hopefully barack won't be so damn gloomy

[rone]

If this doesn't make sense, i suggest reading Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman".  Please note that i found this and did not actually make it.

Comments

Re: Integrity and the lack there of

[motis.livejournal.com]

The stuff about earmarks is very highly debatable, and Paul has defended himself to the satisfaction of quite a lot of people on the subject. I happen to be one of them. Even if I wasn't, I'd still point out that at worst it's no more than a pimple on Paul's face compared to the open lesions that cover the other candidates' entire bodies.

I have no idea what you mean about his reading of the Constitution being 'unusual'. I do know that you don't even capitalize 'Constitution', so I kind of doubt that you're any sort of expert on interpreting the document itself.

I have no idea what sort of education in economics you might have. I myself have none to speak of, and can't critique Paul's economic philosophy with any authority. I do know, however, that Paul is generally noted for his grasp of economics, that he was personal friends with Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard (who were both very well-respected in the field), and that his interest in economics is what led Paul into politics to begin with. You can wave your hand and be dismissive about his economic philosophy all you like, but that isn't an argument... and if you had a real argument to make, it would probably have to end with one or both of us shrugging and saying "I have no idea."

I've already mentioned the Ron Paul Newsletter and the racist remarks that appeared there. At the time, Paul was not serving in Congress, he had turned his back on politics and was busy delivering babies. I think it's reasonable to assume that he didn't have much interest in monitoring his newsletter at the time... and if the NAACP says he's not a racist, then I'm inclined to believe it. You're not, because you've already made your mind up and don't need to be bothered with anything as inconvenient as a compelling testimony from someone whose job it is to detect racism in high places.

The only thing you've written here that might have any objective validity at all is the bit about Paul's competence. I won't even bother to open that kettle of fish, it's a debate that could go on virtually forever. All I will say is that in a perfect world, I'd choose an honest and competent leader... but if I can't have that, I'd still vastly prefer honest but blundering over dishonest and competent.

Re: Integrity and the lack there of

[paracelsvs.livejournal.com]

I've already mentioned the Ron Paul Newsletter and the racist remarks that appeared there. At the time, Paul was not serving in Congress, he had turned his back on politics and was busy delivering babies. I think it's reasonable to assume that he didn't have much interest in monitoring his newsletter at the time... and if the NAACP says he's not a racist, then I'm inclined to believe it.

I think the real issue many people have with this is not whether or not Ron Paul is a racist himself. The issue is more subtle: He's traditionally had the support of various racist organizations, like Stormfront. Therefore, whether or not he actually shared their opinion or not, it would be beneficial to him to appear to be racist, and thus he might have tacitly approved of the publication of those texts.

That would be pretty unprincipled and telling of self-serving, and when you're dealing with a libertarian, selfishness isn't exactly uncommon, so therefore it is unsettling.

The fact that he just brushed this off without really addressing it, or giving any explanation for how those texts got published in the first place - all we have is second-guessing like "he was too busy to keep up with his own paper" - the whole thing just smells very fishy.

Basically, it may be nothing, but he certainly hasn't done a good job of demonstrating this, and that in itself makes it worse.

Re: Integrity and the lack there of

[(Anonymous)]

The quid-pro-quo game that earmarks are part of is precisely the second largest problem, after lobby money influence, in today's congress. To dismiss it as lightly as a 'pimple' when in Paul's case it's a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do", is the mark of one who has made an emotional rather than rational judgment of the man.

Nor do you help your case by reducing your argument to a spelling lame about my failure to capitalize "Constitution" to your satisfaction.

That you accept Sennholz as very well respected in the field does, indeed, demonstrate that you are correct to assert that you have no economic education to speak of; although not as much so as your implication that Paul being "friends" with an economist somehow qualifies him in economics.

There is ample literature detailing the naivety of the Austrian school and their belief in a commodity based monetary system. Rather than restate the case here, I'll simply recommend that you look at the economics of the Gilded Age, which clearly demonstrate that most of the beliefs of that school about the effectiveness of commodity based monetary systems are clearly at odds with history.

You mistake my point about the Ron Paul report. The issue we were discussing is Paul's claimed integrity. When the the racist material stopped serving his purpose and first became a burden, he excused it with the claim that he had no control over everything that was written in the report, even though the racist remarks were made in columns he supposedly authored, and which were signed by himself. It is hardly an act of integrity to claim you are unaware of words written above your name, nor is it an act of integrity to allow statements you do not believe to be published in your name.

The Ron Paul Report was, simply, a cynical attempt to play to an audience, which is hardly the act of a man of integrity.

Ron Paul is neither particularly honest, as a politician, nor particularly competent, and his actions undermine his claimed beliefs.