Those damn liberal Ron Paul fans....

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Liberal, from your link: “One theory that I am suggesting here is that it seems like the less name recognition a Republican candidate has, the better he will poll among African Americans. Bush only had 11% in 2004. Giuliani is polling at 16% then McCain at 20% then Romney at 23.5% and finally Ron Paul at 32%. The contention would be that the less a Republican is known to a black voter, the less they are ‘against’ them.”

Maybe this theory is true or maybe it’s false. But in any event, it seems clear to me that the polls were taken before the widespread furor over the newsletters (and by the way, calling this furor a “smear” seems a misuse of the terminology).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. I use “smear” to mean an intentional and organized campaign to impugn someone’s reputation, and that’s what I observe from the neo-cons at New Republic and Fox News. NR re-releases 10-year-old “news” on the eve of a primary, and FN asks him questions at the debates like, “Many of your supporters are crazy people. Do you wish to tell them to shut up?”.

However, I do believe that the writer misused the term “theory”. What he had was an hypothesis. And that’s setting aside the rather arbitrary notion that McCain is less well known than Giuliani.

62

It’s not a smear if it’s a) true, and b) relevant. I would say it’s the contrary of a smear, even – it’s something voters ought to be aware of. I’d be extremely unhappy if the news media had refused to report such a thing out of deference, or because it was considered “old news.” It wasn’t old news to me.

Besides, how can you call it a smear when you yourself find Paul’s statements defensible?

63

[QUOTE=Liberal]
What the hell made you think I posted it? I’m not registered there and have never posted there in my life, smart ass. I just thought deleting it for the obvious purpose of ignoring Linder’s comments was a dickish thing to do.
[/QUOTE]

More’s the pity.

64

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Blacks aren’t as stupid as you seem to think, and do not necessarily misinterpret what he means by opposing such federal nannyism.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm…so suggesting that black voters are unlikely to embrace Ron Paul means I think that they’re stupid? That sounds awfully like a smear. You cad. :slight_smile:

It’d be interesting to see a poll on what percentage of African-Americans agree with Paul’s distaste for civil rights legislation.

Meanwhile, the overwhelmingly white nature of Ron Paul’s support has drawn attention elsewhere:

*"Indeed, as diverse as Paul’s supporters may be in other ways, they are almost all white. Of the several hundred supporters at the Cranberry ¶ rally, only a half-dozen were African American.

And Paul’s seeming indifference to crises in Africa, as well as the rest of the world, may make it hard for him to attract many more in the future. Paul supports withdrawing from the United Nations and opposes not just war but any government intervention overseas – even for humanitarian purposes in places such as Darfur (he was the only Congressman to oppose the Darfur divestment act), where ethnic conflict has displaced millions of Sudanese.

His backers have picked up the theme. If you ask Chris Heit of Somerset – who wears a white “Ask me about Ron Paul” T-shirt to rallies – whether intervention is ever warranted, he’ll say, "Non-intervention is non-intervention.

“We stepped in to help end apartheid, but what did we do?” Heit asks. “South Africa is one of the most dangerous places in the world for whites.”

On the Internet, meanwhile, things can get ugly. Among the online places where you can find support for Paul, for example, is the Web site of former KKK head David Duke; one article there complained of a “Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul.” Another white-supremacy site, Stormfront.org, has numerous posts supporting Paul’s campaign, for reasons you aren’t likely to hear during a stump speech."*

As we’ve seen, Paul is not leaping to disown these supporters.

Add in the newsletter controversy and it’s tough to see how Ron Paul (assuming he ever breaks out of single digit support and has a shot at top-tier candidate status) will ever convince blacks that he’s their guy.

Once the novelty wears off, the unpleasant truths (or “smears”, as his apologists would say) about the man will make it increasingly difficult for him to get traction beyond his core nutter constituency.

65

First off, your source’s opinion on drug law can start getting taken seriously when s/he learns how to spell “bazaar”. It’s not difficult.

Another huge step would be for your source to understand what legalization actually means. Does s/he buy his/her alcohol from an open and unchecked illicit “bizarre” operating in the community? I didn’t think so.

Thirdly, “blacks have been among those that have shouted the loudest for crackdowns on crime and drugs” is so vague as to mean nothing at all, and your source knows it.

I agree with the rest, except that it wouldn’t be good enough for Ron Paul to say all that stuff about supporting civil rights, because the campaign trail isn’t American History X and racists don’t change.

I think we can all agree that the use of the word “smear” implies that the attack is intellectually dishonest or at least false and/or irrelevant, as suggested above. I’d be willing to give you a couple of yards on “intellectually dishonest”, but Ron Paul’s words (and yes, they are his words–he put his name on them and didn’t retract them until it was politically convenient) speak for themselves.

66

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
First off, your source’s opinion on drug law can start getting taken seriously when s/he learns how to spell “bazaar”. It’s not difficult.
[/quote]
Well jeez, maybe we can take you seriously when you bother to identify the source (Earl Ofari Hutchinson) who is clearly indicated in the link. :dubious:

I missed the spelling of “bizarre”, possibly because I was distracted by Hutchinson’s use of the phrase “snub their nose at the political establishment”. I think he meant that Paul supporters want to thumb their nose at the establishment, unless he was making a specific reference to Valerie Bertinelli.

Apart from imperfect grammar, I think he’s made some good points.

