Pharyngula: Ron Paul is one freaky, scary dude

#1

"Ron Paul didn't write those, the guy he hired did without his knowledge" apologists in 3...2...1...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 11, 2008 12:21 PM

#2

PZ, shhh.

Wait until he gathers real momentum and begins to swing the GOP center.

Posted by: Hank Fox | January 11, 2008 12:24 PM

#3

You're right. I think Ron Paul is bad.
He'd be the worst president we've ever had.
His racism sucks,
but he brings in the bucks
even though he's an insufferable cad.

But people are easily swayed.
They buy the foundation he's laid.
They'd get along with you,
only until they knew
You were an atheist, Jew, or gay.

It's good to see this out in the press.
Maybe we can avoid a big mess.
It'd be refreshing to see
someone run rationally
but the chances are slim, I confess.

Posted by: Rich Stage | January 11, 2008 12:29 PM

#4

When are you going to challenge the fact that all the candidates you haven't challenged support the most oppressive form of racism there is? Our fruitless war on drugs.

Posted by: JimBob | January 11, 2008 12:39 PM

#5

Yeah. Lets be quiet and hope he wins the nomination and then clobber him with these afterwards.

Posted by: craig | January 11, 2008 12:40 PM

#6

"ronpaulforums.com" is apparently going berzerk, with people claiming these were obviously forgeries by the evil MSM to discredit Paul, and a particularly tortuous line of reasoning that argues that the racist language in some of the articles proves that Paul didn't write them because racists are always very careful to hide their racism. Or something.

Here's a kooky little number that's indisuputably Paul. Funny thing is I remember Fox Mulder going off on this on the X-Files. Wonder if the writers got his newsletter?

Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | January 11, 2008 12:43 PM

#7

I propose a contest of dueling poems between Rich Stage and Cuttlefish.
Would that poem be considered in limeric form? There's not a single profanity! I thought that was a violation of the official Limeric Rules.

Posted by: schmeer | January 11, 2008 12:49 PM

#8

Thanks. It's nice to get this all on one easy to reference page for the morons who blizzarded this site earlier. Of course, they'll take the same line as the apologists in the the article.

Again and again I've quoted this misogynist troglodyte and again and again his sycophantic apologists have lied, obfuscated, and flat out denied that the words coming DIRECTLY out of this aberration's mouth were his own.
At best, if these newsletters were put out UNDER HIS NAME and he DID NOT KNOW what they said, he demonstrates a level of incompetence no sane citizen wants in the White House.
At worst, if these newsletters were put out UNDER HIS NAME and he DID KNOW what they said, he needs to be institutionalized, NOW.
And so does EVERY ONE of his stupid, idiotic, and sadly atavistic supporters. A more disgusting bunch of ill-informed, sterilization-needing, shit-for-brains pigs outside of the Ditto-heads doesn't exist.
But, just like evolution (which Paul again and again and again DENIES) they will simply ignore it and barge back here with more stupidity.

Posted by: Logician | January 11, 2008 12:51 PM

#9

The sad thing is, there are some issues where I agree with Ron Paul: foreign policy, smaller government, less governmental involvement in personal matters.

Too bad he's a bat-shit crazy, racist, religious conservative who believes that the separation of church and state is wrong.

Posted by: Robert Thille | January 11, 2008 12:51 PM

#10

That's not entirely correct Schmeer (#7).

Rich used "laid" in the second verse in a double entendre. ;)

Posted by: Todd | January 11, 2008 12:57 PM

#11

Lets be quiet and hope he wins the nomination and then clobber him with these afterwards.

That would be horribly, horribly bad.

What I see happening is that, whoever gets the Republican nomination, they will get the misogynist/racist vote. This could lead to Very Bad Things©.

Richardson would have had my vote, because I can't trust Hillary, and Obama lacks experience, but at this point I'm willing to vote for Kucinich to keep any of the Republican front runners out of office.

Posted by: Rich Stage | January 11, 2008 12:59 PM

#12

#4: single issues do not a candidate make. while the WOD is a huge screw-job, supporting a fucking whacko like Ron Paul is just idiocy.

Posted by: garth | January 11, 2008 1:00 PM

#13

There's not a single profanity! I thought that was a violation of the official Limeric(sic) Rules.

True, but I am following a ruling that has a more profound and immediate effect on my life and limericks:

I can't write anything that I wouldn't let my daughter read.

Thus spaketh my wife, and so mote it be. For ever and ever. Ramen.

Posted by: Rich Stage | January 11, 2008 1:02 PM

#14

I would gladly trade a repudiated racist past for an end to the ongoing bloodbath in Iraq, no war with Iran, an end to our ridiculous war on drugs, restoration of our constitution, no more warrantless spying on Americans, no more standing armies on foreign soil, no more....

You get the idea. Show me the perfect candidate and I will then confirm the existence of a god and heaven.

