2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/07/30/clinton-and-paul-supporters-your-candidate-lost-deal-with-it/
0
0
  |   83 comments

Lets set it straight now: John McCain and Barack Obama were my favorites to win the Republican and Democratic nominations respectively.  However, I was ready to accept the possibility of a Hillary Clinton nomination.  Unlike some other bloggers, and unlike some of my friends, I wouldn’t have gagged if she had won the nomination, although I had to catch my gag reflex a couple times toward the end of the nomination season.  With Ron Paul, I think his economic policies go too far in limiting government, though I’d also be willing to see what a libertarian-minded president would do.

Eventually, Obama and McCain did become the nominees of their parties.  Clinton took a week to concede, and Paul took several weeks longer.  However, that doesn’t mean their supporters are giving up.  Paul supporters have crashed state conventions (and forced the postponement of the Nevada convention), and both Clinton and Paul supporters have started netroots operations to try and get their candidates nominated at the national conventions.

I’ve been perfectly willing to go along with these efforts, even if I thought them misguided and a bit of a waste of time.  I’m sorry, but neither candidate is going to get the nod at the conventions, no matter what effort is put into it.  Call it blatant corruption within the parties if you want, but I think both McCain and Obama won fair and square.

So, it’s been a source of amusement to hear about the thousands of tickets Paul supporters have bought to the mini-convention Paul will have the Thursday of the Republican convention.  Or “yet another secret you didn’t know about Barack Obama” that Clinton truthers have “dug up.”

Yet, sometimes people go too far, and it stops being funny.

I read several blogs – left, right, and center.  On one of the blogs I visit, a regular member – who’s one of the Clinton supporters still hoping she’ll be nominated next month, and mentions this in nearly every comment – is now buying on to yet another Obama smear.

The accusations come from one Larry Sinclair.  First Sinclair starts off claiming he did coke and had oral sex with Obama.  Later on Sinclair expanded the allegations to claiming three gay men at Trinty United Church of Christ – one choir pastor and two members – were murdered before they could come out and say they had gay sex with Obama.  It’s strongly implied (though never directly stated) that Obama is behind these murders.  Unfortunately for Mr. Sinclair, he has a long rapsheet to his name.

Now I can respect that these groups are working so hard to try and topple the presumptive nominees.  I think they’re misguided efforts, but they have every right to do them.  Yet, sometimes the accusations get too ridiculous and disgusting for words.  This whole murder thing is one of them.

Obviously, someone is watching a little too much drama television lately.

  1. Posted by Alexia
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62761
    Alexia Wow.  I am disappointed to see the editors expressing their opinions. So much for the journalistic integrity of this site. And they're not even capable of discussing policy without launching into attacks on his supporters. Wow. How disappointing.
  2. Posted by blakmira
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62764
    blakmira If the comments supporting and defending Ron Paul and his message of Liberty and following the Constitution get the editor and followers/assistants so upset (see derogatory words and comments like "spew," "uncreative," "reflects badly on their candidate," etc.), I suggest you leave his name out of your next blogs. If your candidate [insert name of government puppet drone here] were ridiculed and blacked out by the media to the extent Ron Paul has been, you would jump to his defense too. Walk a mile in our shoes before you "spew." And yes, Ron Paul is a great man and will go down in history for being a visionary, the lone man in Congress unafraid to stand up for the American people's rights. For your information, we did not seek out your mundane drivel. It was merely in our Google Alerts. We won't give up until we wake every apathetic or deluded American up. Deal with it. Now go back to sleep.
  3. Posted by John Huckans
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62768
    John Huckans I don't use Google alerts.  I simply google "Ron Paul" and then press the news tab to read articles about Paul.  Please note that Paul's Presidential campaign has morphed into the "Campaign for Liberty." To Jason, Managing Editor! TM , I'm afraid you've really missed the boat on a couple of things.  The point of free trade and competing (not "competitive" as you, i'm sure, were attempting to quip) currencies is not to ensure an optimal economic point (although this would be wonderful were it to occur); rather it is to permit people to exercise maximize freedom in the marketplace.
  4. Posted by Edward Phillips
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62773
    Edward Phillips Ron Paul did not Lose America Lost.  They Lost their last chance to "recover" stolen liberty taken from us by what I call the enforcers of lies and bullshit.  The parties for the elite of elite by the elitists.  Lucky for them the American people are not longer stupid. Stupid is to intelligent for them.
