December 20, 2011

New News!

A reader writes:
Today's New York Times has a prominent article essentially transcribing an attack on Ron Paul by James Kirchick (Marty Peretz's boy toy) that just appeared in the Weekly Standard (which was itself a rewrite of an old piece from the New Republic). Funny how publications of the left (the Times), the center (TNR) and the right (the Standard) all find common ground when someone like Paul emerges ...

Here's the News Story that was splashed heavily at the top of NYTimes.com last night: 
New Focus on Incendiary Words in Paul’s Newsletters 
By JIM RUTENBERG and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. 
Emerging as a real Republican contender in Iowa, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is receiving new focus for decades-old unbylined columns in his political newsletters that included racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel passages that he has since disavowed. 
The latest issue of The Weekly Standard, a leading conservative publication, reprised reports of incendiary language in Mr. Paul’s newsletters that were published about 20 years ago. 
A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots

which largely stopped on May 1, 1992
read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” 

Disrespect toward looters and race rioters  is beyond the pale!
A passage in another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”; 

When everybody knows (or at least has been told, over and over) that AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual sex as easily as by homosexual practices. What, do you think the HIV virus discriminates? To say that would be insensitive toward the HIV virus, libeling it by making it sound like Ron Paul.
in 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

In contrast to December 1st, International AIDS Day, which the press celebrates annually as Hate Ronnie Day because Ronald Reagan caused the AIDS epidemic. (If you have doubts that it was Reagan's fault, then who are you going to blame? Gays? I don't think so.)

Here's the good part of New York Times article:
The magazine article largely matched a similar report in The New Republic in 2008, and it was written by the same author, James Kirchick.

Hey, I've got some four year old articles I'd like to recycle, too! Can I republish them in the Weekly Standard and then get them hyped in the NYT?
The passages were plucked from a variety of newsletters that Mr. Paul’s consulting business published during his years out of Congress, all of them featuring his name: Ron Paul Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Survival Report and Ron Paul Investment Letter. 
Mr. Paul did not respond to an interview request, but repudiated the writings in 2008. Likening himself to a major news publisher, he said he did not vet every article that was featured in his newsletters. “I absolutely, honestly do not know who wrote those things,” Mr. Paul said in an interview on CNN at the time, adding that he did not monitor the publications closely because he was busy with a medical practice and “speeches around the country.”

149 comments:

jody said...

ron paul would actually shrink the federal government significantly and quickly. that scares the shit out of all other politicians. they can all find common ground on stopping this guy.

according to what i read today, the GOP is on high alert for the chance that paul might win in iowa. if he does, they go into full attack mode.

so let's see. the GOP both wants to directly attack ron paul, while at the same time, making sure to go far out of their way to never attack or say a bad thing about barack obama.

20 years ago i would have said, what planet is this. but now that kind of thing is just normal.

jody said...

i hardly think i need to note the contrast here between the way the media treated an actual racist, barack "20 years of kill whitey sermons in my church" obama. and now his sidekick, eric "these laws weren't meant to protect equally and you're the racists, not me" holder.

Anonymous said...

I subscribed to that newsletter. I think Lew Rockwell wrote most of the articles.

RKU said...

Hmmm... The New York Times. The Weekly Standard. The New Republic. What in the *world* could such totally dissimilar publications possibly have in common?...

Anonymous said...

great article about what was done to buchanan when he won NH:
http://buchanan.org/blog/gop-will-take-off-the-gloves-if-ron-paul-wins-iowa-4965

lots of slanderous articles/news casts then 'oops, sorry' retractions after the damage was done. I suspect a similar thing will happen to paul this time around.

Anonymous said...

Joe Klein's description of Kirchick: "Dishonest [expletive]" and "[expletiving] propagandist."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/11/the_gloves_come_off_joe_kleins.html

Noah172 said...

Funny how publications of the left (the Times), the center (TNR) and the right (the Standard) all find common ground when someone like Paul emerges ...

So often contemporary American politics feel like different groups of Jews arguing with each other. Except when some uppity goyische kopf like Paul has the temerity to participate and even -- oy gevalt! -- advocate a gentile agenda, and the Jews then close ranks.

Anonymous said...

So often contemporary American politics feel like different groups of Jews arguing with each other.
Isn't it amazing? "next up Wolf Blitzer, discusses the iran problem -Thomas Friedman feels we should bomb it now and Will Kristol feels we should bomb Syria first. Stay tuned for this fascinating debate.

DCThrowback said...

"Funny how publications of the left (the Times), the center (TNR) and the right (the Standard) all find common ground when someone like Paul emerges..."

All of those institutions are tools of the elite. The one thing they have in common is their desire to have someone of that class rule them.

The Paul hatred by establishment conservatives is palpable. They HATE him (search the twitter feeds of Philip Klein or Jonah Goldberg or Allahpundit or Ben Shapiro on Paul). For most of them, it's the fact he wants to treat Israel the same as every other country I'd imagine.

Here's an example or three:

Josh Trevino, GOP establishment hack: http://bit.ly/rPib1A

Philip Klein, Washington Examiner Sr. Writer: http://twitter.com/philipaklein/status/148829299393306624

Jonah Goldberg: http://twitter.com/#!/JonahNRO/status/149245345216475136

Ben Shapiro (the most odious): http://twitter.com/#!/benshapiro/status/147520767310053377 and
http://twitter.com/#!/benshapiro/status/147526219594870784

Pathetic. I used to think like these people. Steve was part of the eye-opening process - and for his role in that, I am extremely thankful.

Anonymous said...

This the same NY Times that had no problem with Obama's connections to Wright, Ayers, Acorn, Wall Street banksters, etc?

agnostic said...

If he has "since disavowed" those statements from the pre-PC era, then he doesn't deserve much respect.

To earn respect, he should have told them to lighten up and get a life, or at least call them to their face "the thought police."

I know you guys feel sorry for him and others being hounded like this, but you also have to call him out for being a wuss. Otherwise they'll only seek changes already acceptable to the rotten establishment. See Newt Gingrich.

ELVISNIXON.com said...

Iowa will NOT count ( If Ron Paul wins)

Just as Pat Buchanan's New Hampshire victory "did not count" after upsetting Bush

Svigor said...

Want a visual on journalism today? Put The Running Man in and fast forward to the part where they put Amber Mendez on the show. We get a few seconds of a pale, balding, gaunt, nicotine-stained verbal hitman. The shriveled soul behind the impressive voice.

Anonymous said...

Why is something bad because it's anti-Israel?
Aren't there plenty of politicians who are anti-Saudi, anti-Turk, anti-India, anti-China, anti-Russia, anti-French, etc?

The only thing an American politician should not be is anti-American.

Whiskey said...

Ron Paul is going nowhere fast for three reasons:

1. He's for Open Borders, repeatedly, which the Republican Base hates. Or HATES HATES HATES.

2. He is in favor of abortion on demand, which the base also hates.

3. He is dovish and isolationist, which the base also detests with a passion. Indeed military spending, military prowess, and America First (and the Best) might as well be the mantra of the base, and Paul's is basically, "America sucks."

That works among the left, which really likes him on that basis, but not among Republicans.

RKU -- you ask what they have in common? SWPL-ism, which Paul as a Libertarian shares SOME of their core values: Open Borders, Abortion, Hate America/America Sucks!, but not others: multiculturalism, PC, etc.

Ron Paul even more than Newt Gingrich is Obama's dream opponent. He'd win all 50 states and get a landslide coat-tail, because almost no White women at all would vote for him (even less than jowly Newt). If the SWPL were smart they'd push him hard (strange new respect) only to give him the McCain (dangerous racist nutjob) in the general. But they just can't restrain themselves on the PC front.

Functionally Paul's Open Borders amounts to PC/Multiculturalism, since it assures a White minority quite rapidly. But SWPL is a religious movement with Temperance/Calvinist overtones, not a political one.

Whiskey said...

I mean, if you REALLY wanted to make America a rapidly White minority nation, Paul's your man. Even more than Obama. Paul has said repeatedly he wants Open Borders, come one come all. Functionally a Paul Presidency would probably make Whites a minority within ten years at the most.

And that's why he's going nowhere fast, even with the semi-endorsement of the various SWPL organs (by opposing him of course they're throwing him in the briar patch functionally though they don't think that way). Yes pack journalism, the staple of hacks. But Republican primary voters want to know "Who's side are you on?" and want identity politics: Jacksonian, American Nationalist, Populist, call it what you will. Romney is not and never will be that guy, hence the bubbles for Trump, Cain, Gingrich, etc.

Paul is not that guy either, he's the anti-populist. Nothing says elitism than "America sucks, Iran rocks" which could have come from Obama or his administration (Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Valerie Jarrett, etc.)

Truth said...

"20 years of kill whitey sermons in my church" obama."

And I've take it you've heard these sermons? I haven't.

News is What We Say Is News said...

Paul has the temerity to participate and even -- oy gevalt! -- advocate a gentile agenda, and the Jews then close ranks.

Paul seems to advocate a pro-America agenda based largely on traditional conservative values of fiscal responsibility, small government and avoiding unnecessary and costly foreign adventures. Paul seems pretty theoretical about it - especially from his financial writings.

I don't see any part of his agenda that is especially pro-"gentile" or anti-anything else. Do you have a few examples to share?

Anonymous said...

In other news, tonight there's going to be coverage on what we should do about the "crisis" in Northern Island. They're going to be having Seamus O'Reilly, Liam McDougal, and Paddy O'Shaughnessy on tv. Should be an interesting "debate."

Whiskey said...

Ron Paul fans will be glad to know Paul has opposed ... OSama bin Laden's killing, that of Awlaki, and calls Bradley Manning a "patriot" and "hero."

Yeah, that will go over big in South Carolina. Sure. Because Republicans are champing at the bit to nominate a guy who opposed the killing of two main AQ leaders, and figures a traitor who leaked America's secrets is a "hero."

anony-mouse said...

I have bad news for anyone here who wants to blame anyone except Paul (or Rockwell) for what was in the Paul newsletters and their current dissemination:

It ain't gonna work.