Posted by: tballou | January 11, 2008 1:03 PM

#15

There isn't a democrat running I wouldn't vote for to beat any of those republican clowns.

I haven't ever had a reason to vote for a republican. I doubt I ever will.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 11, 2008 1:05 PM

#16

I realize this is slightly off-topic, but:

JimBob @#4:
"When are you going to challenge the fact that all the candidates you haven't challenged support the most oppressive form of racism there is? Our fruitless war on drugs."

Whatever the war on drugs may be, it is definitely not the most oppressive form of racism there is. As a counterexample, consider the many genocides are frequently perpetrated around the world. Perhaps you mean "...form of racism directly sponsored by the US government"? That would be a less unreasonable claim.

Posted by: Olaf Davis | January 11, 2008 1:13 PM

#17

I would gladly trade a repudiated racist past for an end to the ongoing bloodbath in Iraq, no war with Iran, an end to our ridiculous war on drugs, restoration of our constitution, no more warrantless spying on Americans, no more standing armies on foreign soil, no more....
That's nice.

But that's not Ron Paul.

Posted by: gwangung | January 11, 2008 1:15 PM

#18

double entendre

I feel better already.

Limeric(sic)

Stinking autocorrect in MS Word caused a lack of red squiggly line to lead me to believe I had it spelled correctly. I'm so ashamed.

Posted by: schmeer | January 11, 2008 1:15 PM

#19

Arguing with Paul-bots, like the Borg, is fruitless. Set phasers on kill, Mr. Data:

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

Posted by: Moses | January 11, 2008 1:15 PM

#20

tballou, Ron Paul also stands for the rollback of right-to-privacy jurisprudence, on a state-by-state level. That means the landmark decisions: Griswold, which restored the right of all women -- in Connecticut and in every state -- unfettered access to birth control, Loving, which restored the right of all people of color -- in Virginia and in every state -- to marry whoever [of the opposite sex] they wanted regardless of skin color, Roe, and Lawrence which restored the right of all consenting adults -- in Texas and in every state -- the freedom to insert or receive a penis in any bodily orifice they desired.

Iraq will wind down as it will. The great bulk of the damage has already been done, and the next president will play Nixon's role in the tragedy.

The warrantless spying problem, as with nearly all problems these days, is a Republican issue. Don't vote Republican, problem solved (eventually).

The previous Democrat presidents have shown good judgement in limiting the unnecesary growth of the military. We will always have a "strong military" because it is a jobs program and the American people are too stupid not to see the sham involved unless transfer tubes are coming back to Dover by the hundreds.

Similarly, most voters in this country are perfectly happy with the war on drugs. They see the damage it causes to their loved ones, and want the Nanny State to do something about it, even if it is unconstitutional.

I understand these subtle realities are too "Gray area" for a Paultard to grasp, but, at any rate, good luck with your quest for libertopia in government. Hopefully you'll find a new libertarian hero without such clay feet next time.

Posted by: Troy | January 11, 2008 1:17 PM

#21

We're faced with two unpleasant choices: Either he wrote them, or he let others write articles in his name in his newsletter, without taking the care to even read what his ghost writers had to say. I'm inclined to believe the latter- he doesn't seem like a bigot.

Ending the war in Iraq, ending the war on drugs and ending the death penalty seem like positions of someone who wants to improve the conditions of minorities in this country.

It's still a great pity to me that he's such a nut on most other issues.

Posted by: Christianjb | January 11, 2008 1:18 PM

#22

he doesn't seem like a bigot.

he has some nasty, nasty quotes from the early 90s, in reference to the LA riots. He's of the same mold of Trent Lott and Jesse Helms -- "states rights" so we Southerners can re-order our society the way we had it, essentially. The rest is pandering to the Paultards.

Posted by: Troy | January 11, 2008 1:23 PM

#23

12 & 16. I correct myself. The War on Drugs is the most oppressive form of racism in the United States. If we are debating severity and then you are with my point. I'm not defending Paul I'm addressing the shallow way PZ is addressing the issue of racism. Just like the recent fluff over comments an announcer made concerning Tiger Woods we in this country get all high and mighty preaching to the choir about some pitiful little words while ignoring the issue.

Complaining about this candidate's silly stereotyping but ignoring how all the candidates support ruining people's lives in the war on drugs is to swat a fly and pay no attention to the enormous pile of shit that attracts them.

Posted by: jimbob | January 11, 2008 1:24 PM

#24

Edwards, Obama or Clinton either one will work for me.

It may be shortsighted of me, but the two main things I want from a president-elect is that he or she

1) Get us out of Iraq instantly, and

2) Vigorously investigate and prosecute this lying, vicious, arrogant, lawless, torturing, treasonously unAmerican nest of snakes in the White House and the GOP.

Government is really a fiction, when you think about it. It works only if the people governed believe that it works. I don't believe the confidence, the belief, can survive the Bushistas. Actually, I think confidence in American government, both here and abroad, is dead already. The one thing that can revive it, imho, will be these prosecutions.

