Nice try Jim…

Your bag of tricks isn’t very big, is it?

Sane.

Jim Treacher on January 15, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Yeah, it’s really worked well over the last 5 years hasn’t it?

Nice try Jim…

And being a fiat money loving bloke gets you what moniker?

Sane.

When your candidate’s chief source of support consists of people who believe the Mossad and/or Shabak is responsible for the destruction of the WTC, white “nationalist” and white supremacist bigots, paranoid gold bugs, and Neolithic racists, then you’ve earned the moniker.

Gerard on January 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM

And being a fiat money loving bloke gets you what moniker?

Answer: “Duped”

When your candidate’s chief source of support consists of people who believe the Mossad and/or Shabak is responsible for the destruction of the WTC, white “nationalist” and white supremacist bigots, paranoid gold bugs, and Neolithic racists, then you’ve earned the moniker.

agree that this is a stupid idea, but every one of you who uses the term “Paulnuts” is a stone cold asshole.
Good point, Rontard.

If you’ll do it, I will too, cockface.

You really have no self-awareness whatsoever, do you?

You cyber-rapscallions have turned the once genteel pastime of web surfing into something truly ugly with your viscious name calling.

You don’t have anything else bookmarked?

The New Republic magazine has just posted on its home page a second attack on Ron Paul, tremulously titled More Scandalous Selections From Ron Paul’s Newsletters.

Of course, all this is hysterical, hypocritical Political Correctness, as Steve Sailer has demonstrated. We’re posting some more thoughts by John Derbyshire later tonight.

But a quick observation – look at this:

A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.

The May 1991 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites American Renaissance and offers readers subscription information for it.

(Links in original).

American Renaissance is, of course, not “white supremacist” but White Nationalist, i.e dedicated to the interests of American whites, a position at least as legitimate as TNR’s Zionism. I’ve never seen AmRen write about eugenics other than to discuss the genetic basis of intelligence, which is at least a respectable scientific hypothesis, if not a fact. These distictions are lost on TNR.

The first reference appears to be a passage to Taylor’s 1992 book Paved With Good Intentions noting that black-on-white killings in the Bronx received virtually no publicity compared to white-on-black killings in Bensonhurst and Howard Beach. (Footnotes in book).

The second reference is to a spectacularly pessimistic quotation about race relations from Abraham Lincoln in 1862, when he was urging the settlement of freed slaves in Central America. AmRen dug it up and merely gets what is now called a “hat-tip”.

The Paul letter adds: “Should we follow Lincoln here, any more than his pro-paper money. pro-income tax views? Of course not.”

Somehow, TNR failed to note this disavowal.

The common thread here is that truth is not a defense to TNR types. They don’t think, they emote. Jared Taylor is evil, even if what he is saying is entirely factual. And the TNR types want to emote – hence the repression of the Paul letter’s disavowal of Lincoln.

There are profound psychological forces at work here. And they are poisoning America’s national debate.

The petty bourgeois adds: so too is HotAir posioning the debate.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/01/15/thinking-about-tnr-s-second-paulpurge-piece/

Yaaawwwwwnnnn…

Goldwater wanted to NUKE the North Vietnamese
Paul quotes Ghandi

I’m not a supporter of Paul, or of Ghandi for that matter. I just noticed, though, the juxtaposition of Gandhi being a successful revolutionary in India and the United States losing out to a revolutionary named Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.

Maybe a few of the things Gandhi said are worth understanding, especially as we occupy a country where the Brits were less than successful.

Goldwater wanted to NUKE the North Vietnamese

Goldwater was probably just saber-rattling regarding nukes, but he was also calling Johnson out for taking an “incremental” approach to the war. The US ended up doing the heavy bombing that Goldwater talked about in 1964, we just stretched it out for another decade. Maybe Vietnam is an argument for “declaring war” rather than letting Presidents gradually wade into a conflict that the country hasn’t committed to.

Clearly, Goldwater was much much more in favor of military strength than Paul, but he was probably closer to Paul than to the other 2008 GOP contenders on the size and scope of the federal government.

The only way Paul could have less traction in the GOP is if he divorced Carol and married Cynthia McKinney.

It looks like he’s received more votes so far than some others in the campaign–Rudy for one. He won’t get the nomination but if the Reagan coalition is coming apart, it might be a good idea for one of the electable candidates to appeal to the laizzes faire Republicans.

Paul quotes Ghandi

And in your post you made it sound like Barry Goldwater would support Ron Paul simply because his son does.

Didn’t mean to imply that. I was responding to the notion that Ron Paul is the opposite of Goldwater. The son cannot speak for his dead father, but it would seem an interesting datapoint when considering whether there are some similarities between Paul’s belief in a small federal government and Goldwater Sr. Obviously, Paul wouldn’t have been the Cold Warrior that Goldwater was.