Imagine if Rev. Wright had not only said what he said, but that he explicitly had Obama's imprimatur on every one of his speeches/sermons.

(Of course Obama would never have been stupid enough to have done that)

But I hope all the Paul supporters out there really go out and defend him very publicly exactly as you're doing here.

Should be fun.

(BTW if they were really written by Rockwell, why isn't he owning up? It wouldn't help Paul that much if he said so, but it would help Paul a bit)

Anonymous said...

You don't have to be a jew to think Ron Paul advances a heap of dumb ideas and has weak qualifications for the presidency.

Also he seems like a weak fit for the type of white identity socialism that I think was one of your better ideas for remaking an opposition to the Democrat party.

What a fall from advocating for Pawlenty, an actual governor and all that.

Hopefully Anonymous
http://hopefullyanonymous.blogspot.com

ben tillman said...

lots of slanderous articles/news casts then 'oops, sorry' retractions after the damage was done. I suspect a similar thing will happen to paul this time around.

At least Buchanan didn't get the Wallace treatment.

It's a hell of an advantage to own the communications media.

Gene Berman said...

Noah 172:

Just for the record, it should be noted that Dr. Paul's intellectual
inspiration is also a Jew, Ludwig von Mises (d. 1973).

Dr. Paul has voted "NO" on more measures than any other person in either House (or in the entire congressional history). It almost goes without saying that, had more of his fellow congressmen voted with him and against the many and varied items of legislation he opposed, this country wouldn't be in the dire straits now becoming so very obvious.

Jim Bowery said...

The strongest case against Ron Paul's integrity on this issue is made by an anonymous author at a site called Conservatives Network, in this passage:

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report


Ron Paul explained this in an interview with Texas Monthly where he said:

“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”

If true, the worst that can be said is that Ron Paul "flip-flopped" on whether to disavow the writings or not because his political advisers gave him bad advice him and he followed it. Certainly, this contradicts the Ron Paul myth but it is hardly the sort of thing that compares with the outright abomination of electing a new people of which the other candidates are guilty.

Now, having said that, Ron Paul's stated ideals provide no consequentialist safeguards against electing a new people -- and they do provide a clear path toward that consequence:

1) Eliminate minimum wage.
2) Allow unlimited legal immigration of non-criminal guest workers.

The only thing that might mitigate this is if Ron Paul were to come out in favor of States having control over immigration from other States. THAT is Ron Paul's real problem.

ELVISNIXON.com said...

Whiskey- Ron Paul is NOT "in favor of abortion on demand"

Dr Paul seek sto DE und Planned Parenthood- something that neither Ronald Reagan,Kim Jong Bush I and II nor NAFTA Newt have done nor tried to do.

jj said...

Kirchick is a fellow at FDD:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/fdd-welcomes-lee-smith-and-james-kirchick-as-fellows1/

His "areas of impact":

Arab Spring, Europe, Iran - Human Rights, Israel

Joseph Moroco said...

"He is dovish and isolationist"

Actually, that's anti-interventionist. Funny, a lot of us veterans feel that way. As opposed to chicken hawks. Of course, you'd not be one of those.

Joseph Moroco said...

"He is dovish and isolationist"

Actually, that's anti-interventionist. Funny, a lot of us veterans feel that way. As opposed to chicken hawks. Of course, you'd not be one of those.

Anonymous said...

Ben Shapiro (the most odious):

This one's pretty bad too:

http://twitter.com/#!/benshapiro/status/147528329388503041

Ron Paul clearly triggers something in the subconscious. There aren't any rational arguments or justifications made - there are just these kinds of visceral, primal reactions.

It's weird, because to me Paul seems so innocuous and normal and fundamentally good-hearted.

RKU said...

Whiskey: RKU -- you ask what they have in common? SWPL-ism, which Paul as a Libertarian shares SOME of their core values: Open Borders, Abortion, Hate America/America Sucks!, but not others: multiculturalism, PC, etc.

Ha, ha! NOW I finally understand why the NYT, TNR, and Weekly Standard all hate Paul so enormously much. Just as "Whiskey" says, it's just because Paul mostly shares their core SWPL values!

"Whiskey" further explains that the NYT endlessly attacks Paul because it knows that Paul would be Obama's dream opponent, and stopping Obama's reelection is the number one NYT goal. He's also an "Open Borders" nut, and everyone knows the NYT hates,hates,hates immigrants.

I'm afraid "Whiskey" has finally slipped up, and revealed that all along he's just been a determined satirist, tirelessly working along Monty Python lines to create an absurd persona and trick all of us into accepting it. Somewhere some pudgy computer nerd is roaring with laughter at how long he's kept his gag going...

SethK said...

Steve, I'm not one for censoring things, but I am one for maintaining the integrity of a discussion. You've got a few trolls on here who are out and out lying regarding Paul's positions on borders, abortion, etc. They are themselves doing what the establishment elite is doing and I see no reason why you should tolerate them doing it on your dime.

JSM said...

Am I the only one who's getting the weird feeling that Whiskey's logorrhea about Paul's ostensibly dismal chances is in service of trying to convince himself?

Matt said...

"Representative Ron Paul of Texas is receiving new focus for decades-old unbylined columns in his political newsletters"

I love the passive voice. You can have so much fun with it. For instance: "Questions are being raised about the shady use of the passive voice in newspaper articles"

I remember when serious journalists avoided it like the plague. Of course I'm kidding; that was way before my time.

Cicatrizatic said...

Ron Paul for open borders and abortion? Where do you get this from?

Anonymous said...

"Iowa will NOT count ( If Ron Paul wins)"

The damn thing shouldn't count anyway. The system is antiquated.

Cicatrizatic said...

He voted to build a border fence between Mexico/US and proposed amending the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship for aliens

Ed said...

The New York Times can't really be described as being on the "left" unless you use the circular definition that "left" means whatever it is the New York Times is for.

ben tillman said...

I have bad news for anyone here who wants to blame anyone except Paul (or Rockwell) for what was in the Paul newsletters and their current dissemination: ....

No, we are quite correct to ascribe moral blame to the disseminators of these newsletter excerpts. They are deliberately attempting to plant a false impression in the public mind: the impression that Paul is a worse person than his opponents.

They do this by magnifying a trivial matter that Paul may or may not have known about while suppressing the relevant facts regarding the other candidates. Those facts, of course, include the fact that all of them have facilitated or at least endorsed the wholesale murder of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in Iraq.

In other words, they're guilty of telling a big, fat lie.

And they're doing it for an utterly malevolent purpose: to usurp the right of 300 million Americans to govern themselves.

Mr. Anon said...

I'm not aware of Ron Paul being for open borders. Certainly he is no more so than any of the establishment Republican candidates. The argument that, if we vote for Paul we'll get a flood of immigrants and an amnesty, is plainly foolish. What? Compared to now? Compared to what George W Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich would do?

It is pretty obvious that the establishment media, particlarly those which are owned and controlled by jews, is dead-set against Paul because he has not sworn fealty to Israel, as have, in effect, all the other Republican candidates.

Whiskey can spread his deceitful, tendentious propaganda, and screech "HATE, HATE, HATE" all he wants; it does not make his lies true.

Ed said...

The Republican race this year is starting to remind me alot of the Democratic race in 2004.

You have an incumbent president that really should be vulnerable and which most of the "base" in the non-presidential party despises on an almost personal level. The elite of the non-presidential party sort of back a wealthy establishment type from Massachusetts that the rank and file of their own party is definitely not enthusiastic about, plus has a record of agreeing with the incumbent president on exactly the issues (Iraq, his healthcare program) where he should be vulnerable.

Various other candidates for the nomination are mooted but none really gain traction. And the one guy that really does get people in the non-presidential party excited is completely verboten as far as the elite is concerned and gets all sorts of negative press once he appears to get traction.

You all know the result.

SethK said...

Regarding: "Ron Paul fans will be glad to know Paul has opposed ... OSama bin Laden's killing, that of Awlaki, and calls Bradley Manning a "patriot" and "hero." Yeah, that will go over big in South Carolina. Sure. Because Republicans are champing at the bit to nominate a guy who opposed the killing of two main AQ leaders, and figures a traitor who leaked America's secrets is a "hero.""

Good observation. So why would Kirchick, the New York Times, and the Weekly Standard, be putting so much effort into discrediting Paul? Why did they do the same four years ago when he was only polling in the low single digits?

Think it through. They aren't afraid of Paul being elected, they are afraid of his changing public opinion regarding American foreign policy, which arguably he already has already accomplished to a considerable degree.

Kirchick has been a virulent Israeli-Firster since his writing first started to receive notice at Yale. His greatest fear is an Israel without the protective shield of America's money. Apparently, like many provincial Jewish American-exceptionalists, he has little faith in the ability of Israel to take care of itself.

SethK said...

Regarding "He voted to build a border fence between Mexico/US and proposed amending the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship for aliens"

Neither is true. Troll alert.

Chief Seattle said...

Ron Paul would slow the Federal gravy train that keeps the defense contractors rich and incompetent. He'd reform the thieving Federal Reserve that props up Wall Street zombie banks. He'd end the Department of Education that lets well-degreed do-gooders run roughshod over the reset of the country. Of course the mouthpieces of the elites are against him, with everything they've got.

Our only hope is that between the alternative media available on the Internet, and the palatable reality that our interests are not being served by our masters, that enough people will tell the propaganda masters at the NYTimes and the Weekly Standard and CNN to take a hike.

One thing is sure - the corrupt media masters aren't going to go quietly.

On immigration, Ron Paul consistently votes against Amnesty and for increased enforcement. He's against birthright citizenship and public services for illegals. Good video here:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

ben tillman said...

Ha, ha! NOW I finally understand why the NYT, TNR, and Weekly Standard all hate Paul so enormously much. Just as "Whiskey" says, it's just because Paul mostly shares their core SWPL values!

LOL!!!

Classic comment, RKU.

Cicatrizatic said...

Both are true:

Amendment: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-46

Border fence: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.06061 – I’m talking about the Secure Fence Act, not his recent comments are fences ‘keeping us in’

Anonymous said...

RKU said:
The New York Times. The Weekly Standard. The New Republic. What in the *world* could such totally dissimilar publications possibly have in common?...