I still say Bush should end up running a tire store in Crawford, Texas. That might be barely within his mental capacity.

And if Rush Limbaugh just happened to end up in prison for his "alleged" drug crimes, they could make it into a sitcom (I suggest calling it "Rush to Judgment") and I'd watch the entire first season.

Posted by: Hank Fox | January 11, 2008 1:26 PM

#25

Thanks again for helping to spread this article, PZ. It's good for people to know that their deified "FOUNDING FATHER" in the flesh is a disturbed man who keeps disturbing company.

His cowardly "i already told you i 'took responsibility' for this, i don't have to actually do anything to do so, and i wish you all would just shut up about my signatures, my articles, my paycheck, and my friends that i still employ in my campaign" rebuttal is telling.

Posted by: C | January 11, 2008 1:26 PM

#26

jimbob, I think the war on drugs is a great idea. Granted, we're prosecuting it wrong, but I don't want to live in a nation of potheads and crank addicts, TYVM.

But the root cause of the drug problem is lack of equality of opportunity. The libertopian Policy Closet is fucking barren about how to address this fundamental issue. Not that the Democrat's historical solutions have been any great shakes, but as a left libertarian I hold that redistribution and reinivestment in the productive capacity of every American -- world-class education for everyone, regardless of ability to pay or skill level, world-class health care, world-class public transportation.

The libertopian policy solution is to stop taxing everyone and let the free market work its magic. That was bullshit in the 18th century and it's bullshit now. Europe has the social-democratic model we can learn from, should we, by some miracle, raise our collective IQ above room temperature.

Posted by: Troy | January 11, 2008 1:30 PM

#27

"The War on Drugs is the most oppressive form of racism in the United States. If we are debating severity and then you are with my point. I'm not defending Paul I'm addressing the shallow way PZ is addressing the issue of racism."

Funny, you sound just like a Paultard, they love to claim that finding Paul personally revolting means that you hate liberty, are pro Giuliani, want the War on Drugs, and that you can't possibly believe that one could agree with some of Paul's ideas (such as ending the War on Drugs) and still find him a terrible little bunker-dwelling Mr. Magoo of a supremacist.

Posted by: C | January 11, 2008 1:30 PM

#28

[quote]restoration of our constitution[/quote]

Yes, but most people would like to restore the constitution 0f 1999. Ron Paul would like to restore the constitution of 1799.

Posted by: Greg | January 11, 2008 1:31 PM

#29

Yeah, because a racist president is no big deal if everyone can smoke as much pot as they want right dude?

Pass the bong.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 11, 2008 1:46 PM

#30

Yeah, because a racist president is no big deal if everyone can smoke as much pot as they want right dude?
Pass the bong.

I think I said the exact same thing to this moron here in town just yesterday.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 11, 2008 1:48 PM

#31

"Yeah, because a racist president is no big deal if everyone can smoke as much pot as they want right dude?

Pass the bong."

It'll be easier to stomach the Creationism in public schools Ron Paul endorses, seeing as his (AND THE ONLY!!!#@) interpretation of the Constitution is that the separation of Church and State only means that we can't have an official government religion, but we can stuff our state and federal government with as much Christ as it can hold.

Posted by: C | January 11, 2008 1:50 PM

#32

I'm inclined to believe the latter- he doesn't seem like a bigot.

Do you think they all run around with shaved heads or wear white robes? Most bigots are far to clever to operate in the open like that anymore.

I judge Paul, not only by what he wrote, but the context of his life. Having seen his deliberate associations in the past with militia and extremist (frequently racist) groups like the CCC and John Birch society I feel no need to turn off my rational judgments. Having read his unsoliticited racist opinions on things for which he didn't need to give opinions, and the deliberating passing on phony stereotypes like "95% of black men in Washington are criminals" I'm of the opposite view.

Those racist comments in his newsletter were exactly what I'd expect from a closet racist and someone who is willing to speak to closeted racists. To speak at John Birch and CCC events. To deliberately pass along phony racial stereotypes (the criminality issue).

I'm sorry. He may not be running around yelling Nigger. But his was no less racist than O'Rielly's "innocuous" account of eating at a black restaurant and being "surprised" that blacks act like whites instead of yelling "Where's my ice tea motherfucker" and that sort of crap.

Posted by: Moses | January 11, 2008 1:53 PM

#33

#26. You really think the war on drugs is a great idea. Did you miss the whole prohibition era and how it was a miserable failure? Do you think that we should also ban Alcohol and Tobacco?

We have a nation full of potheads and crankheads. Nearly everyone who wants to use these things is doing so already. We only create a market for the bad crimes associated with the business transactions of these products by making it a criminal act to put crap into your body. The war on drugs is indefensible.

