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

[motis.livejournal.com]

If you say so... but differences in our estimations of what is trivial and what is not aside, you've done nothing to back up your claim that Paul's integrity is a myth.

The triviality or lack thereof of media-created scandals is certainly an interesting tack for you to take. I really have to wonder why Ron Paul inspires so many conversations with mainstream Democrats and Republicans that boil down to this:

PAUL SUPPORTER: Obama, McCain, and Clinton are covered from head to toe in open, weeping, infectious sores, and here are some photographs and doctor's affidavits to prove it.

MAINSTREAMER: Yes, yes, whatever. I heard that Ron Paul might have a pimple on his forehead. I could never vote for someone like that!

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I didn't say it was a myth. I said it was exaggerated.

Oddly, your impression of Paul versus the Mainstream Three is very similar to the impression i've gotten about the Obama campaign compared to Clinton and McCain: magnifying every little blemish because there's nothing big to complain about.

Also, for clarification purposes, i am what is commonly called "liberal" these days, but i am not a Democrat.

[motis.livejournal.com]

I don't find that odd at all, just a little like comparing apples and oranges.

Obama has a very short amount of time in government, so there's much less to pick at. That doesn't make him trustworthy, it just makes him a less-known quantity. Clinton and McCain are also horrendously guilty of everything valid, true, and important they could possibly dig up about Obama, so naturally they have to magnify trivialities and just plain make shit up. It's hard to call a man a corporate whore and gripe about all the lobbyist dollars in his pockets when your own Pimp Daddy, Inc. has got you working the same street.

I'm glad you identify as a Liberal but not a Democrat. I see huge differences between politicians who identify as Liberal/Conservative and voters who do so... to me, allegedly Conservative politicians are nearly all traitorous fucking Neocon pigs, and the voters who support them are either traitorous fucking pigs as well, or so intensely stupid they should be rounded up and used for slave labor or a food source. I also see Liberal politicians as traitorous fucking pigs who willingly collaborate with the Neocons, but I think Liberal voters are basically decent people, and I respect them for it even when I think their opinions are stupid. The Liberal voters who still have any loyalty to the Democrats I see as the more gullible members of the Liberal herd... they're basically decent people who are caught up in a huge scam, the way I see it.

The big difference in my world is that I'll actually talk to a Liberal and try to be a good influence on them, politically speaking. When I encounter anyone who supports Bush and/or McCain, they get nothing but hostility until they have the good sense to fuck right off.

Integrity and the lack there of

[venividi.livejournal.com]

Ron Paul has a certain sort of superficial integrity that doesn't stand up to heavy scrutiny of his voting record.

Earmarks are, in fact, the easiest place to find the flaw in his character. If you examine his voting record, he frequently votes against enabling legislation for earmarks that, if you examine his congressional web site, he brags about having obtained for his district.

In addition, he has a tendency to abstain from voting against things he claims are 'unconstitutional', when votes on those bills will go against his earmark interest. This is harder to see, but can also be found in his voting record.

There is also, of course, the case of "The Ron Paul Report", a document he published for years with no indication of authorship other than his own, which contained very racist remarks -- right up until it stopped suiting his purposes to appear to be a racist.

And there's his interference in the Pentagon's attempts to close obsolete facilities in his district, something else he brags about.

If he had, perhaps even once, managed to pass legislation supporting his claimed libertarian stance, he might, possibly, be forgiven for being just another congress critter when it came to grabbing the goodies for his own district, but he is just as big a part of the problem as any of the others.

Beyond his integrity, there's the issue of his competence. He rarely gets his bills out of subcommittee into committee, let alone onto the floor, and his presidential campaign to date has been the clearest demonstration of how to raise a lot of money without accomplishing anything with it, ever.

And that's all before you get to his, to be charitable, unusual, reading of the constitution and naive economic philosophy.

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.