  5. Posted by Sukrit
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62778
    Sukrit Michael & Jason, There are unreasonable and reasonable Ron Paul supporters. Some people get carried away with passion for a candidate who has been treated abysmally and ridiculed by the mainstream media. You seem very sure about that Ron Paul is an ignorant fool. Unfortunately, your comments show that you yourselves are quite ignorant. Dr Paul's ideas are based on the Austrian school of economics, which has produced many distinguished economists, including Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Prize winner. The late Milton Friedman also agreed with many of Ron's policy prescriptions. I invite you to post detailed critiques of his ideas, if you are capable of it, rather than abusing his supporters. Get in touch with the Mises Institute (www.mises.org) and see if they will host a debate, since you guys are so smart and we're so stupid. I only wonder who is the bigger fool here. Ron Paul supporters for sticking by their man - who correctly predicted the disastrous situation we have with the US economy & dollar today, not to mention the disastrous consequences of the Iraq war - or you guys, who seem so eager to dismiss ideas in an off-hand manner. Show a little humility and admit you have not read much of Austrian economics. Nor would I expect you to - you're only journalists after all. But it's never too late to open your mind. Are you up to the challenge of opening the floor to real debate?
  6. Posted by Pablo
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62779
    Pablo And dear Jason, Ron Paul is not just a random kook who has no economics training. He serves on the financial committee in the United States Congress, has published several books about the gold standard and monetary policy and has the support of a great many mainstream economists. I would ask you to refrain from abusing someone just because they aren't "qualified". It's the correctness of the ideas that are at issue, not whether someone has the right university degrees. If you aren't knowledgable enough about economics to address Ron's substantive points (as outlined in his various books), then don't make throwaway comments. What did Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek win a Nobel Prize for? It was their monetary policy work, which Ron Paul is echoing. Please do some research.
  7. Posted by badmedia
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62783
    badmedia It never was just about Ron Paul, or getting a specific person elected.   Would have been nice, no doubt.    But we are more worried about the philosophies and advancing them rather than just getting someone elected.     Thus the reason Ron Paul told the truth rather than reading polls and saying things he thought would get him elected. Thus the reason we still persist even though Ron Paul has all but dropped out.    Thus the reason you got so many people still posting about Ron Paul and his philosophy.    And thus the reason we have started on other ways of making real change for the better. This blog post IMO just goes to show how much the author doesn't/didn't get it.  
  8. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62784
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I invite you to post detailed critiques of his ideas, if you are capable of it, rather than abusing his supporters.
    Been there, tried that.  The result was even worse than this thread. I didn't just wake up one day and decide to have contempt for RonPaul! (tm) supporters. It came only after literally hundreds of spammers, name-callers, and empty slogan chanters. I also find amusing the authoritarianism that perpetually lurks just beneath the surface of RonPaul! (tm) supporters' "freedom" message. Whenever their "Great Man" comes in for any criticism whatsoever, they demand that the critics to be silent. Only positive comments are allowed in the minds of RonPaul! (tm) supporters. The complete and total inability of RonPaul! (tm) supporters to tolerate ANY dissent whatsoever exposes them as hypocrites and raises the question of how these supposedly freedom-loving people would actually govern in the unlikely event that they ever were given power.
    Are you up to the challenge of opening the floor to real debate?
    Still waiting to see any of it from the RonPaul! (tm) supporters, frankly. So far, we get only an occasional vague reference (never any explanation or detail) to "Austrian school" (btw, there is a HUGE gap between just throwing the name around and being able to actually explain and debate the details -- RonPaul! (tm) supporters have so far universally been able ONLY to invoke the name in their many thousands of comments on this site over the last 6 months) or RonPaul!'s (tm) many treatises (writing a book or sitting on a committee is no guarantee that someone knows what they are talking about, otherwise you would have to concede that Ted Kennedy is an expert on economics too) mixed in with the flood of chanting, name-calling, and abuse. That's not debate, folks. That's just proselytizing. The floor is open to you -- no one has closed this comment thread. No one stops you from writing your own blog and sending us a link challenging us to a blog debate either. Try using the avenues open to you instead of just complaining that someone DARES to disagree with your Great Leader. The more you all assert that ONLY cowardice or ignorance could explain it, the more you expose yourselves as merely contemptible hypocrites.
  9. Posted by John Huckans
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62787
    John Huckans Jason, Managing Editor! TM, You say "Still waiting to see any of it from the RonPaul! ™ supporters, frankly," when a person asked you to open the floor for debate.  However, you are mistaken.  Several of us, myself included, have already begun the debate and you have not responded.  So, please try not to be so disingenuous.  I poionted out to you (Post #53) that the transaction costs surrounding competing currencies are not a reason to prohibit the competition.  Care to respond? Also, no need to denigrate Austrian School economics by enclosing it with cringe marks.  It is a well established school and you only show your ignorance by this tactic.  Sort of reminds me of Michael Myer's evil villain in the Austin Powers movies saying "laser."
  10. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62789
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I poionted out to you (Post #53) that the transaction costs surrounding competing currencies are not a reason to prohibit the competition.  Care to respond?