The same that they have in common with The American Conservative?

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is going nowhere fast for three reasons:

1. He's for Open Borders, repeatedly, which the Republican Base hates. Or HATES HATES HATES.

2. He is in favor of abortion on demand, which the base also hates.

3. He is dovish and isolationist, which the base also detests with a passion. Indeed military spending, military prowess, and America First (and the Best) might as well be the mantra of the base, and Paul's is basically, "America sucks."


1) Not exactly. He is not for building a fence, but that is not necessary since we have never had a fence before. He is for eliminating the the magnets that attract these people in the first place. Take away the incentives for people to come here, like free health care, birthright citizenship, the ability to buy property, hold bank accounts, transfer money out of country, etc., and you will cut down on the border crossers. We did not have fences along that border in the past, although it was patrolled by soldiers in forts along the border.

2)He is pure states' rights on abortion, as it should be.

3)As far as being dovish, why does Paul continue to receive more donations from the military than any other candidate? Because they know he is not soft on defense. Having troops in South Korea is not in the interest of defending the USA. Ditto for the overwhelming majority of overseas deployments.

The term isolationism is a bogus and deliberate attempt to smear. Whisky you'd label our Founders as some sort of weird isolationists, when in fact they and Paul are non-interventionists.

If you want to see isolation, go to North Korea.

What I find fascinating is that all the neocons hate Paul and say he and his supporters are nuts. And this might be true. If so, why would they care what Paul does and why would they want any votes from anyone who would support such a fiend?

But suggest that Paul run as a third party guy and they go nuts. To paraphrase Pat Buchanan who once said that American corporations want to ditch the US worker, but keep the US consumer, the neocons (whiskey) want to trash and belittle Ron Paul and his supporters, but want their votes in November.

anony-mouse said...

1/ '...that Paul may or may not have known about'

Unless Paul can reveal the person who wrote those letters its pretty safe to say that the writer or editor of the newsletters that had Ron Paul's name in their titles was Paul or someone with his approval.

Why is he keeping the authorship/editorship of the various Ron Paul letters secret if its not Ron Paul?

Can I assume the writer of the ISteve blog is Steve Sailer, or perhaps its somebody else. No its safe to assume its Sailer, unless someone else comes forward, or Steve identifies someone else.


2/ You don't like the excerpts? Fine. Come out with other excerpts that counter the impression given.

Can't find any?

Or come out with the full articles the excerpts are from.

Or won't that be of any help, because the excerpts are not at all out of context?

3/ Why are anti-Paul writers supposed to carry Paul's water?

Especially since (see above) Paul himself won't help Paul.

4/ Paul seems to have received money from these letters which he now so strongly disavows. Really strongly disavows. I assume he's going to give that money to organisations like the NAACP.

5/ But hey, as I pointed out, commenting on blogs won't help Paul. Go out with your ideas to rallies and talk to actual people about your ideas. Preferably with a microphone present.

Harry said...

Kirchick’s fake outrage at Paul’s alleged “racism” seems odd for someone who faithfully echoed the same bigoted belligerence that led TNR publisher Peretz to compare Palestinians to animals. We never heard a peep from Jamie about that, but then again Peretz was his meal ticket.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/20/we-shall-overcome/

Anonymous said...

You guys are funny. Ron Paul is now radically pro-immigration; but even that is forgiven, as long as he is anti-Israel.

DYork said...

Apparently there are many people who think Ron Paul is not Good For The Jews.

Well, now we know.

Whiskey said...
Ron Paul is going nowhere fast for three reasons:

1. He's for Open Borders, repeatedly, which the Republican Base hates. Or HATES HATES HATES.


He's not in favor of Open Borders, that was George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Ron Paul on immigration and border security.

2. He is in favor of abortion on demand, which the base also hates.

He's not pro-abortion on demand.

Ron Paul on abortion - “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade."
-------------------

3. He is dovish and isolationist, which the base also detests with a passion. Indeed military spending, military prowess, and America First (and the Best) might as well be the mantra of the base, and Paul's is basically, "America sucks."

He thinks the US military industrial complex is "sucking" life out of our economy and that military interventionism is abusive, expensive, immoral and not in US national interest..

Ron Paul on foreign policy.

Be honesty Whiskey, Ron Paul poses a threat to you because he's not an Israeli Firster. That's the core issue. The rest is a dishonest diversion.

Just admit it and move on. Why spread lies? The facts are at everyone's fingertips.

All the News We See Fit to Print said...

One of the most unusual things about Ron Paul is that he first ran as a Congressman in 1976.

In almost 36yrs in politics and the public eye, the worst dirt that his powerful, avowed and rapid haters in the MSM (echoed here by the likes of Whiskey) can come up with are baldfaced 180 degree lies on big issues like open boarders, abortion and becoming a surrender monkey?

How many pols in Washington can make it to DC much less stay more than one election cycle without fatally compromising themselves before a constant virulently hostile MSM inquisition.

If Paul continues to do well, expect Neocon GOP potentates and the leftist MSM to recycle stories of yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and WMDs being hidden in Paul's gaudy palaces and family compounds.

Reg Cæsar said...

transmitted by heterosexual sex

Two negatives might produce a positive, but two redundancies just make a compound redundancy.

Ronald Reagan caused the AIDS epidemic.

What "AIDS epidemic"? Africa has an epidemic, America does not and never had. The gay activists claimed that their promiscuity would have no effect on the surrounding society.

Guess what-- they were right. That's why there is no need for marriage to restrain it.

Anonymous said...

The neocons hate Paul for two reasons. First, he doesn't support the oversized military-industrial complex that far exceeds our actual defense needs. And second, he doesn't support the constant in-your-face interventionism that requires America to put its nose into every conflict in the world.

Let's see why neocons don't want the military budget cut. From the godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, in 1973:

Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States…American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

Let's see why the neocons are fearful of so-called isolationism. Norman Podhoretz had this to say about the issue in 1979:

There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.

So there you have it. Most of the fear and loathing directed against Paul is not because of anything raciss he did or did not write, it is not because he is lax on immigration which is required for the top GOP leaders, it is not because of abortion which the GOP never seems to address, and it is not due to not defending America.

It is because they fear his positions would be bad for Israel. And this is not an indictment on American Jews, most of whom would probably support Paul's positions on foreign policy. There are far more whiskeys out there than Jews who support the neocon position.

ELVISNIXON.com said...

Call him a racist (or by innuendo say as much): Check

Call him 'Crazy' on Economics (Translation: Doesn't believe in Socialistic Keynesianism): Check

'Can't Win', 'May win Iowa but won't get the Nomination', 'Limited Support', 'Electability' (You get the picture): Check

"Libertarian' (NOT Republican- gotta scare away any undecided Republicans!): Check

Totally Debunked 'Racist Newsletters' (Don't mention the 'Totally Debunked' part): Check

'Isolationist Foreign Policy' (never mind he's actually 'Non-Interventionist'): Check

Falsely accuse him of 'Sympathizing' with our adversaries: Check

Falsely call him 'Anti-Israel' (thus implying he's anti-Semitic): Check

Falsely label him a 'Truther' (Merely because he, like most Americans AND the 9/11 Commission doubt the mainstream story, and merely ask questions): Check

Link him to the John Birch Society, Alex Jones and call him a 'Conspiracy Theorist' (John Holdren's favorite Propaganda Tactic-Guilt By Association): Check

And of course, the Big 'Straw Man' Propaganda Enchilada, the 'Third Party Run' meme (again, to scare off GOP Primary voters- he isn't a 'Real' Republican): Check


Keep up the good work! I'm sure you already have that column written where the Ron Paul win in Iowa (and possibly New Hampshire) are ACTUALLY wins for Mitt Romney or NAFTA Newt

TGGP said...

People have already responded, with links, to the immigration & abortion issues (you could also ask Gary Johnson supporters). What I find most hilarious is Whiskey's use of the phrase "America First". Does he have any idea where that comes from, or does he just assume others don't? Otherwise, satire seems the most fitting explanation.

Reg Cæsar said...

So, it's either elect Paul, or shut him out of the halls of power altogether. Anyone else think this choice sucks? Find the man a shadow cabinet post, already!

I'm disturbed by his squshiness on immigration as of late. He's a moderate, not "open borders", but that's bad enough. And these "disavowals"-- why not analyze the truth of the original statements, instead?

I feel like it's Britain in the late '70s: the only real man in the opposition is wearing a skirt.

Anonymous said...

I used to think Whiskey was an old curmudgeon just complaining about his own personal pet peeves, but it is clear that he is just another bomb tossing troll. Paul supports a border fence, and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty. Either Whiskey is deliberately lying or he just assumes Libertarian=Pro Illegal Immigration without bothering to check his facts at all.

One of the funniest exercises you can perform on Google is look for videos or articles about media bias against Paul. MSNBC has a video of Fox News anti-Paul rants by all of their commentators followed by a discussion by Ed Schulz and Jonathan Alter about it, followed by Alter calling Paul a lunatic on monetary policy, no irony there. So whether he is getting blasted the lefty MSM, or the righty Fox News he is going to get maligned by someone.

Ironically the only "mainstream" media guy who has given him a fair shake is Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. He showed a montage of both the MSM and Fox just taking cheap shots at him every chance they could get. The last video was of an CNN anchor telling his on site reporter to don't bother bringing back any video of Ron Paul speaking to which Stewart just looked at the camera and said ironically " I mean, F**K that guy, right ". Pure Comic Gold

jody said...

"He's for Open Borders, repeatedly, which the Republican Base hates."

i'm not sure if this is true. it might be. but if it is, how does it make him different than gingrich or perry? they're both for open borders. they were both at the top of the polls. nor would this make paul functionally different than romney or cain, who both would also keep that border wide open if elected.

the key here is for republicans to LIE about this issue when put on the spot. despite years of evidence to the contrary in every one of these guy's records, if they think their poll numbers are gonna go down by saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, it's suddenly "Oh yeah I totally mispoke before, what I meant to say is that I would secure the border and deport illegal aliens."

then when the attention over that goes away in a few weeks, it's right back to keeping that border wide open. so basically all ron paul has to do to be EXACTLY like the other frontrunning candidates, is lie a few times on this topic. "Oh, whew, I thought Ron Paul was for open borders but one time at one press conference he said he would secure the border, I guess he's ok on this stuff."

john mccain wanted that border so wide open that he openly mocked americans at a RECORDED event and told them to their FACES that mexicans would outwork them for 50 dollars an hour. and john mccain became the 2008 republican candidate for president. so shut the F up, whiskey, you moron.

jody said...

is whiskey seriously going to forget that john mccain was the keynote speaker at the la raza convention one year?

morleysafer said...