Posted by: jimbob | January 11, 2008 2:07 PM

#34

Racism is indefensible. Your pet issues doesn't give him a free pass.

Your repeating it over and over, got boring quick.

Move on. Ron Paul will never be anything more than a footnote. He's a fucking douche bag.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 11, 2008 2:13 PM

#35

I think the war on drugs is a great idea. Granted, we're prosecuting it wrong, but I don't want to live in a nation of potheads and crank addicts, TYVM.

And I don't want to live in a nation of pathetic sheep. But I'm stuck with you and you're stuck with me asshole.

We WANT Ron Paul to get more attention you moronic fucks. If the ideas he espouses that AREN'T batshit crazy get traction then the candidates who aren't flaming fucktards will be less scared to embrace things like an INSTANT end to the war in Iraq, drug decriminalization and the dismantling of our budding police state.

But hey, if living in a fascist state is worth it so you won't have to deal with people who aren't like you then go ahead and make sure the Repubs nominate someone who will make Hillery and co's police-state garbage more palatable. Because, quite frankly, if you think any of the leading Dem candidates will end this war ASAP or do one god damned thing to stop the further erosion of our nation into a corporate police state then you are dumber than a sack full of fucking hammers.

Posted by: Sarcastro | January 11, 2008 2:15 PM

#36

There's a blog that claims his "aide" was Lew Rockwell. And that it was Lew, Paul and Burt Blumert who wrote the letters. Scroll down to the "Ron Paul debacle exposes the racist underbelly in the Rockwellian camp" post from 1/9.

http://rightwatch.tblog.com/

Posted by: YSTH | January 11, 2008 2:18 PM

#37

The reason he's ignored is because he's batshit crazy. Keep dreaming.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 11, 2008 2:19 PM

#38

#26 "Europe has the social-democratic model we can learn from, should we, by some miracle, raise our collective IQ above room temperature."

UK living standards outstrip US for first time in over a century
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 11, 2008 2:25 PM

#39

#26. You really think the war on drugs is a great idea. Did you miss the whole prohibition era and how it was a miserable failure? Do you think that we should also ban Alcohol and Tobacco?
We have a nation full of potheads and crankheads. Nearly everyone who wants to use these things is doing so already. We only create a market for the bad crimes associated with the business transactions of these products by making it a criminal act to put crap into your body. The war on drugs is indefensible.

Posted by: jimbob | January 11, 2008 2:07 PM

Nothing of which makes Ron Paul palatable or makes the "War on Drugs" a defacto form of racism. Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that human beings are divided into more than one race, with members of some races being intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races.

Bigotry is not racism. For example, you can hate blacks, Chinese, Japanese, etc. but not feel that they're inferior. My mother is, when it comes to Asians, a classic bigot. She picked that up from the WWII propaganda, plus long-term anti-Asian bigotry, that floated around California when she was a child and, to my shame, is still with her today. She taught me better, ironically, and we've actually had unpleasant words over it. But, in no way, shape or form does she feel that Asians are "inferior." She just doesn't like them because that was how California was during the 1930's through 1950's.

Racism is not bigotry. You can believe your race is genetically superior, but not actually hate the "inferior races." I know a person whose best friend is a black man. Yet this person (who is white) believes that the black 'race' is inferior. But since he associates with people on an individual basis, he can live with this inherent contradiction and not have his head explode.

Heck, my best friend is a black man and he believes that blacks are genetically superior to whites, hence that's why sports is dominated by blacks. I laugh at him and call him "Victor Oreo" because he's 'black on the outside and white inside.'

The sad fact is that Racism and Bigotry often live together more than they don't. But they are not, by necessity, the same. And while not everyone has my life experiences to draw upon to get to this particular conclusion, I think just going beyond a cursory and reflexive understanding of racism and bigotry can lead to understand these complex, and frequently over-lapping, issues.

Posted by: Moses | January 11, 2008 2:25 PM

#40

And I don't want to live in a nation of pathetic sheep. But I'm stuck with you and you're stuck with me asshole.
We WANT Ron Paul to get more attention you moronic fucks. If the ideas he espouses that AREN'T batshit crazy get traction then the candidates who aren't flaming fucktards will be less scared to embrace things like an INSTANT end to the war in Iraq, drug decriminalization and the dismantling of our budding police state.

But hey, if living in a fascist state is worth it so you won't have to deal with people who aren't like you then go ahead and make sure the Repubs nominate someone who will make Hillery and co's police-state garbage more palatable. Because, quite frankly, if you think any of the leading Dem candidates will end this war ASAP or do one god damned thing to stop the further erosion of our nation into a corporate police state then you are dumber than a sack full of fucking hammers.

Posted by: Sarcastro | January 11, 2008 2:15 PM

Ah. How to win friends and influence people. You should write a book. :snicker:

Posted by: Moses | January 11, 2008 2:29 PM

#41

I don't care much if ...
a 70 year old grandfather living in some village in the midwest has an understanding of this world full of racist prejudices,
but I do get a "bit" worried if ...
he becomes the most powerful man in the world.