    I didn't respond because a vague and empty assertion is a long way from constituting an actual argument. (This is a CONSTANT problem from Paulistas -- they use some phrase lifted from a RonPaul! (tm) tract instead of offering little things like "analysis" and "evidence".) But if it were an argument (your claim had no analysis or evidence offered at all), I would have at least three responses: 1) The purpose of a monetary system is to maximize economic efficiency, not some abstract (and completely unexplained and ununwarranted) personal freedom over currency choices.   What is this personal freedom here, anyway, aesthetic? The fact that you offer no analysis about how personal freedom necessitates individual choices over currency makes your claim empty from the beginning. I think most economists would agree that the primary goal of a currency system is economic efficiency and would insist that you provide some evidence of a different goal rather than simply asserting it. 2) The transaction costs are partially external, thus any "personal freedom" from using competing currencies has negative impacts on everyone else in the form of systemically higher prices resulting from the need to constantly change between potentially hundreds of different forms of money. In the effort to cover the costs of converting their receipts into forms used by their suppliers, retailers would be forced to raise prices for EVERYONE, not just those who chose "alternative" currencies. And those costs would be substantial, as it would often be necessary either to present the alternative currencies directly to the issuing authority (possibly very far away) in exchange for some neutral underwriting currency like silver or pay a fee to money-changer agencies that did so for profit. I don't think many small businesses could even survive in such an economy, as the expense of accommodating every Tom, Dick, and Harriet's personal currency choice would overwhelm their narrow profit margins. There is no legitimate right to personal freedom when the resulting system does concrete and material damage to others. 3) The single U.S. currency is the result of a democratic choice made by duly elected representatives arising directly from Constitutional text (a stable monetary system is an essential part of interstate commerce). Paulbots hate the Federal Reserve and many begin spouting conspiracy theories at the very mention of the name, but they overlook the fact that it was passed by Congress in accordance with Constitutional requirements AND that an independent central bank has been shown by reams of research to be essential to stable modern economies (a goal which commands a huge majority of support). The demand that it be overturned simply to pander to the wishes of a tiny fringe of people following a "Great Man" is anti-democratic, anti-Constitutional, and contrary to the empty pose about "personal freedom" that you're putting on here. (I notice that you avoided my point about the displays of underlying authoritarianism among Paulistas -- a revealing evasion on your part, since it highlights the hypocrisy and mendacity underlying Paulista claims to be supporters of personal freedoms and democratic ideals.)
    Also, no need to denigrate Austrian School economics by enclosing it with cringe marks.  It is a well established school and you only show your ignorance by this tactic.  Sort of reminds me of Michael Myer’s evil villain in the Austin Powers movies saying "laser."
    I don't question that it exists or is well-established.  I question whether even 1% of the RonPaul! (tm) robots who habitually throw the term around as some kind of appeal to authority have any knowledge of what it is or any capacity to discuss how it would actually play out in a modern financial system.  I put it in scare quotes because that is how it is actually used by Paulbots in these threads time and time again -- as some kind of magical talisman that relieves them of any duty to have any idea what they are talking about. It appears they read that RonPaul! (tm) likes it and it sounds all in-tuh-leck-chu-ul, so they toss in in with the rest of the chanting slogans without being able to argue coherently about it at all (just like your empty phrase about "personal freedom" completely evaded the issue of transaction costs by trying to change the subject and shift the burden of proof). I am not denigrating Austrian School economics, I am denigrating the ignorance of Paulistas who try to glom on to the phrase as some kind of magical rhetorical life-saver. But, by all means, if you are able, please explain "Austrian School economics" and how they respond to actual problems in a practical way. Details are vital here if you want to avoid just repeating the intellectual bankruptcy that we have grown to expect from Paulistas. If, however, all you can do is just assert that they will an point emptily to RonPaul!'s (tm) tracts as if that was some kind of appeal to authority, don't bother, because you will only be proving my point. P.S.  Your attempt to put my name in bold backfires on you.  The reason I do it with RonPaul! (tm) is because chanting his name is a common technique of his slavish supporters when they show up in droves to spam any blog that mentions his name (I've also used "Voldemort" as a useful and accurate analogy -- say his name, and his Death Eaters suddenly appear).  No one chants my name as a way of avoiding conversation, so there is no comparison. Your attempt to "play gotcha" only reveals that you are unwilling to acknowledge or distance yourself from the many excesses of your fellow Paulbots. I conclude from this that your association with the chanting, spamming, and other excess of Paulbots is voluntary, not accidental, and that you actively endorse their behavior and seek to shield it against criticism. I would normally delete the next comment, but I am going to leave it up as an example of the HUNDREDS of similar comments we have to deal with EVERY TIME we even MENTION RonPaul!'s (tm) name. THAT, sir, is what you choose to associate yourself with. THAT, sir, is what is not only a typical but an overwhelmingly dominant tone of response from RonPaul! (tm) supporters to free speech (that that supposedly value, as it is part of the Constitution) whenever it disagrees with them. And the simple FACT is that we experience no similar abuse from supporters of ANY other candidate, period. Not even close to 1% the rate. Good luck overcoming the stigma it puts on you when you run interference for it.