East Coasters are still squeamish about 1992's Occupy Koreatown festival. But the newsletter tidbit retrieved by this young Woodward, it sounds more or less descriptive of what happened. It's akin to publishing a shocking expose of the cannabis references in 1970s music.

ben g said...

Just as there is a sliding continuum from liberalism to extreme/fanatical leftism, there is also a continuum from libertarianism and conservatism to racists, white nationalists and kooks. The farther you move from the political center, the more likely that you're one degree of seperation from some form of toxic ideology.

Steve doesn't want to acknowledge that this political bell curve is two-sided. Like Paul, his unorthodox views often find him very nearby extreme and toxic viewpoints. Unfortunately he accomodates those viewpoints rather than disparaging them. Political economy at work, vdare!

If you're going to give a perspective on a taboo subject like race it helps not to be so one-sided. Not very "citizenist" of you Steve!

jody said...

"I have bad news for anyone here who wants to blame anyone except Paul (or Rockwell) for what was in the Paul newsletters"

i think it's odd that he's saying he has no idea at all who wrote some of this stuff. that's strange for sure. if that's his defense it's weak.

but it's not uncommon at all to publish collections of articles and columns with the disclaimer "The views expressed herein" or "The following opinions do not represent" or some other legal qualification. in fact it's common enough to get attacked or sued over that kind of thing now that many mainstream publications have made this their explicit legal language. particularly under the guise of this protection, liberal leaning publications can publish all kinds of hateful stuff, then when people complain, they throw their hands up like an NFL player trying to show there was no holding. "Didn't do it! Wasn't me!"

there was hardly anything far from the truth in those newsletters, i think that's the thing. nothing wild and crazy was said, just mostly observations of obvious trends. although today those are called "hate facts". i bet there were a few articles where the fact were bended and stretched but it's nothing like what liberals do regularly in mainstream news publications, where they make up total BS out of thin air which is not factual in the slightest.

jody said...

"Imagine if Rev. Wright had not only said what he said, but that he explicitly had Obama's imprimatur on every one of his speeches/sermons."

obama gave his approval to all the open racial hatred espoused at his church, by going there every week for 20 years. if he objected to it, why did he keep going for two decades straight?

then he's allowed to wash his hands of it completely by saying "I quit my church of 20 years this week. Guess some people had a slight problem with it, but that's over now, everything is cool."

what about when princeton, PRINCETON, tried to hide what michelle obama wrote in her undergraduate thesis. it was total delusion about how africans like her are kept down in america. the same america that gave her all of her opportunities and chances and greatly undeserved jobs and salaries over similarly capable people from other groups. at least princeton finally came to their senses and decided to stop blocking this document - she wasn't running for president, after all. but michelle obama showed no tact, declaring that she had never been proud of her country.

it's a stone cold lock, as they say in NFL betting parlance, that barack obama is a racist. his pastor was a racist, his associates were racists, his wife is a racist, and as we can see, plenty of the people he appointed to his cabinet are open racists.

it would be harder to make the case against obama that he's an affirmative action nothing, since he has no published record in harvard law review - and that's an easy case to make. or that he's a communist, by using the material from the, admittedly very few, documentable lectures he gave at university of chicago.

jody said...

"But I hope all the Paul supporters out there really go out and defend him very publicly exactly as you're doing here. Should be fun."

i do and i have. although i don't get into tons of arguments with people at bars and restaurants and stuff, but it's easy to show how much of an actual racist barack obama is by his words, actions, and associates.

meanwhile at least one regional leader of the NAACP, nelson linder, has said that ron paul is not a racist against africans. being from texas he would know ron paul better than other NAACP figures. i don't know how much one guy's word counts for, but i do know the US television media won't report it much. for instance, they weren't interested in the 5 minutes of activity before those kids got pepper sprayed at UC berkely - they just wanted the out of context money shot, as they often do. rarely do they want "the rest of the story" if it contradicts their agenda.

PDJ said...

"It's weird, because to me Paul seems so innocuous and normal and fundamentally good-hearted."

do you listen to how he speaks?

seriously, even if he was someone i agreed with 100% i might be a little uneasy about his, errr..."erratic" style becoming the face of the party.

jody said...

it's been my experience that most people in the military or who served in the military, have a favorable opinion of ron paul and his foreign policy ideas. not all of them of course, but rarely do you hear active military or vets talking about ron paul is "kooky" for not wanting to invade every nation on earth.

the people who don't have a favorable view, are almost always the people who would never be shooting or getting shot at when the US sends troops into conflicts. they think it's great to send other people to kill and get killed. the blind muslims haters love that stuff, whether they be politicians at the national level or internet shit talkers on some board, almost all of them euro american christians of some denomination. and likewise american reform jews love this stuff. since almost none of these two groups serve, what is there to lose?

hell yeah, let's go kill. send those lower and middle class euro americans to go die. the mexicans and africans can take logistics and support jobs in the military and only a few of them will get killed in actual fighting, so it's cool. to war we go.

maybe what we need, is an amendment to the constitution, that if military action is taken against a foreign force, every member of congress has a relative drafted and sent directly into the front lines of the conflict first. children of suitable age selected first, if none, then we start on their relative's children of suitable age. be it marine lading forces, army infantry, or army armor, they go directly into the meat grinder positions. no air force or navy for them. they don't even get to be in army artillery.

we'll see how gung-ho they are when they have skin in the game. the moment the president orders troops somewhere, you pull those congressmen's kids out of whatever they're doing and send their asses directly to basic or boot the next day. i bet under these terms, congressmen won't be so cavalier about letting the commander in chief just screw around in some foreign nation without coming to them for approval. not when some of their kids could get killed.

bjdubbs said...

Why not recycle old articles on the blog? I'm sure most of your readers are probably not familiar with some of Steve's greatest hits.

Camlost said...

I like Ron Paul as much as the next guy, but our "Scots-Irish" friend is right about one thing - he won't get the white female vote to the same degree as Romney.

Right now the #1 objective should be unseating Obama, and Romney is the only electable candidate out of the remaining big 3 (Paul, Gingrich, Romney).

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Whiskey:

The Republican base does not hate, hate, hate open borders. The Republican base is universalist Protestants who hire cheap immigrant labor to tend their McMansions. To these people, America is the Shining City on a Hill that can transform even the most recalcitrant Aztec into a taxpaying, hardworking, sign-their-kids-up-for-the-Middle-Eastern-meatgrinder consumer.

They are every bit the reason why we are so completely boned, along with their brethren in the universalist-utopian gospel on the Left.

Mr. Anon said...

"DYork said...

Just admit it and move on. Why spread lies? The facts are at everyone's fingertips."

Why does "Whiskey" spread lies? He does it because he's a damned liar.

Anonymous said...

In other news, tonight there's going to be coverage on what we should do about the "crisis" in Northern Island. They're going to be having Seamus O'Reilly, Liam McDougal, and Paddy O'Shaughnessy on tv. Should be an interesting "debate."
there's a difference. Pointing out that Friedman and Kristol are on Blitzer discussing Middle east policy is anti-semetic.

Aaron in Israel said...

Come on, Mr. Sailer. We all know that the word "racist" is wildly overused. Still, there is such a thing as racism (or bigotry), and the newsletters are racist (or bigoted). "The blacks," come on.

Even in the early 1990s it was known that AIDS wasn't transmitted by saliva. The author probably knew that, but lied anyway.

There's a huge difference between pandering to "rednecks" (Murray Rothbard's word) who are bigots, and using bigotry to pander to rednecks. Especially for someone who wants to be president, i.e., president of all citizens - blacks, white rednecks, etc.

Anonymous said...

The opposition to Ron Paul is not all about his views on the Middle East. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system and go back on the gold standard. There is no significant body of economists who think that is a good idea; it was from conservative economist Milton Friedman's research that the world learned monetary theory, and how a properly functioning central bank can avoid both depressions and periods of runaway inflation. We have avoided both for the past 30 years, since Paul Volcker killed double digit inflation during 1979-81. As a fixed income hedge fund research director, I cannot imagine the global bond markets functioning properly without a central banking system in the USA. From my perspective, Paul wants us to unlearn everything we have learned over the past 75 years about making capitalist economies function effectively.

Jim Bowery said...

While I've been actively supporting Ron Paul ever since the start of his 2007 campaign announcement, I have yet to get anything but noise in response to my assertion that Ron Paul is for essentially unlimited legal immigration. His stated principles would not allow everyone into the country but would allow billions into the country. There can be no other consequence to:

1) Eliminating minimum wage, and
2) Requiring that non-criminal guest workers have only a willing employer as their qualification for crossing the border and staying as long as they are employed.

All I get in response to this is yammering. Wage levels in the rest of the world and basic economics belie all the yammering.

Atoz said...

Numbers USA has given Paul an F, the worst grade of any Republican candidate.

Is their method flawed or is there something to it?

IHTG said...

Hmmm... The New York Times. The Weekly Standard. The New Republic. What in the *world* could such totally dissimilar publications possibly have in common?...

The same thing they have in common with The American Conservative?

Chief Seattle said...

Good thing the fair and unbiased media is looking out for our interests. Some representative headlines from Google news today:

* Ron Paul's ceiling rises, but it's still a ceiling‎ - WaPo
* Ron Paul's racist link‎ - L.A Times
* Despite money and support, Ron Paul still not in lead‎ - USA TODAY
* Ron Paul's naive promises‎ - Chicago Tribune

The professional class of federal teet milkers aren't going to go down easily. If he wins NH, I predict 30 second mushroom cloud clips.