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 11, 2008 2:45 PM

#42

I want Ron Paul to keep showing up in Republican debates, if only because the presence of someone who doesn't buy into the "global policeman" groupthink makes it easier to see it for the load of garbage it really is. I would not, however, vote for him for president.

Posted by: Glazius | January 11, 2008 2:51 PM

#43

you are dumber than a sack full of fucking hammers

I think my friend's wife has a drawer full of fucking hammers.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 11, 2008 2:52 PM

#44

Is it wrong of me to have gotten a negative opinion of someone before I even knew of his personal views solely because every single one of his supporters comes across as an unhinged rabid lunatic worshipful fanatic?

Posted by: craig | January 11, 2008 2:53 PM

#45

This is the liberterian ethos

From the Wild Angeles movie(1966 Aip Roger Corman Dir)

Peter Fonda in response to the cleric

"We Wanna Get Loaded Man"

Posted by: t | January 11, 2008 2:57 PM

#46

This is the liberterian ethos

From the Wild Angeles movie(1966 Aip Roger Corman Dir)

Peter Fonda in response to the cleric

"We Wanna Get Loaded Man"

Posted by: Teenage Lobotomy | January 11, 2008 3:02 PM

#47

I wouldn't mind getting loaded, but I'm no libertarian. I'm a liberal all the way.

Posted by: Ric | January 11, 2008 3:15 PM

#48

so once ron paul becomes president he's going to let the south secede? think he'll let minnesota join canada?

Posted by: nate | January 11, 2008 3:30 PM

#49

Please do not encourage him.

Signed, Teenage Lobotomys Doctor
Napa state Mental Hospital.

Posted by: Teenage Lobotomy | January 11, 2008 3:30 PM

#50

Ron Paul rebutted all this on CNN. PZ myers is just a fraud whos biggest accomplishment is having a popular blog so he thinks hes god. I hope you idiots enjoy ww111 with Iran which is what youll get with hillary/guliani

Posted by: cooler | January 11, 2008 3:35 PM

#51

TROY - I just don't accept that Paul would support the rollbacks in privacy jurisprudence you cited. He may not agree they are federal issues, but privacy is a fundamental libertarian value, and in any event this would require Supreme Court or Congressional action. I would think a soon to be Democrat Congress would hold firm here.

Iraq will not wind down as long as we are there. There is plenty of opportunity for it to get much worse and our presence there only aggravates the situation. And I dont trust Clinton or Obama to get us out any time soon.

The warrantless spying problem has been facilitated if not approved by far too many Democrats, as have many of the other Bush abuses, Iraq being the top of that list. I want to hear the Dems say no more, but I dont think they have yet.

"limiting the unnecesary growth of the military" is not much of an accomplishment. Why must we be satisfied with that very meager accomplishment? Lets defend the US and let the rest of the increasingly prosperous and capable world handle their own defense. Besides, the main threat to the rest of the world right now is us!

Being perfectly happy with the war on drugs is also not much to be proud of. Why must we waste billions and all the human capital?

And thanks for the gratuitous insult. I will continue my quest for Liberty, standing on the shoulders of the giants who wrote and approved our constitution!

Posted by: tballou | January 11, 2008 3:36 PM

#52

#48 Now you done it Lobotommys gettin loaded
playin Davie Allen and The Arrows "Blues Theme"
where's the Loser and Nancy Sintra?

signed,Teenage Lobotomys docter

Posted by: Teenage Lobotomyi | January 11, 2008 3:41 PM

#53

Ron Paul didn't write those!
Anyway, he just thinks racism should be delegated to the states, so he won't institutionalize racism anyway!
Also, Congress will keep his racism in check!
And at least he's honest about his racism unlike all the other politicians!
Taking away someone's right to racism is coercion!

signed,
A Ron Paul Apologist

Posted by: ron paul apologist | January 11, 2008 3:41 PM

#54

47#

Posted by: Teenage Lobotomy | January 11, 2008 3:43 PM

#55

Moses: If he wrote those newsletters then he is a racist. I simply don't know enough in this instance to judge if the ugly accusations against him are true. I can say that I haven't detected any bigotry in the few speeches I've heard from him.

We do know for a fact that he's not a believer in evolution.

Posted by: Christianjb | January 11, 2008 3:46 PM

#56

Say what you will, it's just nice to see some rethugs that aren't all cast form the same Reagan-Bush-Reagan mould. With any luck, between Ron Paul and Huckabee they will tear the GOP apart, leaching out the kneejerk libertarian blind neoliberal capitalist fucktards on the one hand into donating all their money and votes to Ron Paul (hey, if he's such a stand up for yourself libertarian, why is he taking cash handouts?), while on the other the whacko fundie babble thumpers jump ship over to their new Huckster daddy figure du jour, leaving the frothing at the mouth chickernshit chickenhawk Guiliani/McCain war mongers without enough votes from the testosterone block to drive your entire political landscape a bit to the left. The only one in the whole sad and sorry race that doesn't seem like a cynical delusional corporate whore rich kid asswipe is Kucinich (so what if he saw a UFO? Bush talks to Jebus and Mitt Romney wears magic underpants), and he doesn't have a hope in hell for that reason. Since when do you allow TV stations to pick and choose your political candidates? What is wrong with you down there?