  11. Posted by lawrence boyer
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62790
    lawrence boyer [admin]: Comment deleted and user banned
  12. Posted by Claudia, Assistant Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62795
    Claudia, Assistant Editor Ahh oops, sorry Jason, I deleted the comment as soon as I saw it, didn´t know you still wanted it. Put it back if you like.
  13. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62800
    Jason, Managing Editor I can't put back an edited comment exactly.  Suffice it to say that the commenter who was just banned condemned all who criticized RonPaul! (tm) as "bitches".  If that comment had been the only one of its kind, it would mean nothing.  But the fact of the matter is that every time we set off those Google alerts on "Ron Paul" we wind up having to delete dozens of those kinds of comments.  We don't have those kinds of problems when we criticize ANY other candidate.  That makes it a relevant issue when RonPaul! (tm) supporters complain that people are being unfair to him or his supporters.  Until they clean up their own ideological house and/or show themselves individually capable of explicitly distancing themselves from it, I'm not inclined to take any of them seriously. This is the natural consequence of choosing to identify yourself with a "revolution" that appears completely dominated by nutcases with regards to which the Great Leader RonPaul! (tm) is unwilling to even raise a single word of protest. RonPaul!'s (tm) silence and that of his supposedly reasonable supporters = consent. That is my operating principle from here on out. If they don't like it, tough. They can "deal with it". (Historical note: RedState responded to the continuing flood of RonPaul! (tm) spam by banning them. I criticized that action then. I'm not sure I still disagree with it. There seems to be nothing substantive underneath worth putting up with the hassle for. Even the ones who claim to be reasonable just wind up defending the bots in the end. The parallels to the way the rank-and-file behaved in another "revolutionary" "movement" in the 1930s are too much to overlook any more. And that movement's surviving elements endorsed....wait for it....RonPaul! (tm)!)
  14. Posted by Misfit4Peace
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62802
    Misfit4Peace If Ron Paul would have been given a fair chance, and the media coverage he well deserved, It would NOT be McCain but Paul facing Obamanation. Lets not forget the fact that the GOP, unlawfully, stopped the conventions, and disqualified the delegates who where voting for Ron Paul. Now Ron Paul only suspended his campaign not quit. So delegates..if ANY of you are reading any of this..or if you know anyone who is a delegate..spread the message..they do NOT have to vote Bilderberg or CFR..they can vote CONSTITUTION..LIBERTY..FREEDOM..STATES RIGHTS.. RON PAUL.....WAKE UP AMERICA..WE ARE BEING PULLED INTO ANOTHER WAR..A NEW WORLD ORDER Who do you want running this country? The UN..or WE THE PEOPLE?
  15. Posted by Michael Merritt
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62803
    Michael Merritt I know you're the editor, but I would support allowing them to continue posting their comments.  Obviously, the most vile ones need to go, but a lot of them at least make an attempt to explain their support.  Besides, if we're a bunch of thugs working for the Illuminati and New World Order, surely we should be deleting their comments, right? But we're not.  Imagine that...
  16. Posted by Joey
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62806
    Joey I find it disingenuous to lump the (sometimes overzealous and somewhat misguided) administrative actions of Ron Paul supporters with the outright libel coming from Larry Sinclair.  Yes, it's true that Ron Paul did not win the nomination, nor did many of his supporters (myself included) ever expect that he would.  But to tell us to simply give up and go home discounts the democratic tradition, and undermines the vitality of our political process. I won't defend many RP supporters.  I, too, have seen them take over comment threads, engage in name-calling, derail serious discussions with 9/11 troofer theories, and generally ruin the reputations of anyone who supports RP and is willing to engage in intellectual dialog about his policy.  It's sad, it's stupid, and it makes the rest of us look bad.  No buts. Neither will I defend all of RP's ideas.  I think gay marriage is a federal issue and a Constitutional liberty.  I think abortion is a federal issue and Constitutional liberty.  I think immigration should be as free as the individuals who move here.  I worry about him decrying conspiracy theories on one hand and using code-words on another. That said, Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate who talked passionately and believably about the things I care most about:  our civil liberties, our security, and the integrity of our Constitution.  You don't hear Hillary Clinton talk about how the Patriot Act has effectively gutted our Bill of Rights.  You don't hear Barack Obama talk about how we'd have fewer enemies if we pissed off fewer people.  John McCain doesn't say peep about recontextualizing environmental issues in a property rights paradigm, nor does he say anything about fostering peace through diplomacy. I'm not a cultist, and I don't agree with Ron Paul every time he opens his mouth, but compared to the other candidates, he cares more about our individual freedoms by leaps and bounds. Creating demand for individual liberty isn't something we can accomplish in a single election cycle.  Our rights have been attacked by conservatives and liberals for so long that it could take decades to reverse the course of authoritarianism, if it's possible at all.  At least Ron Paul got people talking about these issues again, at least he showed us how interrelated our social and economic freedoms are, and at least he said things no "viable" presidential candidate would ever say on national TV.  I won't throw him under the bus just because the cool kids want me to.  Deal with it.