NOTA said...

One fun irony here: ROn Paul, the alleged racist, would stop putting godawful numbers of blacks in prison for drug offenses, and stop blowing up godawful numbers of brown people. The locking and blowing up of nonwhites is, of course, supported by all the respectable anti-racist humanitarians.

kaganovitch said...

I think Whiskey's larger point is that politics is the art of the possible- and Paul's candidacy is a reprise of Goldwater '64. While one could argue (not persuasively imo) that Goldwater '64 was indispensable for the Reagan Revolution, the USA is not in the same position as in 1964 and cannot survive another decade and a half of profligacy.

Baloo said...

Don't ever change, Whiskey! A lot to say. Yes, WE vets tend to like Paul's attitude towards war. For me, tho, the immigration issue trumps everything else, and none of the other candidates are as good on the issue as Paul. He's the only one, as somebody pointed out, to question the validity of birthright citizenship. Michele Bachmann says some good stuff, but I fear that she'll be so busy defending Israel's border she won't get around to defending ours, despite her good intentions.

Some stuff on "Lies about Ron Paul" HERE.

SGOTI said...

I love the deliberate, illogical obfuscation about Paul.

- He's one of the only candidates from a border state (aside from Perry) that is being overrun with illegals.

- He's been a practicing obstetrician, but is for abortion on demand.

- He's the only candidate who ever wore the uniform (except for Perry again), yet is anti-military and soft on defense. Obama, Gingrich, Santorum- apparently other priorities. Oh, and Mitt's several sons were just far too busy campaigning for him for the Iraq and Afghan fiascoes.

Gene Berman said...

To all:

There's general confusion here about Dr. Paul's attitude toward immigration--confusion to whose clearing I think I can contribute (from 40 years as a--like Dr. Paul--follower of "Austrian School" Economics. I think I am safe in saying that Dr. Paul would endorse--100%--comments I am about to make.

Your "enemy" is NOT immigration. As a matter of fact, the time, money, thought, and effort spent on immigration is not only wasted but is actually counterproductive in combatting those evils you see in immigration itself. Whether deliberately intended or not, it's a diversion of attention from your REAL enemy--one deserving of real fear, loathing, and opposition.

The name of your enemy, my enemy, the enemy of everyone interested in preserving the various values summed in the somewhat nebulous phrase "the American way of life" is SOCIALISM.

Eliminating immigration--either partially or entirely--will do nothing whatever to decelerate the decline of America. Eliminating as much socialism as possible will assure continuous prosperity and, while not entirely eliminating all immigration, will reduce it to a level at which each immigrant would represent a net gain in our overall wealth and standard of living. "Immigration control" would become almost unnecessary except to exclude criminals.

Many, if not most, reading these words, will dismiss them as starry-eyed and utopian. But then, most of you reading these words are socialists of one stripe or another and to one degree or another, whether you recognize the fact or not and whether or not you think of yourself as socialist.

There's neither space nor time for me to make an anti-socialist case sufficient for you to understand my message. But if you are actually interested in preserving the values that made America great (and could make it great once again), I urge you read "Austrian" economic literature and make a few recommendartions:

ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON
(Henry Hazlitt)
THE LAW
(Frederick Bastiat)
BUREAUCRACY
(Ludwig von Mises)

The most important thing to be understood about socialism, however, is not actually to be found in these particular books. Rather, it's a (related) series of facts discovered and explained by Mises in 1920-21 (and included in his much-later English-language master-work, HUMAN ACTION). These make clear why socialism can never work for long, leads to totalitarianism, causes waste and failure even without corruption), and, eventually, its own demise.

I will try to summarize these as succinctly as possible and post at some time in the not-too-distant future (in the next month, perhaps). But you'll be giving yourself a head start by reading the recomendations above.

Anonymous said...

This is how I see Paul's recent rise in Iowa:

Both nationwide and Iowa polls have always shown Romney in a narrow range. He doesn't gain when other candidates tank. He has a ceiling. So when Romney started airing negative campaign ads against Newt in Iowa, he gained nothing for himself. He hurt Newt though, so some of Newt's supporters moved to Paul. In the past when Perry hurt himself, his supporters moved to Cain, and when Cain hurt himself (or was nudged), his supporters moved to Newt. Perhaps this means that Romney can't win at all. If the race was between Romney, some other guy and the Unibomber, and some other guy was suddenly disqualified from running because of some technicality that Romney's campaign had managed to uncover and bring to the attention of the press, then the Unibomber would win the nomination. Because Romney's permanent, set-in-stone ceiling is below 30%.

On the issues I'm closest to Paul. He's not going to win of course. The powers that be will prevent that if it ever comes close, which it most likely won't. But he could continue to do well. If Romney bashes Newt with negative ads in any other state, we'll see the same dynamic - Romney isn't going to help HIMSELF by this, he's just going to help some candidate other than himself and Newt. And who's there to help? Perry is understood by everyone to be an idiot. There's Paul, Bachmann and Santorum. So far in Iowa the beneficiary of Newt's trouble has been Paul.

riches said...

I’m reminded that the late Tony Judt told the FT: "Apparently, the line you take on Israel trumps everything else in life,"

Anonymous said...

Just for the record...As a former resident of L.A. I can verify that the "Rodney King" riots did, in fact, end when the welfare checks were due. Mail delivery had been stopped for safety reasons and long lines formed at the Post offices in So. Central L.A. to claim the checks in person....

NOTA said...

I also dont think Paul has any chance of winning. But his rise is dangerous as hell from the perspective of the ruling class, who want to control the acceptable range of discussion in US politics in ways that just flat exclude some of Paul's ideas. In Steve's terms, Paul wants to stop invading the world, and stop going in hock to the world--I gather he wants to invite the world less enthusiastically than the ruling class, but that's not the place where he scares them. Similarly, he wants to end the federal part of the war on drugs, roll back a bunch of the war on drugs/war on terrorism police state measures at home, and do all kinds of other stuff that the folks at the top really don't want being discussed in respectable places.

Partly, that's a desire to keep supporting Israel. Partly, it's a desire to keep the homeland security and endless warfare gravy trains rolling. Partly, it's a desire to keep the system we have now more or less in place, because the folks now at the top are very comfortable about it. And partly, it's because the ruling class consensus isn't the result of some inner circle of wise men hammering it out, it's a self-re-enforcing set of beliefs held by the folks at the top, who (like everyone else) largely believe what the people around them seem to believe.

My prediction is that Paul will be the target of a truly amazing amount of derision in popular media in the next few months, like the tea party but more so, since the tea party has largely been tamed via having its internal communications taken over by conservative media.

Truth said...

"it's a stone cold lock, as they say in NFL betting parlance, that barack obama is a racist. his pastor was a racist, his associates were racists, his wife is a racist, and as we can see, plenty of the people he appointed to his cabinet are open racists."

LOL; I guess it's too bad for Barry that most of his "associates" and "the people he appointed to his cabinet" are white.

Truth said...

"Right now the #1 objective should be unseating Obama, and Romney is the only electable candidate out of the remaining big 3"

Yeah, and he's already got the RommneyCare healthplan thing down, so it will be a smooth transition.

Truth said...

""DYork said...

Just admit it and move on. Why spread lies? The facts are at everyone's fingertips."

Why does "Whiskey" spread lies? He does it because he's a damned liar."


LMFAO! Whiskey has a perfect record. He is the only daily poster on any site in America that has made an ass of himself on EVERY response!

Truth said...

"Yes, WE vets tend to like Paul's attitude towards war."

What army were YOU in, Berét Boy, DeGaulle's foreign legion?!?!

(Just messin' with you Rex, you know I love you.)

Anonymous said...

Just for the record...As a former resident of L.A. I can verify that the "Rodney King" riots did, in fact, end when the welfare checks were due. Mail delivery had been stopped for safety reasons and long lines formed at the Post offices in So. Central L.A. to claim the checks in person....
I remember hearing a near-identical story many years ago told to me by someone living in LA... Definite hatefact.

Anonymous said...

The neocons hate Paul for two reasons. First, he doesn't support the oversized military-industrial complex that far exceeds our actual defense needs. And second, he doesn't support the constant in-your-face interventionism that requires America to put its nose into every conflict in the world.

Let's see why neocons don't want the military budget cut. From the godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, in 1973:

Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States…American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

Let's see why the neocons are fearful of so-called isolationism. Norman Podhoretz had this to say about the issue in 1979:

There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.

So there you have it. Most of the fear and loathing directed against Paul is not because of anything raciss he did or did not write, it is not because he is lax on immigration which is required for the top GOP leaders, it is not because of abortion which the GOP never seems to address, and it is not due to not defending America.

It is because they fear his positions would be bad for Israel. And this is not an indictment on American Jews, most of whom would probably support Paul's positions on foreign policy. There are far more whiskeys out there than Jews who support the neocon position.

helene edwards said...

Wow, that pic of Kirchick. The very definition of "wet behind the ears" (gay division).

W Baker said...

Here's a summary of your blog comments, Steve - both logically and stylistically.

Ron Paul BAD: IMMIGRATION and stuff

Ron Paul BAD: ABORTION and stuff

Ron Paul Bad: UNELECTABLE and stuff

and one winner, Ron Paul BAD: centralized global banking is essential (sic)!

How in god's name were you able to attract all of the extras from Idiocracy in one place?

Sarcasm aside, if these sorts of non-sequitors, mind-blowingly illogical assertions are what we are trying to save (a la Buchanan's famous quip), I'm fucking moving to Brazil. I'll let you bozos continue to police the world and print little paper slips to cover your expenses. And then when all of the colonists come back to the mother ship (a la Britain, France, etc.) you can print some more to cover their expenses.

Baloo said...

It's not a beret, it's a Balmoral. And if it was a beret, it'd be a béret, not a berét. And it was the 705th MI Detachment, 7th Special Forces Group, Ft. Bragg. If that's settled, I have to go blog about Ron Paul.

DCThrowback said...

