011, 08:23 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
How would Congress not craft a signature Presidential initiative?
By not crafting it? Usually a President proposes a measure, and friends in Congress offer the bill as is. Then, it gets changed through the process or simply defeated. Do you find this a controversial opinion of how legislation usually works?

Quote:
Congress writes the laws and passes them. If the President were to write a full bill himself, he would still have to give it to some Congressmen and ask nicely for them to pass what he wrote, and in practice they would amend or completely rewrite the legislation as it worked through the committee system. What you're describing isn't some weird decision on Obama's part; it's the structure of American government spelled out in the Constitution.
As you describe the phenomenon I speak about, your conclusion becomes a bit disingenous. The President gets a bill to Congress, and he doesn't need to "ask nicely", people are happy to do it as loyal partisans. The rest is HIS level of involvement in crafting legislation by lobbying for votes along with House and Senate leadership. He flatters. He promises campaign visits. He promises to funnel spending in certain ways left to the discretion of cabinet offices.

Alternately, he threatens. He threatens to work hard for his party in swing districts against moderate Republicans. He threatens wavering Democrats by promising NOT to campaign for them in swing districts, not to raise money for them, or to DENY them funds from cabinet positions. In this way, a President defends his legislation from either defeat or disfigurement by committee.

Or atleast, that is how other Presidents do things. That is how Reagan did things in the teeth of a Democratic Congress, its how Clinton did things in the face of a GOP Congress. This President, in the face of a Democratic Congress, apparently found the process of leadership tedious and had Nancy Pelosi do it.

Quote:
How Obama's decision to let like-minded Congressmen write the law instead of unconstitutionally doing it himself is a talking point against him is beyond me.
No, I think the way I frame the critique above is pretty clear. I think that you know I'm right, too, which is why you seem to be mudding up a pretty clear matter.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:24 PM.


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