  17. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62808
    Jason, Managing Editor "Misfit4Peace" provides yet another demonstration of the type of looniness that the supposedly "reasonable" RonPaul! (tm) supporters consistently refuse to distance themselves from.  Note the conspiracy musings about the Bilderbergs and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the UN and the "NEW WORLD ORDER".  Note also the repetition of the standard RonPaul! (tm) talking point that presumes to know (without any evidence offered whatsoever) that RonPaul! (tm) would have won the nomination if not for some kind of media conspiracy against him. (This talking point has been posted hundreds of times on this site alone, never ONCE with any evidence or analysis to back it up.) As usual, no allowance for the merest possibility that any reasonable or intelligent person might just plain disagree with RonPaul! (tm).  Exactly like Hugo Chavez' followers and others of a similar ilk going back a century, they believe that their Great Man is beyond question, doubt, or criticism of any kind. It is worth remembering that totalitarian thinking historically almost always comes claiming to be in the name of "freedom" and national reconciliation with founding ideals. I'm not saying that RonPaul! (tm) himself is a totalitarian thinker (though he does consistently refuse to disavow his most aggressive and abusive and even openly racist followers), but his "revolution" clearly attracts the lions share of people intolerant of any criticism of their hero. To wonder whether these people might not seize any opportunity to act upon their impulses to ban all criticism of the Great Man is not unreasonable. As long as "reasonable" supporters of RonPaul! (tm) continue to allow these nutcases to be the dominant public face of their "revolution", they have no one but themselves to blame when many of us choose to reject their "revolution" as intellectually unserious.  I'm not going to delete most comments. I intend to continue throwing them back in their faces until the supposedly "reasonable" ones either do something to lay a REAL claim to their "revolution" or slink away under the stigma that they have chosen to align themselves with.
  18. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62809
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I won’t defend many RP supporters.  I, too, have seen them take over comment threads, engage in name-calling, derail serious discussions with 9/11 troofer theories, and generally ruin the reputations of anyone who supports RP and is willing to engage in intellectual dialog about his policy.  It’s sad, it’s stupid, and it makes the rest of us look bad.  No buts.
    Hallelujah.  Finally someone willing to stop running interference for nutjobs while claiming not to be tainted by them. I disagree with the claim that they are better than Larry Sinclair, however. I think they are the same in their willful ignorance and their disregard for the truth in the pursuit of their vendettas. Having seen so many hundreds of examples first-hand, it is not possible for me to accept the notion that this is merely just a few "misguided" people. It seems to be the numerically dominant part of the "revolution".
    That said, Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate who talked passionately and believably about the things I care most about:  our civil liberties, our security, and the integrity of our Constitution.  You don’t hear Hillary Clinton talk about how the Patriot Act has effectively gutted our Bill of Rights.  You don’t hear Barack Obama talk about how we’d have fewer enemies if we pissed off fewer people.  John McCain doesn’t say peep about recontextualizing environmental issues in a property rights paradigm, nor does he say anything about fostering peace through diplomacy.
    Do you also concede that reasonable disagreement is possible on these points, or do you consider them beyond debate?  For example, I've heard all the hype about the PATRIOT Act "gutting our Bill of Rights", but I've never heard any actual evidence to back up the hype.  It therefore seems to me just another kind of paranoia replacing reason.  And I DO hear Barack Obama talking about how we need to improve our diplomatic relations -- indeed, it seems on foreign policy he talks about little else and is constantly attacked by hawks for it.  Where have you been?  One need not embrace RonPaul's extreme versions to accept reasonable critiques of ham-handed U.S. foreign policies, you know. I also disagree with RonPaul's claims to be the exemplar of the Constitution. His position often ignores parts of the text or inserts things that aren't actually there. And his supporters' common practice of claiming that anyone who disagrees with them must hate the Constitution is offensive, yet RonPaul never disavows or discourages them, even when their demands amount to an insistence that the First Amendment be overridden whenever necessary to ban all expression of criticism of the Great Man.