More Paul "love" from the conservative blogosphere:

Eli Lake (Sr. Nat'l Security Writer, Daily Beast/Newsweek): http://twitter.com/EliLake/status/149626426964983809

Drew Cline, (Sr. Editorial page editor, NH Union-Leader): http://twitter.com/DrewHampshire/status/149634159353151489

Utterly ridiculous what these clowns are reduced to doing because they can't win on the battle of ideas. Isn't this what right wingers have claimed the left did to them for years? Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

"When everybody knows (or at least has been told, over and over) that AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual sex as easily as by homosexual practices."

Because it does, ignoramus. Actually, the mucous linning of the inner vulva is MORE susceptible to being penetrated by the HIV virus then the linning of the anus. The reason why there is less contamination in heterosexual intercourse is because straight couples usually wear prophylactics whilst gay men usually don't.

And this is none of your damn business! Gay men can have as much sex as they want with as many partners as they want, and you don't get to give your opinion on it.

Sailer is one cynical, callous liar. He wants to restrict the freedom of homosexual men because he deems them inferior to heterosexuals, but he pretends to want to restrict it because he "cares" about them and don't want them to die to AIDS. Yeah, right...the guy is a conservative, pro-traditional family, anti-gay marriage and we are supposed to believe he wants to restricts the freedom of gays because he doesen't want them to catch AIDS. Yeah, right...Sailer would probably love if all gays would disappear from off the face of the Earth, so don't pretend like you care about them.

SF said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bofa-335m-settlement-over-countrywide-202235996.html

OT What the heck? Countrywide (now BofA) settles DOJ discrimination complaint for $305 million. Wonder what the real story is?

SF said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bofa-335m-settlement-over-countrywide-202235996.html

OT What the heck? Countrywide (now BofA) settles DOJ discrimination complaint for $305 million. Wonder what the real story is?

Anonymous said...

As a fixed income hedge fund research director, I cannot imagine the global bond markets functioning properly without a central banking system in the USA. From my perspective, Paul wants us to unlearn everything we have learned over the past 75 years about making capitalist economies function effectively.

Hilarious. What we've learned is that in 2008 this whole "central banking-sponsored, debt-driven fiat currency" thing was completely unsustainable in the long term, and the "solution" has been for central banks and public treasuries to bail out assholes like this guy at a cost of literally trillions of dollars.

Take your "what we've learned in the past 75 years" and shove it up your incompetent, self-serving, thieving rear end.

Bob Arctor said...

"Actually, the mucous linning of the inner vulva is MORE susceptible to being penetrated by the HIV virus then the linning of the anus. The reason why there is less contamination in heterosexual intercourse is because straight couples usually wear prophylactics whilst gay men usually don't."

Congratulations; you're a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

Unprotected anal intercourse is 20-80x more likely to result in HIV transmission than unprotected vaginal intercourse is.

JSM said...

"Hilarious. What we've learned is that in 2008 this whole "central banking-sponsored, debt-driven fiat currency" thing was completely unsustainable in the long term, and the "solution" has been for central banks and public treasuries to bail out assholes like this guy at a cost of literally trillions of dollars.
Take your "what we've learned in the past 75 years" and shove it up your incompetent, self-serving, thieving rear end."

POST OF THE WEEK!!

Truth said...

"It's not a beret, it's a Balmoral. And if it was a beret, it'd be a béret,"

HAHAHAH; I'm well aware, but the joke doesn't work with "Balmoral" and the intentional misuse of an "accent agiu" is All-American humor, kind of like a laugh track on a sitcom or Archie Bunker mispronouncing words!

(You big government commies are so humorless.)

NOTA said...

Anon 12/21:

I think you are just wrong on the transmission of HIV. The Wikipedia article on HIV has a table that shows receptive anal sex having a much higher transmission probability for HIV than receptive vaginal sex, and this is consistent with what I've read/heard for years, and also with the observable large differences in HIV rates between gays and straights. (For some reason, this works differently in Africa, where straights get HIV a lot more often.).

It looks to me like Ron Paul's newsletter's comments on HIV (other than the weird scare story about needling) were more or less right--heterosexual sex doesn't transmit it very easily, the virus does mutate around treatments, and there is still neither a vaccine nor a cure. The existing treatments avoid having the virus evolve arond them by giving the patient three drugs at once, so it's hard for the rare resistant mutants to become widespread in the patient. Even so, they still have to cycle the drugs every few years.

ben tillman said...

"When everybody knows (or at least has been told, over and over) that AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual sex as easily as by homosexual practices."

Because it does, ignoramus. Actually, the mucous linning of the inner vulva is MORE susceptible to being penetrated by the HIV virus then the linning of the anus.


That's ridculously wrong, but it hardly matters since the woman, for all intents and puroposes, can't pass it on to a man.

Chief Seattle said...

"Right now the #1 objective should be unseating Obama, and Romney is the only electable candidate out of the remaining big 3"

I'm not voting for another George Bush "republican" in my lifetime. I can't be the only one. If I have to write in Ron Paul again I will. At least Obama has to fight congress every step of the way. Another Republican like GW will have the Congress eating from his hand as he invades and borrows and invites with impunity.

Hereward said...

Sailer is one cynical, callous liar. He wants to restrict the freedom of homosexual men because he deems them inferior to heterosexuals, but he pretends to want to restrict it because he "cares" about them and don't want them to die to AIDS. Yeah, right...the guy is a conservative, pro-traditional family, anti-gay marriage and we are supposed to believe he wants to restricts the freedom of gays because he doesen't want them to catch AIDS. Yeah, right...Sailer would probably love if all gays would disappear from off the face of the Earth, so don't pretend like you care about them.
Whoever this is, your crude caricature of a petulant and hysterical queer is in very poor taste. You might have as well said, "You big brute! I'll give you such a pinch!"

ELVISNIXON.com said...

"..Ted Koppel, on “Nightline” in the days after New Hampshire, relied on unsubstantiated tales (for which he later apologized) about Buchanan’s father as a way of tying the son to “bigoted and isolationist radio orator Father Coughlin.”

He also cited a Jewish neighbor of the Buchanans who was beaten up and called “Christ-killer” — without mentioning that Pat was off at college at the time.Insinuations of racism and anti-Semitism were the weapons of the mainstream media, but Buchanan’s sins in the eyes of the GOP establishment were different. They feared Pat because he rejected a rare inviolable article of faith among the party elites: free trade. Also, in the post-Cold War era, Buchanan’s foreign policy had become far less interventionist than that of the establishment..."

SOUND FAMILIAR??

David Davenport said...

LOL; I guess it's too bad for Barry that most of his "associates" and "the people he appointed to his cabinet" are white.

Mr. Truth, what's your opinion of Eric Holder?

Anonymous said...

"Congratulations; you're a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

Unprotected anal intercourse is 20-80x more likely to result in HIV transmission than unprotected vaginal intercourse is."

Yeah, because Wikipeda is also known as the other Pubmed when it comes to accuracy of medical information. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, genius. There are articles in Wikipeda written by little kids!

Anonymous said...

"That's ridculously wrong, but it hardly matters since the woman, for all intents and puroposes, can't pass it on to a man."

That's ridiculously wrong. Lots of men in Africa have gotten AIDS by having unprotected sex with prostitutes.

Anonymous said...

"Whoever this is, your crude caricature of a petulant and hysterical queer is in very poor taste. You might have as well said, "You big brute! I'll give you such a pinch!"

Sailer's readers are the very definition of petulant, hysterical queers:

"Give me back my country! I DEMAND to get paid 10 X more than everyone else in the World for the same job because I am an American citizen! I want the Mexicans out of my country because they take away the only jobs I am qualified to do! I also want the Asians and the Jews out because they are smarter than me and that means that I will never be able to enter Harvard with all these smarter foreigners around! Never mind the fact that I wouldn't be able to enter Harvard anyway even if America were 100% WASP! Those dirty foreigners give me an excuse for all my personal failures! I also want to own guns! Lots and lots of guns! And I want to wreck my health by eating pork rinds every day watching football, drink and smoke as much as I want and then have America pay my medical bills because gosh darn it, I am an American and I am entitled to it! And get rid of the damn foreigners!"

Anonymous said...

Conservatives, don't nominate Ron Paul, he's radically pro-immigration.

Instead nominate..... wait, nevermind.

Bob Arctor said...

"Yeah, because Wikipeda is also known as the other Pubmed when it comes to accuracy of medical information. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, genius. There are articles in Wikipeda written by little kids!"

Check the damn footnote - the data were taken directly from a paper published in "Sexually Transmitted Diseases," the official journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association. But I'm sure you know better than they do; after all they only study this for a living, and that's nowhere as credible as being a random dude on the web.

And it's called "Wikipedia" by the way, genius.

The Wobbly Guy said...

Ron Paul's stance on immigration is admirable, but I'm afraid he still needs to realize that even without a welfare state, immigrants will still seek ways and means to enter if there is any comparative advantage to be gained as a result in differing living standards.

Example: Singapore. Interesting that Steve mentioned us in that popgun post!

I like that rant. Here's the Singaporean version:
"Give me back my country! I DEMAND to get paid 10 X more than everyone else in the World for the same job because I am a Singapore citizen! I want the Pinoys and Indians out of my country because they take away the only jobs I am qualified to do! There's nobody smarter than us ethnic chinese so all these so-called foreign talents are just fakes! I can't afford to enter our local universities because I can't afford it while these stupid stinking foreigners are given money and support from our government to do so and take up all the available places! Never mind the fact that I wouldn't be able to enter anyway even if Singapore remains 100% indigenous! Those dirty foreigners give me an excuse for all my personal failures! I also want to scrap National Service! Waste of two years of my life defending those rich elites! What do I get? Nothing! And I want to wreck my health by eating chicken rice and nasi lemak every day watching football, drink and smoke as much as I want and then have America pay my medical bills because gosh darn it, I am a Singaporean and I am entitled to it! And get rid of the damn foreigners!"

As for Ron Paul's stance on HIV, it's a dirty little secret that he happens to be correct about, because HIV just happens to be a virus (if AIDS is even caused by a virus at all) with damnably low level of proof. Go check for electron microscope photos of colonies of HIV cultured from AIDS patients. Note: you'll find yourself extremely puzzled as to how they accepted HIV as the cause of AIDS on such scanty evidence.