Posted by: AlanWCan | January 11, 2008 3:49 PM

#57

"I hope you idiots enjoy ww111 with Iran which is what youll get with hillary/guliani"

I wasn't aware that there were 110 World Wars in history. But rest assured that none of us would vote a Hillary/Giuliani ticket, unless the opponent was, say, Huckabee/Brownback.

Or Ron Paul. *snicker*

Posted by: Rey Fox | January 11, 2008 3:49 PM

#58

Ron Paul rebutted all this on CNN

Not really.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 11, 2008 3:53 PM

#59

I've always been socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I like a lot of Paul's message, along with the other candidates. I also don't like a lot of what I see/hear from all of them.

The thing is he's the only one standing up there explaining to me why he shouldn't have all this power. This is America. The man can believe what he wants, that's his right. I just don't understand this notion that we all have to think exactly the same on all the issues, or else the world will end. Huckabee, I believe, would force his opinions on me in the form of law, which is why I would never vote for him. By comparison Paul spends all his time explaining to me all the reasons he should not be allowed to do this.

Ok, so he's a bit weird when it comes to evolution. I'm not sure how a man makes it that far in the medical field without getting this concept, but that doesn't make him evil. It's just a different view than I have (mine based on reality, his on who-knows-what). What's important is he acknowledges that it is HIS view. The man wants to disband the federal governments influence on education. So we disagree, but it doesn't matter because he doesn't think the federal government should be in that business anyway. On this we agree. This is all that matters.

As long as we agree to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights then we can all have different opinions on all this stuff and it just doesn't matter. We each can live our lives as we see fit. We need to be exerting our efforts against people who want to shove their ideals on us in the form of law. Not wasting our time bickering over each nuance of every facet of each others lives.

If the federal government wasn't so screwed up to begin with we wouldn't even be having these discussions. It shouldn't matter what the pres thinks about abortion. Nowhere in the constitution did the founders give congress the authority to make laws about it one way or another. Same with evolution education. Nowhere does the president or congress have the authority to influence what we teach children in schools.

I'm not for Paul as a person. I am for the Paul that wants to restore a country based on secular ideals. Ron Paul and I can both read the constitution and agree what it says, without being aligned on any social issue. That's what's so great about our system of government. As long as we all agree to defend each others rights to whatever crazy nonsense we want to believe, then we're all better off.

Posted by: ryanb | January 11, 2008 4:06 PM

#60

Cooler's a troll, Cooler's a troll, Cooler's a troll. . .

Posted by: mothra | January 11, 2008 4:07 PM

#61

Someone who's been publicly disgraced to the magnitude that Ron Paul has should end his candidacy, resign from his House seat, and donate his campaign funds to the NAACP and/or GLAAD.

Instead we get a speech that makes GWB look like a straight talker, and he clearly now thinks the matter is settled and he can go on his merry way. It isn't, and he can't.

Posted by: dzd | January 11, 2008 4:09 PM

#62

I've looked and looked at Ron Paul's website and I see nothing-NOTHING-that would lead me to believe that he's interested in anything other than being another conservative nutcase with a daddy complex. I matters a whole hell of a lot what a president thinks about social issues when he or she is one of the people who helps to, oh, I dunno, shape the laws regarding them.

Plus, those Rontards who position themselves behind every reporter on a TV they can find are getting on my damned nerves.

Posted by: moon_grrl | January 11, 2008 4:18 PM

#63

I wasn't aware that there were 110 World Wars in history

Perhaps cooler was counting in binary.

Posted by: Tulse | January 11, 2008 4:20 PM

#64

The Ron Paul apologists always follow the same script.

"He didn't say it. Okay, even if he did say it, he didn't mean it. Okay, he may have meant it in the past, but he doesn't mean it now. Okay, maybe he does mean it now, but he's still better than the other candidates."

That or they're single-issue voters who close their eyes, ears, and minds to everything else the guy says.

Posted by: Chayanov | January 11, 2008 4:25 PM

#65

WW3 idiots. Wow you guys sure scrutinize Paul, and ignore the blank check hillary gave bush to kill thousands of people, the mandatory minimums supported by the republicrats that hurt minorities more than some stupid newsletter, the patriot act that obama and hillary love, gitmo, having our Navy so close to Iran that a new gulf of tonkin is practically inevetable etc etc. You guys are super annoying trolls.

