Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)

[fhdz]

Do you have some examples of the kind of stuff you're talking about, Raz?

[Razgovory]

Do you have some examples of the kind of stuff you're talking about, Raz?

You always doubt me, don't you?  I am hurt.

But here you go.  http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/  The News letters themselves are look like their in some sort of adobe acrobat thingy, but I haven't figured out to zoom in to read them.  Apparently there is a way, they appear to be set up for that.

[DGuller]

Those racist newsletters may be a historical curiosity, but that's all they are.  We all know that "state rights" is a code word for racism, but that's a battle that has been fought and largely won by the good guys.  The current batch of Ron Paul automatons are scary for entirely different and unrelated reasons.

[fhdz]

Do you have some examples of the kind of stuff you're talking about, Raz?

You always doubt me, don't you?  I am hurt.

But here you go.  http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/  The News letters themselves are look like their in some sort of adobe acrobat thingy, but I haven't figured out to zoom in to read them.  Apparently there is a way, they appear to be set up for that.

The Reason article linked right off the bat suggests that Paul didn't write them. It doesn't say "Paul has previously admitted to writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008", nor anything remotely close to that. Did the newsone.com article's writer even read the Reason article? (That is a rhetorical question. There's no way you could know the answer to that. Unless you are the newsone.com writer, I guess.)

EDIT: I did some browsing on newsone.com and have come to one definitive conclusion: the odds of Raz being the lead blogger of newsone.com are almost infinitesimally slim.

[Razgovory]

It's not wise to read Reason articles.  They are unreasonable.  "You can't prove that Ron Paul actually wrote the articles", is misdirection.  Why are they in his news letter at all?

But I looked at the unReasonable article and it does say

At the time, Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context."

Does sound "remotely" like defending them.  But further reading does bolster an argument I've made here several times before (though from a slightly different perspective), that Conservatives used libertarian ideas to appeal to white southerners by portraying it as hurting blacks.  From the libertarian perspective they were bring Conservatives over to their way of thinking by appealing to racism.

Still that's irrelevant.  If his supporters want to hide behind the reasonable doubt that he may not have written all or any of the articles in his own News Letter (though the ones in first person, written about how "he" voted against the MLK day holiday, make Paul deceptive if they were ghost written), that's fine.  It's still his News Letter, he was publishing.  You can't distance yourself from that unless you are senile.

Still, I didn't know Rothbard was such a dick.

[Razgovory]

Those racist newsletters may be a historical curiosity, but that's all they are.  We all know that "state rights" is a code word for racism, but that's a battle that has been fought and largely won by the good guys.  The current batch of Ron Paul automatons are scary for entirely different and unrelated reasons.

If we took away all those federal guarantees, are you confident that none of the bad old days would come back?  Where the President's critics openly call him a "Welfare thug", and deny he even has a right to be President of the United States?  Do you really trust them to respect everyone's civil rights?

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html

Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.

And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning.  "Repugnant"?  Come on.

Definition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice>

Teaching your children a proper moral code is no more repugnant than teaching them to count.

I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.

Saw this later after I posted the bid here.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/05/as-a-gay-parent

[Sheilbh]

I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.

The kid doesn't want to do it and clearly looks pretty unhappy.  I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props - unless they're old enough to want to do it themselves.

[garbon]

It's not wise to read Reason articles.  They are unreasonable.  "You can't prove that Ron Paul actually wrote the articles", is misdirection.  Why are they in his news letter at all?

But I looked at the unReasonable article and it does say

At the time, Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context."

Does sound "remotely" like defending them.  But further reading does bolster an argument I've made here several times before (though from a slightly different perspective), that Conservatives used libertarian ideas to appeal to white southerners by portraying it as hurting blacks.  From the libertarian perspective they were bring Conservatives over to their way of thinking by appealing to racism.

Still that's irrelevant.  If his supporters want to hide behind the reasonable doubt that he may not have written all or any of the articles in his own News Letter (though the ones in first person, written about how "he" voted against the MLK day holiday, make Paul deceptive if they were ghost written), that's fine.  It's still his News Letter, he was publishing.  You can't distance yourself from that unless you are senile.

Still, I didn't know Rothbard was such a dick.

Well in 2001, his comment was that his staffers told him to say that they were written by him because voters wouldn't understand that he had a ghostwriter who did them and he wasn't even aware of the content of his newsletters.

There was also though a suggestion that the ghostwriter was actually known supporter/friend/confidant of Ron Paul.

[dps]

I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props

Totally agree.  The one thing I always liked about the Clintons was that they kept Chelsea out of the spotlight as much as possible when she was a minor.

[Ideologue]

I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.

The kid doesn't want to do it and clearly looks pretty unhappy.  I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props - unless they're old enough to want to do it themselves.

I'm not saying it's classy.  All I'm saying is that the use of rather superlative terms like "repugnant" or "shock the conscience"--terms you use to describe America's use of torture in the War on Terror, or a priest fucking a child--is a little extravagant in this case, where, at worst, some mom cajoled her kid into making an innocuous political statement--and it is not clear that the child wasn't into it and didn't just get nervous talking to a madwoman.  A case where the only damage that could possibly accrue is talking to a stranger.  I mean, not since the Holocaust, right?

Words have connotations.  Framing everything as an abomination is unnecessary.  And, beyond that, it devalues words to use them irresponsibly.

And no, it's not classy.  But that's about it.

[Razgovory]

Well in 2001, his comment was that his staffers told him to say that they were written by him because voters wouldn't understand that he had a ghostwriter who did them and he wasn't even aware of the content of his newsletters.

There was also though a suggestion that the ghostwriter was actually known supporter/friend/confidant of Ron Paul.

So his excuse is that he was deceptive because he believed his constituents were to stupid to understand him and that he was to lazy to even read his own newsletter?  Not exactly a stellar defense.  And to be honest, I find it bit harder to believe.

[garbon]

I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.

The kid doesn't want to do it and clearly looks pretty unhappy.  I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props - unless they're old enough to want to do it themselves.

I'm not saying it's classy.  All I'm saying is that the use of rather superlative terms like "repugnant" or "shock the conscience"--terms you use to describe America's use of torture in the War on Terror, or a priest fucking a child--is a little extravagant in this case, where, at worst, some mom cajoled her kid into making an innocuous political statement--and it is not clear that the child wasn't into it and didn't just get nervous talking to a madwoman.  A case where the only damage that could possibly accrue is talking to a stranger.  I mean, not since the Holocaust, right?

Words have connotations.  Framing everything as an abomination is unnecessary.  And, beyond that, it devalues words to use them irresponsibly.

And no, it's not classy.  But that's about it.

I'm not framing everything as an abomination. I do think it is awful when people exploit their children. Especially when their efforts make a crazy person look better.

Btw, I've not used repugnant with relation to enhanced interrogation techniques.

[Sheilbh]

Your cowardly abuse of English on the subject is heading to repugnant.

[garbon]

Your cowardly abuse of English on the subject is heading to repugnant.