  19. Posted by Claudia, Assistant Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62810
    Claudia, Assistant Editor Jason, I do get that you're up to here with the Paulbots (we all are), but I think Joey warrants more than the attitude given to the others. He was respectful and did exactly what you mentioned, distanced himself from the nutso side, however numerous. I can accept someone who simply believes Ron Paul to be a superior candidate (even if I disagree). Once it's been established that we aren't dealing with yet another nut I think getting down to the nitty gritty policy differences, and not so much sarcasm, is in order.
  20. Posted by Joey
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62811
    Joey 1)  "Willful ignorance" is quite different than saying Rudy Giuliani snorted lines off a male stripper's ass.  Perhaps we can agree to disagree there. 2)  Reasonable disagreement is possible on any point.  I can respectfully disagree with the assertion that the earth is 10,000 years old, and I have. 3)  Actual evidence?  The PATRIOT Act has allowed government to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights as long as they maintain that their intrusions are related to terrorism.  The problem here is that the intrusions are allowed whether or not the person has been found guilty of terrorism, as long as they're suspected of terrorism.  Without getting into Constitutional Law 101, the Bill of Rights comes into play even, nay especially, when one is simply suspected of committing a crime.  To that end, if you're "suspected" of terrorism, you are subject to illegal search and seizure of:  your e-mail, your phone messages, your library records, your credit card records, etc.  The president now has the authority to issue "National Security Letters" which compel anyone to give up any information the president sees fit, as well as preventing the addressee from discussing the content of the letters.  Your house can now be searched not only without a warrant, but without you even knowing.  I can continue on, but I suspect you addressed my point simply to watch yourself type, since the assault of the PATRIOT Act on our Bill of Rights has been well documented by such Ron Paul loving nutjobs as PBS, the ACLU, the New York Times, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the City of San Francisco, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and anyone who has read anything with the words "Patriot" and "Act" in the past seven years. 4)  I've been listening to Barack Obama talk about how all options are on the table if Iran attacks Israel.  On a loop.  Thanks.
  21. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62812
    Jason, Managing Editor 2) Equating all disagreements with Ron Paul's positions with the most vulgar and simplistic version of creationism is the kind of insulting comparison that makes Ron Paul's supporters so reviled around here. Your choice to do that and make other insulting remarks renders suspect your initial indications to be more reasonable than the typical Paulbot. Bad move. 3) Speculations about how the PATRIOT Act supposedly could be used are a long, long way from evidence that the PATRIOT Act actually does the things you claim it does.   Like I said, I've heard all the speculative hype, but the empirical evidence is always lacking.  Many of the groups you mention (ACLU, EFF, PBS, and extremist hacks like Glenn Greenwald) lack credibility for the same reason -- they offer paranoid speculation, but no empirical evidence of actual abuses that actually undermine the legitimate privacy rights of innocent people. I would also argue that some of the new government powers are necessary and justified and do not, in fact, destroy the Bill of Rights. For example, it might not be the best idea in the world to give members of a terrorist cell official notification that the government has detected them, lest they warn OTHER members or OTHER cells before the whole network can be rolled up. And as long as a wall of separation is kept between what can be used for national security operations and what can be made admissible in court, such provisions as "sneak and peek" warrants do not undermine the Fourth Amendment. Bottom line: I think the ACLU and many other civil libertarians are exaggerating the impact of the PATRIOT Act and are unreasonably refusing to offer practical alternatives for how to deal with the problems we actually DO face. This is, in fact, a major objection I have to Ron Paul across the board -- his disconnection from the real world and his embrace of purism even at the expense of what is practical. And your comment that my disagreement on this point was "simply to watch [myself] type" is again another example of an automatically insulting response directed toward everyone who doesn't automatically agree with Ron Paul's view on the subject. 4) Obviously, you need to diversify your sources, since the #1 major avenue of attack on Obama's foreign policy proposals has been his proposal to increase the use of diplomacy.  The caveat that military options might be on the table IF Iran attacked Israel first is hardly an unreasonable deviation.  Imagine that!  We might defend an ally!  Oh, the horror! P.S. Claudia, it has yet to be determined whether Joey is more serious and honest than the regular Paulbot. Because of some of the things I object to above, his signals are at best mixed at this point with regards to respect and intellectual honesty and willingness to depart from inaccurate scripted talking points. Maybe my "zero tolerance" propensity on this seems harsh, but I think months and months and months of Paulbot harassment makes it justified. Notice that I tried to get down to specific policy differences, only to see Joey misrepresent them, change the subject, and otherwise indulge in typical Paulbot garbage.