Posted by: cooler | January 11, 2008 4:25 PM

#66

PZ, why don't you link to the rebuttal? It's a bit unfair. Here's the link:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

Quotes:

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin."

"I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies."

"For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

Would a racist praise Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks? I don't think so. And no, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter (I would probably vote for Obama if I lived in the US). I just think the evidence against him is weak. Just look for his quotes in old newspapers, as I did, and you won't find any racist comments.

Posted by: Just for Fairness | January 11, 2008 4:26 PM

#67

Tulse,

That still leaves 4₁₀ unaccounted for.

Posted by: Sili | January 11, 2008 4:26 PM

#68

"I've looked and looked at Ron Paul's website and I see nothing-NOTHING-that would lead me to believe that he's interested in anything other than being another conservative nutcase with a daddy complex"

Then please go watch some YouTube debates. He even posted his TV event he did after Fox News refused to let him into their debate. If you are interested in learning about what he actually says, spend a few minutes listening to him speak.

"I matters a whole hell of a lot what a president thinks about social issues when he or she is one of the people who helps to, oh, I dunno, shape the laws regarding them."

This is what is so wrong with politics in America right now. This really shouldn't be an issue. The federal government should not be making laws regarding these social issues. The Constitution specifically spells out that this is a state's issue. We all seem to have forgotten that.

You just do not seem to understand that this is all fabricated. The federal government is not supposed to be regulating these things. By falling into this whole social issue trap politicians have managed to move the conversation away from "whether or not our government should be doing this", to "which of these social controls should it be doing".

That's wrong. The constitution spells out our rights. You don't get people to believe in evolution by mandating it through law anymore than you make god real by mandating everyone pray to him by law.

Posted by: ryanb | January 11, 2008 4:27 PM

#69

Ron Paul rebutted all this on CNN. PZ myers is just a fraud whos biggest accomplishment is having a popular blog so he thinks hes god. I hope you idiots enjoy ww111 with Iran which is what youll get with hillary/guliani

Dude, the shit's laced. Put it away.

Posted by: MAJeff | January 11, 2008 4:32 PM

#70

Rather deceptive of you, PZ, to simply assert that this is "what Ron Paul really thinks." Why can't anybody find anything we know is written by him or anything that he's actually spoken that would substantiate your assertion here? 20 years in the house, multiple debates, multiple statements from the house floor, multiple interviews, multiple speeches, yet not one instance of racist claims coming directly from him.

I suppose you prefer one of these warlord candidates that just wants to keep borrowing from the Chinese in order to send billions to arm the Israeli1s as well as their enemies, prop up Pakistani dictators to enrage Pakistani citizens, prop up the House of Saud to enrage Saudi's, fund covert operations to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, initiate more war with Iran, etc. Will you be happy when Hillary or some Republican is elected and our government goes bankrupt like the Soviets?

Posted by: Jon | January 11, 2008 4:33 PM

#71

I was and still am interested in Paul not as a potential candidate for me, but for the truth he speaks, at least when under the light of the television media. In trying to be as objective as possible, I do find it hard to square what I see of him on TV with this TNR story I read on Monday. On one hand I think, how can a man that seems to make sense on a lot of specific issues on TV turn into Mr. Hyde in print?

The only answer I can come up with, until hard evidence proves otherwise, is that this guy wrote that stuff or at least condoned its printing over the course of three decades and refuses to renounce it. The favored argument that it wasn't him that wrote it doesn't hold water because, if it truly wasn't him, why do I see his face and signature on some of the documents? It was certainly possible even with old technology to try to assume someone else's identity; but why has Ron Paul not mounted a full-on legal attack on the supposed fraudster? Has he? Not that I've heard, and you would think the Paulite followers would've immediately pointed everyone to that proof. Also, why would this fraudster choose Ron Paul to defame? How did this person get away with misusing his name and legacy for thirty years? This fraudster would likely be the most famous and elusive serial libeler in American history if that were the case. Are we to believe there's a guy running around out there with a vendetta against one Texas congressmen to spew his crap political views using someone else's name? Has this ever happened to any such person in Paul's position? There are a lot of holes in the story.

I want to at least take the guy seriously for the image I see of him on TV and in video clips, but this is too much.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 11, 2008 4:36 PM

#72

Why can't anybody find anything we know is written by him or anything that he's actually spoken that would substantiate your assertion here? 20 years in the house, multiple debates, multiple statements from the house floor, multiple interviews, multiple speeches, yet not one instance of racist claims coming directly from him.

Yeah, PZ! Sure, Ron Paul may have had racist comments published in his newsletter, spoken at racist organizations, argued for the right of the racist South to secede, argued that slavery should have been ended by paying racist Southerners for their "property" of slaves, and associated with racists, but that doesn't mean he's a racist himself!