67

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
It’s not a smear if it’s a) true, and b) relevant. I would say it’s the contrary of a smear, even – it’s something voters ought to be aware of. I’d be extremely unhappy if the news media had refused to report such a thing out of deference, or because it was considered “old news.” It wasn’t old news to me.
[/quote]
I suppose that’s fair, but it seems to open the gate for “reporting” about Whitewater and other such business that went through the mill some time ago, doesn’t it? You might say that’s different because you’ve heard about it before, but I’m sure there are people who haven’t. Every four years, there’s a whole new slew of voters.

The same way people thought the Swiftboat Vets were smearing John Kerry even though they thought his position in the matter was defensible.

68

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
I think we can all agree that the use of the word “smear” implies that the attack is intellectually dishonest or at least false and/or irrelevant, as suggested above. I’d be willing to give you a couple of yards on “intellectually dishonest”, but Ron Paul’s words (and yes, they are his words–he put his name on them and didn’t retract them until it was politically convenient) speak for themselves.
[/QUOTE]
I would agree, except for the way that it actually happened. It isn’t the case that Paul was sent copy to which he added his name; rather, there was blank stationary with his name on it and people wrote stuff. As he has acknowledged, it was a stupid thing to do, but in the world of small newsletters, it is not uncommon for a person to license his name or image and take the role of publisher. I think the interview I linked to explains a great deal about that.

69

The blank stationery idea is enticing, but we should be also open to the possibility that the Left Wing, the G.O.P. and Big Pharma have hired a team of Ron Paul impersonators to do his image harm. All these little white-haired guys are running around making embarassing statements, and it’s not the real Ron Paul. It must stop!

One of these impersonators probably keeps reintroducing the We The People Act in Congress:

“If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.”

Ron Paul has told us he wants benevolent state legislatures to rule on questions of abortion, civil rights etc. Surely he can’t then want to make any unjust decisions on the state level completely free from oversight by the federal judiciary? Or can he?

70

I think you might have a backwards understanding of what federalism means. It doesn’t mean a unitary state.

71

Ron Paul! Ron Paul!
ron paul

72

Whoa. I do believe this is the most successful thread I ever done started round this here place!

Too bad every single post is focused on the throwaway link I added at the end. But, is okay because I am enjoying the “debate”.

Oh, wait…I think I get it.

To clear things up: my title is “Those damn liberal Ron Paul fans…”, not “Those damn Liberal Ron Paul fans…”, which aside from being grammatically questionable, it would look as if I were being disparaging towards our fair Libby.

This is something that I would **never, ever ** do.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Please continue.

73

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I think you might have a backwards understanding of what federalism means. It doesn’t mean a unitary state.
[/QUOTE]

Federalism does mean something more than “each state may do what it wants.”

The U.S. Constitution purports to protect rights of all citizens, regardless of what states they might live in. If states governments are not subject to review by the standards of the U.S. Constitution, then the rights set forth therein are essentially non-existent.

It’s fairly transparent that the only reason to prevent federal courts from hearing such cases is to prevent individuals from demanding that their rights under the U.S. Constitution be protected.

74

If it was so important to click on the link, why did you quote several paragraphs of it? What, I need to load some images and look at his name too? What do I care who wrote it? That’s beside the point.

And what of the rest of my rebuttal? If you skipped it, it’s a little ironic that you’re now accusing me of focusing on the writer’s grammar alone.

The fact that Congress has supplied only the blank checks for the Iraq war, with Bush filling in the amounts, does not absolve Congress of moral responsibility for it. This is no different.

75

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
If it was so important to click on the link, why did you quote several paragraphs of it? What, I need to load some images and look at his name too? What do I care who wrote it? That’s beside the point.
[/quote]
It might be nice to find out who wrote it before suggesting that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about re drug laws.

Since I didn’t do that, you’re now raising a straw man. And, as the only thing you seemed to be “rebutting” was Hutchinson’s statements about drug laws (a peripheral part of the column on Paul’s problems with black voters) there’s not a lot to discuss.

76

[QUOTE=acsenray]
Federalism does mean something more than “each state may do what it wants.”
[/QUOTE]
No one said otherwise, least of all Ron Paul. He has stressed repeatedly that jurisdiction of the central government is spelled out in quite some detail. In the US Constitution.

77

[QUOTE=Liberal]
No one said otherwise, least of all Ron Paul. He has stressed repeatedly that jurisdiction of the central government is spelled out in quite some detail. In the US Constitution.
[/QUOTE]

And is it then his position that the federal courts do not have or should not have jurisdiction in cases involving rights purportedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? If so, then what he really wants is the elimination of such rights that he thinks that state courts would be less likely to enforce.

78

[QUOTE=acsenray]
And is it then his position that the federal courts do not have or should not have jurisdiction in cases involving rights purportedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?
[/QUOTE]
Did you even read what you quoted? “He has stressed repeatedly that jurisdiction of the central government is spelled out in quite some detail. In the US Constitution.” Do you need it in French or something?

79

Ron Paul has stated that if he were POTUS he would deconstruct the national security state. No more worldwide garrison. The U.S. military would be reduced to defending the borders of the United States. Our foreign policy would be reduced to: “Sup? Nice goods you have here. Want to trade?” IMO, this is the main reason for his support, especially from liberals.

As for his penchant for eliminating federal agencies I found this fellow rather agreeable to my tastes.

Now, if he believes blacks are criminals or that the dish ran away with the spoon, hey, whatever. He’s not getting elected. But you have to give props. It’s difficult to out anti-war Kucinich on the national stage.

80

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Did you even read what you quoted? … Do you need it in French or something?
[/QUOTE]

:dubious:

This is essentially a content-free statement and it tells me nothing about how things would change were Paul’s ideas of federal jurisdiction implemented. What, according to Paul, does the U.S. Constitution say about jurisdiction that is contrary to current practice?