  22. Posted by Joey
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62816
    Joey 2)  I offered an extreme example of the type of retardation with which I could respectfully disagree.  I was not equating all disagreements with Paul's position to creationism.  I hope, and frankly suspect, you realize that. 3)  That wasn't speculation.  The PATRIOT Act has been used in such ways to prosecute money launderers, drug dealers, and credit card frauds.  See:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/21/MN34108.DTL, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/09/news/fbi.php, and http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/fbi-tried-to-co.html.  Regardless, simply because someone is guilty doesn't mean they should lose their Constitutional rights.  If PBS are purveyors of paranoid speculation, I would appreciate examples of news sources who are not.  And I've read enough Pajamas Media contributors to know what paranoid speculation is. My comment that your disagreement on this point was "simply to watch yourself type" is an example of an insulting response directed toward someone who is completely ignorant of any reporting on the erosion of our civil liberties that have been codified into the PATRIOT Act.  To argue the point, in my opinion it doesn't matter if there have been actual abuses (there have been), the fact that abuses could sometime in the future be justified by this law is enough.  To use another extreme example (though I can tell you hate rhetorical devices) if Congress were to pass a law tomorrow saying it would be ok to reinstitute slavery in the year 3000AD, there would hopefully be a massive outcry.  Would it actually come to be?  Probably not.  Would it still be an affront to our liberties?  Yes, I'll go out on a limb and say yes it would. 4)  I read many sources, thank you.  The caveat that nuclear options might be on the table if Iran attacks Israel worries me.  Call me crazy, but I'd be pleased as punch if another nuke never goes off.  Also, threatening to invade Pakistan (an ally) is quite discomforting. P.S. - You've made it quite clear that this is not a forum for real debate, but instead snarky attacks.  You've made it quite clear that you'd be unwilling to concede a single point, regardless of how well stated or true it is, simply because it comes from a "Paulbot".  You've insulted my intelligence and incorrectly called my arguments "scripted talking points".  You can have the last word, and I could give a damn.
  23. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62817
    Jason, Managing Editor I disagree with the claim that ALL increases in government power are automatically grave infringements of the Bill of Rights. I disagree with the claim that consideration of the legitimacy of such increases is the same as endorsing slavery. I disagree with the idea that Obama's conditional comments about Pakistan and defending Israel justify completely ignoring the entire rest of his statements about foreign policy. (Remember, your initial claim was that he didn't talk about improving diplomacy AT ALL -- when called out on your misrepresentation, you changed the subject rather than correcting yourself. That is a "red flag" indicator of a dishonest interlocutor.) I disagree with the idea that the only "open forum for debate" is one that automatically accepts (without question or challenge of any kind) everything a Paul supporter chooses to assert. At the point you make clear that you continue with the Paulbot pattern of interpreting all disagreement as the same as "retardation" and of grossly misrepresenting others' views even after you are corrected, you have proven that your promise to be different was a fraud. The streak of RonPaul! supporters who refuse to actually engage in those they disagree with continues unbroken. You won't be missed.  Bye.
  24. Posted by An American.
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62820
    An American. The author of this tripe is not an American, and therefore, in my opinion, has no credibility on this issue. Thanks for trying to fit in with your silly attempt at journalism, but most of my countrymen simply don't (or wouldn't) care about your opinion regarding this matter. Good day.
  25. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62821
    Jason, Managing Editor
    Hi, my name is Michael! I am twenty-one years old and live in the U.S. state of Connecticut.
    You, sir commenter #74, don't know what you are talking about.  Typical Paulbot AGAIN. You trolls couldn't prove my points better if you planned it. There is also no evidence that you speak for any of your "countrymen" other than yourself anyway. It is simply not the case that all Americans are xenophobes who dismiss out of hand everything a foreigner might say.