Posted by: Tulse | January 11, 2008 4:46 PM

#73

@ #24:

I totally sympathize with your second item, but I guarantee you this: no matter which of the three Democrats gets into the Oval Office, not a one of them will ever prosecute the criminals. It ain't going to happen. I'd love to be surprised and see them hauled off in orange jumpsuits to Guantanamo Bay, but as far as I can see it, anyone that thinks the long arm of the law will come down on the authoritarians and their boot-licking goose-stepping fodder in this government is on a substance stronger than any man has yet dared to abuse.

The sad truth of history is that bad guys well-financed and organized into a thieves' cult are more likely than not to get away with anything and everything. Witness how long Pinochet avoided the law. How long former Nazi soldiers evades detection. How multi-billion dollar empires uproot and move to hostile regions and are then given legal immunity to avoid justice.

I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong and reply with beacons of hope from history. I *WANT* to be wrong on this. Knowing humanity's survival instincts vis a vis the law however, I am not long on the possibility of justice ever being done.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 11, 2008 4:47 PM

#74

Ron Paul is a hideous cross between white power authoritarianism, fundamentalist dominionism, libertarian deregulation fantasies and survivalist gold standard gibbering.

That this monstrous amalgamation of fear and hatred has come to the same conclusion about the Iraq occupation as us Dirty Fucking Hippies says volumes about the sheer and utter wrongness of invading Iraq in the first place.

Posted by: stogoe | January 11, 2008 4:48 PM

#75

Moses: If he wrote those newsletters then he is a racist. I simply don't know enough in this instance to judge if the ugly accusations against him are true. I can say that I haven't detected any bigotry in the few speeches I've heard from him.
We do know for a fact that he's not a believer in evolution.

Posted by: Christianjb | January 11, 2008 3:46 PM

That's how it works now. You don't speak plainly in public. You develop a specialized vocabulary. You use what is known as dog-whistle politics to get your message across. Dog-Whistle is a term used to describe a type of political campaigning or speech-making using coded language, which appears to mean one thing to the general population but which has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience.

In the 2004 Presidential debates Bush used coded language in his speeches to send messages to his supporters among the religious right that will be ignored by other parts of the U.S. population. The plainest example was the mention of the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in the 2004 Presidential debates. The latter refers to overturning Roe v. Wade, which is likened to the Dred Scott case by some of its critics.

So, yes, Paul doesn't spew it out like David Duke. Or some of the Stormfront guys. But they're all part of the same club. They hang out together. They go to the same meetings. They talk to each other. They support each other. They speak the same language.

Posted by: Moses | January 11, 2008 4:50 PM

#76

[White Supremacist David] Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

But isn't David Duke in prison?

Such friends [I almost typed fiends] this guy has!

Posted by: Kristine | January 11, 2008 4:51 PM

#77

Why do the Paulbots think attacks on other candidates constitute a defense of Ron Paul? And it's like they trip over themselves to see who can use the most hyperbolic language. "Oh, sure, criticize Paul. At least he's not for the greatest, most vile crime against humanity, the Earth, and the Universe ever inflicted upon innocent victims by immoral and corrupt government ever! Namely--smoking bans!"

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 11, 2008 4:53 PM

#78

Racism might be the lesser of two stupids in this case unfortunately:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/11/gop-debate-iran-rhetoric/

The only candidate to acknowledge the Navy's doubts over the source of the incident was Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
...

Ignoring these concerns, former governor Mitt Romney threw an insult at Paul, saying, "I think Congressman Paul should not be reading so many of Ahmadinejad's press releases."

Considering that Paul was merely noting the Navy's own doubts about the incident, Romney's barb is foolish.

Posted by: apy | January 11, 2008 4:55 PM

#79

Not that I can imagine ever being brain-damaged enough to vote Republican, but even if nearly everthing I read about Ron Paul wasn't enough to turn me off, his supporters would.

Posted by: dkew | January 11, 2008 4:57 PM

#80

@JfF #66

The right *constantly* uses that "oh I agree with Dr. King about not judging people on the color of their skin" line. Usually when trying to eliminate Affirmative Action or Fairness in Lending laws or otherwise eradicating whatever gains blacks in America have made since King gave that speech. It's a transparent attempt to co-opt the words of progressive leaders to defend regressive policies, while ignoring the substance of their messages. Besides which, you can't publish articles claiming Martin Luther King was a Communist and serial child molestor and then go on to claim you're defending his friggin' legacy.

Furthermore it's fundamentally dishonest to say this stuff was merely "under his name" when a good deal of it is also above his signature, and frequently packed with references to his wife, his family, his Congressional career, etc.

Ron Paul is unfit to run this country. However right he may be about Iraq and the drug war, his childish understanding of economics, of the nature of the free market, and the role of government would utterly dissolve the United States. We're talking Snow Crash level disintegration here. Arguably that's his intent in the first place, given his favorable stance towards the right of states to secede.

Posted by:

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Ron Paul is one freaky, scary dude

TrackBacks

Comments