Remember when we were deluged with messages claiming that AIDS is a serious contagion that will wreck civilization? Has it happened yet? Why is it that the proportion of AIDS sufferers are still mostly homosexuals? And why, when STDs in general are on an upward trend, AIDS is the sole exception?

Jason said...

How many black, Latino, and homosexual soldiers' lives would be saved if Ron Paul is allowed to end these wars?

How many minority families would be reunited after these soldiers are brought home?

aids again said...

That's ridiculously wrong. Lots of men in Africa have gotten AIDS by having unprotected sex with prostitutes.

AIDS, or at least when I was studying it during the 80s and 90s, is passed through sperm. So a person could theoretically get it from a prostitute with a quick turnover rate. Or maybe the strains of the virus have changed.
I find it fascinating that the "monkey virus" claimed to be the precursor of AIDS, was what contaminated polio vaccine during the 50s and early 60s. That was a big scandal. They claim they pulled the contaminated vaccine,but some was still circulating in 1963. The monkey virus was known by the Oechsner Cancer clinic of New Orleans to be cancer causing. And flamboyant David Ferrie, who had many young boyfriends, was a quasi-doctor known to be working with it to try and develop a cancer-causing bio-weapon to kill Castro.
This is all well documented--one of the first public exposures was a lenghty Playboy interview with Jim Garrison in the mid-60s, but still, Playboy did good interviews and of course that was why intelligent men read it -- yet MSM has never taken it to certain logical conclusions.

NOTA said...

Wobbly:

If AIDS isnt caused by the HIV virus, then how come all thos folks who used to be dying very quickly with AIDS are now living long lives on triple antiviral therapy? Wouldnt it be a pretty remarkable coincidence if drugs that blocked specific steps in the replication of the wrong virus just happened to also make people with AIDS better?

On the other hand, AIDS doesnt transmit very easily. If if did transmit between straight couples as easily as other STDs, we would have lived through a black plague level mass die-off, because the damned virus doesn't make you obviously sick for about ten years after you're contagious.

Charles Everett Koop said...

And this is none of your damn business! Gay men can have as much sex as they want with as many partners as they want, and you don't get to give your opinion on it.

Most people don't care what others do in the private lives, but AIDS is a massive public health problem and financial drain that is nearly 100% preventable.


•HIV/AIDS gets about $200,000 per patient death in the NIH research budget, according to calculations from the FAIR Foundation (Fair Allocations in Research). We spend 21 times more per AIDS death than cancer death. Pancreatic cancer will strike about 43,000 Americans this year and is essentially a quick death sentence. It gets 1% of the funding per death as AIDS.

•Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are the nation’s sixth and 14th-leading causes of death of death respectively, yet HIV/AIDS gets 34 times and 25 times more per fatality respectively.

•The disparity is all the worse when trends are considered. While AIDS cases and deaths remain level, those of Parkinson’s inexorably climb while Alzheimer’s fly off the chart.

AIDS is like Pacman gobbling up the federal disease research budget.

And no, it’s not homophobic to point out that AIDS is essentially 100% preventable while none of these other diseases is preventable at all.

Further, the vast majority of federal AIDS spending can’t possibly lead to a cure or vaccine or prevent a single new case. Of the approximately $26 billion budgeted this year for HIV/AIDS, only 11% will go for research and 3% for prevention. The rest is care, cash and housing assistance. Federal non-research AIDS spending far exceeds the combined research grant budget for all diseases combined–including AIDS! This even as NIH has to turn away over three-fourth of grant applicants.

That’s what passes for “compassion.”

And last month a new study was announced that indicates that a combination of two drugs acts as a highly “preexposure prophylaxis” when taken regularly. Toss those condoms, guys! But the cost is $4,000 – $14,000. And guess who it’s being hinted should pay for prescriptions for the nation’s entire population that engages in high-risk activities? Yes, give and give generously. Uncle Sam insists.

Why such grotesquely favorable treatment for AIDS? Partly it’s simple inertia. But much is because a huge AIDS bureaucracy now exists, with vast numbers of organizations and their employees voraciously feeding at various international, national, state and privately funded troughs.

Truly forgotten diseases are everywhere, though a better term is simply “unrecognized.” Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis are the ninth leading cause of death in this country, causing three times as many deaths as AIDS; but probably most people don’t even know what these kidney diseases are. “Nephritis” got 1.3 million Google hits over the past year. Far more important, fewer than 2,000 published medical papers appear on Medline. Yet in the past year alone, there have been about 21,000 concerning HIV.

Nim said...

You know if the media is going to bring this story up again four years after 2008 maybe they will also bring back the Rev. Wright story before election day?


I'm not going to hold my breath on that though

Truth said...

"Mr. Truth, what's your opinion of Eric Holder?"

He's a politician.

Anonymous said...

Why isn't the media going after Bachmann for her 'racist' tirades against Muslims?
Why isnt' the media going after Romney for his 'racist' tirades against China?
Why didn't the media go after Hillary Clinton for hateful things she said about white males in her youth?
Why does the media keep spreading the lie that the president of Iran said he was gonna wipe Israel off the map when all he said was that the regime in Israel must go?

Ron Paul is far from perfect but he's the ONLY candidate who isn't owned by and doesn't play to the Cabal.

Btw, what is 'racist' about saying MLK day is 'hate whitey' day? If anything, it sounds to me like a tirade against black 'racism'.

Anonymous said...

People raise dogs and shoot coyotes and wolves.
Most politicians are running dogs while Paul is a coyote/wolf. So, they're out to shoot him. He won't play fetch.

Anonymous said...

Gingrich: bulldog.

Romney: Doberman.

Obama: Afghan hound.

Bachmann: collie.

Perry: retriever.

rob said...

Go check for electron microscope photos of colonies of HIV cultured from AIDS patients. Note: you'll find yourself extremely puzzled as to how they accepted HIV as the cause of AIDS on such scanty evidence.

Srsly? You know we have much better ways of detecting viruses than that, right?

There are transfection vectors derived from HIV, or do you think they're made from rainbows and Whiskey's delusions?

NOTA said...

A good parallel to AIDS is lung cancer. Most cases of lung cancer were preventable by the expedient of not smoking and not living in a house with a smoker or spending lots and lots of time in smoke-filled rooms. There are people who did none of those things and yet got lung cancer, the way some folks with HIV got it from blood or organs or from a husband or boyfriend whose hobby involved random pickups at gay bars. But the great majority can be prevented by making some lifestyle choices, like not smoking and insiting that your wife or husband smoke outside.

How compassionate should we be to a lifelong smoker dying of lung cancer? How compassionate to a gay man dying of AIDS? What's the difference?

Truth said...

"Btw, what is 'racist' about saying MLK day is 'hate whitey' day?"

Well for one, if it were 'hate whitey' day, they would have named it 'hate whitey' day, instead of MLK day.

Anonymous said...

So, let me see, Neocons don't like Ron Paul because he won't play fetch for Zionists.

GOP fears Ron Paul because if he wins, neocons with all their money, talent, connections,and media power(second only to liberal Jews)might go to the Democrats.

Baloo said...

Slightly OT, but what is Sheriff Joe doing supporting Perry? Does he know something I don't?

Maya said...

I'm deeply troubled by the fact that Ron Paul is our only rational candidate, and the only one directed by logic rather than dogma. Or rather, he is only directed by dogma in matters which, fundamentally, rest on faith and emotion. I disagree with his stance on abortion. However, I understand that it's not an issue that can reach a conclusion in debate. One either believes that sperm is not alive enough to merit its own rights and a zygote is, or one doesn't. In some cultures men didn't consider themselves to be fathers until their child reached the age of 5. In others, female eggs were considered human, and it was considered evil to let one go unfertilized and die. It's a matter of opinion/emotional values. Fine. Also, I want to keep giving money to Israel because, overall, Israel is a concept dear to my heart. However, there's a difference between the world that would revolve around my wants and a rational position this country should assume. Besides, Paul isn't against foreign aide if there is a good argument for any particular situation. He is against foreign aide as a default. Still, I wish there were another guy out there, one more like me in opinions, emotional values and such who would also be able to formulate a logically sound vision for America, motivated by pure interest in the American success and well being. But as far as I can tell, today, only Ron Paul is interested in our common prosperity and maintaining a functional state. The rest of 'em are partisans, fighting it out to advance their teams' dogmatic teachings. Though I wish I had more of a choice, Ron Paul's got my measly donation and my vote.

Seriously. I'm a girl in her mid-twenties who likes to play with doggies, go to indie rock concerts (where I am deeply moved by the lyrics) and watch criminal drama shows on TV. Yet, I feel as though I can punch holes through numerous positions articulated by all the other candidates. How is that possible? Why isn't someone much, much smarter than me making sure that whoever gets close to the mere possibility of becoming our president is much, much more rational than me? It's not a tall order!

YESTA said...

A good parallel to AIDS is lung cancer. Most cases of lung cancer were preventable by the expedient of not smoking and not living in a house with a smoker

Not a good parallel. Unlike lung cancer for smokers, there is a nearly 100% effective way for gay men to avoid contracting AIDS during sex.

A good parallel would be if cigarettes had a magic filter that reduced the pleasure of smoking but nearly guaranteed smoking would never cause cancer.

How much public sympathy would there be for smokers who refused to use the magic filter to willfully and recklessly exposed themselves to lung cancer.

A more realistic parallel would be someone who incessantly likes riding extreme roller coasters but refuses to pull down the safety bar because the ride is not as thrilling.

How much public sympathy, financial support and research dollars should poured into the self-inflicted epidemic of "killer" roller coasters?

Svigor said...

"Give me back my country! [snipped for space]

Ad hominem attacks don't add up to an argument, even when you string a bunch of them along into a paragraph.

One word destroys your rhetoric:

Reciprocity.

You're arguing that America doesn't have the right to do what the rest of the world (Mexico, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Israel, China, Mexico, India, Brazil, Mexico) is already doing. Or something tantamount to that.

"The Golden Rule is Racist!" is a loser, no matter how spurious the packaging. "White Suicide" isn't a compelling worldview for Whites. It only works when you have a stick in one hand, and a carrot in the other.