  26. Posted by John Huckans
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62845
    John Huckans Jason, Managing Editor! TM, You say" I didn’t respond because a vague and empty assertion is a long way from constituting an actual argument. "  Fair enough.  I didn't want to beat you over the head with all of my reasons from the get-go because I didn't want to waste time when it appeared that you were not, up to that time, really engaging in anything resembling rational discourse.  Frankly, you are still coming across as angry, emotional, and sarcastic. Here we go... You state, "1) The purpose of a monetary system is to maximize economic efficiency...I think most economists would agree that the primary goal of a currency system is economic efficiency and would insist that you provide some evidence of a different goal rather than simply asserting it." In fact, the purpose of a monetary system is to secure the proper functioning of money by regulating economic agents, transaction types, and money supply.  There is no requirement that a monetary system be "efficient" ab initio. You state,"2) The transaction costs are partially external, thus any "personal freedom" from using competing currencies has negative impacts on everyone else in the form of systemically higher prices resulting from the need to constantly change between potentially hundreds of different forms of money.  There is no legitimate right to personal freedom when the resulting system does concrete and material damage to others." The U.S. Constitution nowhere states that an individual may not employ his or her own monetary system and thus by the Tenth amendment I do have the right to issue my own currency.  The document does give Congress the power to coin money, but (and this is important) this is not an exclusive power.  In fact, it speaks to the States' rights to coin money saying that they (the States) shall use only gold or silver.  Read Salerno on this.  You state,"3) The single U.S. currency is the result of a democratic choice made by duly elected representatives arising directly from Constitutional text." From my reading of the U.S. Constitution, there is no basis for legal tender laws, and therefore the fact that dully (sic) elected representatives chose to foist a private banking cartel's bill of credit note upon us as the only means to transact is illegal.   This is clearly my opinion and I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, so before you jump all over this fact, please give me your understanding of the basis of legal tender laws. You state, "But, by all means, if you are able, please explain “Austrian School economics” and how they respond to actual problems in a practical way. Details are vital here if you want to avoid just repeating the intellectual bankruptcy that we have grown to expect from Paulistas. If, however, all you can do is just assert that they will an point emptily to RonPaul!’s ™ tracts as if that was some kind of appeal to authority, don’t bother, because you will only be proving my point." The Austrian School has played a major role in the development of economic theory in the 20th century and is closely associated with the advocacy of  laissez-faire views.  The Austrian School holds that the only valid economic theory is logically derived from basic principles of human action. Many of the policy recommendations of Austrian theorists call for strict protection of private property, and support for individualism in general.  As for how these principles respond to actual problems in a practical way, please read "The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki.  My favorite story from this book is the anecdote relating Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members, and also closer than any of the separate estimates made by cattle experts). You state,"P.S.  Your attempt to put my name in bold backfires on you.  The reason I do it with RonPaul! ™ is because chanting his name is a common technique of his slavish supporters when they show up in droves to spam any blog that mentions his name (I’ve also used "Voldemort" as a useful and accurate analogy — say his name, and his Death Eaters suddenly appear).  No one chants my name as a way of avoiding conversation, so there is no comparison. Your attempt to “play gotcha” only reveals that you are unwilling to acknowledge or distance yourself from the many excesses of your fellow Paulbots. I conclude from this that your association with the chanting, spamming, and other excess of Paulbots is voluntary, not accidental, and that you actively endorse their behavior and seek to shield it against criticism. " Actually, Jason, Managing Editor! TM, I think my putting of you name in boldface is pretty funny.  I'll keep doing it, Jason, Managing Editor! TM. Finally, I'm not running interference for or defending any actions of my fellow RP supporters.  You see, unlike yourself, I am an individualist and I have my own reasons for supporting Ron Paul.  As a collectivist, you naturally feel too personally responsible for the feelings and actions of others.  You want me to feel this way too. Thank you for allowing me to respond.
  27. Posted by NotAPaulite
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62847
    NotAPaulite "Frankly, you are still coming across as angry, emotional, and sarcastic." Could not agree more... Chillout Jason, Managing Editor! TM,  this is your forum... or you could stop baiting Paulbots with articles like this.
  28. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62851
    Jason, Managing Editor
    As a collectivist, you naturally feel too personally responsible for the feelings and actions of others.
    At the point that you claim the right to characterize my views completely in the absence of any knowledge about them AND at the point you continue a reference to me personally that you intend to be annoying, you are clearly acting with deliberate and very personal and direct disrespect.  There is no quicker way to piss me off.  Of course, that appears to be your intention.  So be it.  I'm done talking to you and if your misbehavior is repeated, you will simply be banned.
  29. Posted by Paul
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62859
    Paul Actually, we Ron Paul supporters are dealing with it.  In case you haven't noticed, it's not over yet.  McCain is going senile, and can't keep his lies straight.  As the economy tanks, McCain, who was 894th of 899 in his graduating class, and can not operate a computer without assistance, will continue to look worse and worse the less simple of the American people. More and more people are cluing in that Ron Paul is correct about the economy, the wars, etc.  It looks like Ron Paul's shadow ralley in MN will dwarf the "neocon fest" down the street.  Yes, we Ron Paul supporters are dealing with it, thank you very much.
  30. Posted by Chaz
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62864
    Chaz Wonder if Jason would agree that the articles of the Constitution outline what the federal government is granted permission to do and that the Bill of Rights are a reiteration of what they are not allowed to do. That the powers granted to the federal government are relativly few and the rights reserved for the people and the States are many.  I would like to find out if we are even speaking the same language. I also wonder if the government derives it's power from the consent of the governed then how can it be that the government can wield power that the governed people cannot. How can anyone grant a power, right, or privilege they do not possess themselves?
  31. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #62883
    Jason, Managing Editor Comments thread closed due to thread hijacking, intentionally annoying behavior and repeated personal attacks.
  32. Posted by voldemort
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #112128
    voldemort Jason got annoyed by the trademark symbol attached to his name, but couldn't see how annoying it was to the RP supporters?
  33. Posted by 1nterested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #112133
    1nterested haha, well that's Jason for you. Should've trademarked his intentionally annoying behavior lmao.