The only way Paul could have less traction in the GOP is if he divorced Carol and married Cynthia McKinney.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but Senile McLooneyberg isn’t doing too hot in those reality-based, spam-proof things we call “primaries.”

dedalus on January 15, 2008 at 6:50 PM

My point is that Barry Goldwater Jr., as great of a man he may be, is not Barry Goldwater.

And in your post you made it sound like Barry Goldwater would support Ron Paul simply because his son does. Goldwater is an interesting indivdual, honestly I have no idea what he’d do in that situation.

On one hand Goldwater had a strong foreign policy, and did not mingle with Ron Paul’s branch of the party. On the other hand he was getting sick of government encroachments when he died.

Any idea what he thought of Pat Buchanan?

crackpots.

Which is almost like Goldwater doing it himself!

No, but Barry Goldwater Jr. was a U.S. congressman and is a director of the Goldwater Institute, which is focused on small government. Presumably he has some desire to promote his father’s legacy. Here’s a quote from their mission statement:

The Goldwater Institute works on behalf of Arizonans to keep watch on government and to expand school choice, restore economic liberty, protect private property, and affirm Arizona’s independence against unconstitutional federal encroachments.

Ron Paul might have less traction in the GOP if Bush had governed more as a fiscal conservative.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Birchers were well-represented among the small chunk of the voting population that supports his presidential campaign.

Someone should tell Dr. No that Troofers, potheads, and invalids don’t constitute a majority of the electorate.

Fine. You show me where Bush’s foreign and domestic policy are in general, conservative. First of all, being a conservative implies a fair amount of education so that one might understand what it is one deigns to conserve. Bush is an illiterate. So there goes that one. A man who can’t speak a coherent sentence is usually a man who doesn’t think coherently.

He hasn’t a conservative bone in his body. He couldn’t care less for America’s interests.

If I sound like a lefty, so be it. I call it as I see it.

Drum on January 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM

So out of curiosity … do you think you’re gaining Ron Paul votes?

As for Bush’s edumakasion … where are your MBA and BA from, out of curiosity?

Yeah. That’s what I thought.

And as for the rest of your brilliance … you might want to actually read the site that they unwisely chose to let you join. You just echoed points that Michelle, Bryan, AP, and most of the commenters here have made for years. We all recognize the President’s less-than-conservative choices.

That doesn’t, however, mean we think electing a clearly mentally unstable garden gnome is a wise alternative.

That doesn’t fit your programming though, does it, my Kult of Kool-Aid Kompadre?

Paul is obviously not a great candidate, separated from his positions (though I think you’re wrong to label him a racist) — but look at the rest of the field. Three war-mongering liberals, a socialist theocrat, and E.T. dead in a ditch. Not the one of them anything resembling an advocate of minimal government. The Libertarian Party is too dysfunctional to do any good, and the system is almost irrevocably biased against third party candidates. Everyone running as a Democrat is a socialist. Paul is the only candidate consistently supporting a move towards minarchism in government. If in 2012 there is a similarly libertarian-minded candidate who is younger and less battle-worn than Paul, I’ll support that candidate in an instant. It is most definitely not about Ron Paul. And he’s the first one to admit it. He is, forgive my callousness, expendable. The ideas of limited government and maximal protection of human rights are the main attraction. Whether or not the energy will continue after he’s gone (from the race or otherwise) is uncertain, but I know that I, for one, am done voting for “electable” war-mongering big-government “conservatives.”

Mark Jaquith on January 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Was that parody?

Seriously. I honestly can’t tell. I think it was parody. Pretty funny parody, too. But at this point, the reality and the satire are so close – I have trouble telling which is which.

But they have a blimp. Doesn’t that count for something? Anything?

wccawa on January 15, 2008 at 3:49 PM

It counts for everything, my friend. Everything. When a man has a prizefighter in his corner, a “Dr.” in front of his name (repeated endlessly), and a by-God-BLIMP … all things are possible.

petit bourgeois on January 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM

You have zero clue what you are talking about don’t you?

Ron Paul comes from the libertarian wing. Which is derived somewhat from the Old Right. This wing engaged in quite a it of revisionist history and are proud of it.

And it seems you are engaging in a bit of revisionist history yourself. Ronald Reagan was DENOUNCED by the JBS for not being conservative enough.

Our public schools these days I swear. Best argument against a growing state.

the hilarious thing is Paul was a critic of Reagan, which is why he broke off from the party and into the Libertarian Party he ran on in 1988. Funny how Reagan endorsed Bush Sr. and not Paul..

Ronald Reagan was more than just a “birtcheresque crank.” Ronald Reagan was a card-carrying member of JBS, Beverly Hills branch. Historical revisionism usually comes from the left, exactly the same place on the political spectrum where allahpundit and his minions of paradigmatic fascists on this site come from.

I reiterate: You people are NOT conservatives, and you support east coast liberals. Always have, and always will.

Don’t you mean Non-Reagan?