A few other points (for people who aren't racist immivasion fanatics):

1.) Think about "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" for a sec; a lot of people seem to think this means treat people well, even when they're screwing you over. Nope: when someone does x unto you, they have just set the standard of reciprocity - just announced how they'd like to be treated. To reciprocate, i.e., to follow the golden rule, you do x back.

2.) Never forget potential for reciprocity; people can only reciprocate within their means. Mexico, China, etc., CANNOT reciprocate what we give offer/give them. We offer immigrants rule of law, (relatively) low corruption, (relatively) high transparency, high trust society, built-up commons, economic freedom, political freedom, property rights, etc. Immigrant countries do not reciprocate (whether they can is another story). They certainly can't offer the economic opportunities found in the west. Not that intent isn't relevant, too; China, Mexico, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc., wouldn't reciprocate if they could.

3.) Combining 1 and 2, we can see that it's rude (condescending? Patronizing? Arrogant? Supremacist?) to treat people better than they are capable of reciprocating, unless they explicitly have their hand out for charity, because they're not going to be able to stand on equal footing with you.

Svigor said...

Btw, what is 'racist' about saying MLK day is 'hate whitey' day? If anything, it sounds to me like a tirade against black 'racism'.

Calling anyone but Whites racist is racist.

Reg Cæsar said...

Well for one, if it were 'hate whitey' day, they would have named it 'hate whitey' day, instead of MLK day.

Too bad they didn't. Blacks are much less scary to white folks when they hate us, than when they like us. You really want that rapper to stop bad-mouthing your son, so he can sweet-talk your daughter?

Same phenomenon with homos. Bathhouses? Fine. Wedding chapels? Hey, wait a minute...

Anonymous said...

A good parallel to AIDS is lung cancer. Most cases of lung cancer were preventable by the expedient of not smoking and not living in a house with a smoker or spending lots and lots of time in smoke-filled rooms.

....

How compassionate should we be to a lifelong smoker dying of lung cancer? How compassionate to a gay man dying of AIDS? What's the difference?


Yeah, I've been reading Emperor of All Maladies by Siddartha Mukherjee (great book btw!) and it's interesting to compare the focus of preventative medicine on cancer which emerged as the difficulty of treatment become more apparent during the 1980s with that of AIDS, where the focus was still very much on drugs. Prevention in terms of AIDS seems only to go as far as "Use a condom" when it could go further.

I don't think there's any clear, rational line where we should go in terms of forbidding behaviour that is pleasurable but imposes a health cost, rather than reacting with compassion and a desire to help, at least any one that is objective, rather than a codification of our biases.

For example, I personally would be happy with saying "All sports should stop so we don't have to pay for the cost of sports related injuries" and "All personal firearm ownership should stop so we don't have to pay for personal firearm injuries" but lots of people would be resistant to that.

People just have to think emotionally about these matters.

jody said...

"The gay activists claimed that their promiscuity would have no effect on the surrounding society.
Guess what-- they were right."

that's not accurate. it does affect the surrounding society. straights must take a few steps to protect themselves from gays. gays are not allowed to contribute their blood to the community blood supply in most places, for instance.

and under obamacare, let me ask one simple question. will gay men be required to pay more for health insurance?

car insurance companies make drivers under 25 pay significantly higher rates. the statistics say, they are the most likely to crash, so the actuaries say, make them pay more. most car rental companies will not even rent you a car if you're under 25.

gay men are by far the most likely to contract HIV, and in 2011, HIV does not even kill you. today, you simply stay on HIV medication for the rest of your life, and never develop AIDS. if the insurance companies are going to pay for that, it has to cost about 1 million dollars to provide one patient with 30 years of HIV treatment.

so if gay men are not required to pay more for the health insurance that we're all going to be forced to buy, then essentially, we're all going to be forced to pay the under 25 driver premium for gay men. the cost will be distributed to straights. it's pure socialism.

i'm not clear on what the repeal of DADT fully entails, but again i do wonder if the US military is now required to provide HIV treatment for all gay spouses. i might have read that gay spouses will not be covered for anything, but we'll see. liberal lawyers can try to change that at any time.

jody said...

combine that, obamacare, with the US government policy change, of allowing HIV positive immigrants into the US, and it's just a massive shipment of fail delivered directly to taxpayers wallet.

theo the kraut said...

> New News!

more of same (OT): Border Fence Blocks Bears in Migration, Study Finds

rob said...

[The] GOP fears Ron Paul because if he wins, neocons with all their money, talent, connections,and media power(second only to liberal Jews)might go to the Democrats.

Nope, the GOP (if by GOP you mean jewish neocons) fears a Ron Paul nomination because 1)Obama would be reelected in a landslide. 2) Arguendo he does get elected, well there goes the corporate welfare state.

"That's ridculously wrong, but it hardly matters since the woman, for all intents and puroposes, can't pass it on to a man."

That's ridiculously wrong. Lots of men in Africa have gotten AIDS by having unprotected sex with prostitutes.


OK, but what makes you think they acquire it from female prostitutes?

Anonymous said...

@Charles Everett Coop

"Most people don't care what others do in the private lives, but AIDS is a massive public health problem and financial drain that is nearly 100% preventable."

Another stupid argument from a conservative. It is not even an argument, really, but just an excuse to deny gays their rights - in this case, the right to do with THEIR OWN BODIES whatever they want.

The argument of HIV cost to public health is getting old. For starters, gay men pay more taxes than you rednecks. They are at the 90% of income in the U.S. So it is gay men who pay for YOUR medical bills and not the other way around. Secondly, most public health systems do NOT cover HIV medication anyway; rather, the government offers companies that manufacture HIV medications tax exemptions for giving AIDS patients this medication for free.

Also, I think it's funny you guys claim that men can't contract AIDS through vaginal intercourse, and yet in Africa there are MILLIONS(plural) of men with AIDS. Are they all gay? I am sure you guys will try to argue they are all on the "down low", but there is no evidence for it: conversely, there is massive evidence for all the existence of enormous amounts of whore houses with FEMALE prostitutes in Africa.

Also, even if there were evidence that AIDS can be contracted through anal intercourse more easily than through vaginal intercourse, the point is moot because wearing a condom decreases the risk of contraction of AIDS for either kind of sex to equally neglegible degree.

I love owning Sailer's readers in these debates. It is so easy. You guys have brains that are not very good at using logic, so you should just give up. Your brains are better suited for experiencing reptile emotions such as hatred, rage and elitistic feelings towards others.

Anonymous said...

"Sailer's readers are the very definition of petulant, hysterical queers:

'Give me back my country! I DEMAND to get paid 10 X more than everyone else in the World for the same job because I am an American citizen! I want the Mexicans out of my country because they take away the only jobs I am qualified to do! I also want the Asians and the Jews out because they are smarter than me and that means that I will never be able to enter Harvard with all these smarter foreigners around! Never mind the fact that I wouldn't be able to enter Harvard anyway even if America were 100% WASP! Those dirty foreigners give me an excuse for all my personal failures! I also want to own guns! Lots and lots of guns! And I want to wreck my health by eating pork rinds every day watching football, drink and smoke as much as I want and then have America pay my medical bills because gosh darn it, I am an American and I am entitled to it! And get rid of the damn foreigners!'"

Whoa ..., you make it sound like a BAD thing!?

Give me a break, pork rinds have a completely undeserved bad rap.

BTW, you still sound a little bit like a um, ur ...you know the hysterical thing you got going on ... just sayin...

Not that there is anything wrong with it! Viva Le'Differance!

Truth said...

"You really want that rapper to stop bad-mouthing your son, so he can sweet-talk your daughter?"

Well unfortunately, alot of your daughters seem to be turned on by the badmouthing of your sons.

Truth said...

"OK, but what makes you think they acquire it from female prostitutes?"

Uhm...I don't know...FACT maybe?

TGGP said...

Regarding the strange case of large-scale AIDS incidence in Africa, it might be tainted needles.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

""Btw, what is 'racist' about saying MLK day is 'hate whitey' day?""

Well for one, if it were 'hate whitey' day, they would have named it 'hate whitey' day, instead of MLK day."

Right, Mr. J-school grad. And if it had really been slavery, then plantation owners would have called it "slavery", rather than "our peculiar institution". If it had really been genocide, Nazis would have called it "genocide", rather than "relocation to the east".

You are an idiot, "sport".

Charles Everett Koop said...

"Most people don't care what others do in the private lives, but AIDS is a massive public health problem and financial drain that is nearly 100% preventable."

Another stupid argument... but just an excuse to deny gays... the right to do with THEIR OWN BODIES whatever they want.


What is "stupid"? That AIDS is nearly 100% preventable in the US? That AID is a hugely disproportionate drain on American public medical and health care funds and research? Did you read the article and the stats therein?

AIDS is almost entirely concentrated among the most reckless, poor and uneducated of gay males and IV drug addicts in the US who are extremely unlikely to average in the 90% income.

The prevalence of AIDS in the US is about 1/2 of one percent, so it is unlikely this group or the surrounding risk pool is coming close to even paying a fraction of the huge and outsized costs for AIDS R&D, treatment and long-term care above and beyond all the other massive public expenditures every citizen is expected to shoulder.

When the US government gives away tax revenue to subsidize something like lower HIV meds, it has to make up for that shortfall by increasing taxes on the general population.

The quality of info and stats on AIDS in Africa are completely unreliable compared to what we know in the US. There is huge pressure to classify everything in Africa as AIDS-related to garner more Western attention and financial aid. And in the US, it's well-known that one is extremely unlikely to vaginally contract AIDS compared to anal intercourse, especially for the male.

Your reply was as poorly reasoned, emotional, arrogant, and hateful with uncalled for name calling (eg redneck).

The AIDS situation is tragic, but your willful ignorance and hateful dismissal of the facts presented is a large part of the problem. From many of the gay men I've know, your attitude is a bit over the top and the most serious barrier to arriving at an optimal solution which is prevention.

Truth said...

"And if it had really been slavery, then plantation owners would have called it "slavery"

They did call it slavery, that's why Lincoln "abolished slavery."