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

[fhdz]

It's not wise to read Reason articles.  They are unreasonable.

The article you gave linked to that Reason article as proof of its thesis.

In any event, if the Reason article is bad, how is the newsone article good?

[fhdz]

Still that's irrelevant.

Yes it is. You can spin virtually any ideology into something nasty regardless of whether or not that was the initial intent.

[Ideologue]

I sure can.

[Razgovory]

It's not wise to read Reason articles.  They are unreasonable.

The article you gave linked to that Reason article as proof of its thesis.

In any event, if the Reason article is bad, how is the newsone article good?

No, it was about Paul's inconsistency.  The thesis was that there were a bunch racist rants on his newsletter

[Razgovory]

Still that's irrelevant.

Yes it is. You can spin virtually any ideology into something nasty regardless of whether or not that was the initial intent.

Trite.  What is your actual opinion?

[fhdz]

Trite.  What is your actual opinion?

On what - whether or not Ron Paul is a racist? My opinion is that based on the evidence you've given, there is insufficient evidence. My other opinion is that I'm not sure we're getting the most unbiased coverage from a blog with other articles such as "Top 5 Black Assassinations". My other other opinion is that there are lots of things you could ding libertarianism for without having to resort to such patently stupid arguments as "libertarianism is racist and that's why it appeals to white Southerners".

But by all means, be both loony *and* snarky. It's all you've got, and you've gotta use what you've got.

[Razgovory]

So you buy the idea the Ron Paul didn't know what was in his own news letter?  You think that's plausible?

And why is my argument "patently stupid"?

[fhdz]

So you buy the idea the Ron Paul didn't know what was in his own news letter?  You think that's plausible?

What part of "insufficient evidence" is unclear to you? I don't buy anything based on the two sources I've seen so far.

And why is my argument "patently stupid"?

If an evil Karl-Rovey-type guy comes up with a huge list of reasons why libertarianism theoretically would hurt black people and then tries to sell libertarianism to racists based on that list, do you really honestly believe that means libertarianism is racist? Or does it just mean that the guy is a slimey spin-master?

I mean - libertarianism sucks, but not because of anything having to do with race.

[garbon]

I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.

[fhdz]

I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.

That seems reasonable to me.

[Razgovory]

So you buy the idea the Ron Paul didn't know what was in his own news letter?  You think that's plausible?

What part of "insufficient evidence" is unclear to you? I don't buy anything based on the two sources I've seen so far.

And why is my argument "patently stupid"?

If an evil Karl-Rovey-type guy comes up with a huge list of reasons why libertarianism theoretically would hurt black people and then tries to sell libertarianism to racists based on that list, do you really honestly believe that means libertarianism is racist? Or does it just mean that the guy is a slimey spin-master?

I mean - libertarianism sucks, but not because of anything having to do with race.

You don't buy that there were racist screeds in a news letter published by Ron Paul?  Actually, I didn't argue that libertarianism is racist (though some members undoubtedly are), just that  the ideas were used to lure in racist Southerners by portraying it as hurting blacks.  And yeah, it's was done by slimy spin-masters.  Lee Atwater said that's what he was doing when he was doing it.

It does help though, to understand some of the strange inconsistency you find modern Conservatism.  Such the idea that hard working people in Red States are supporting lay-abouts on the coast when in fact It's states like California and New York that pay more in federal taxes then they take out and states like Kentucky that pay less in taxes then they get in federal money.  Where you have conservatives complain about government spending but jealously guard their own subsidies and pork.

[Razgovory]

I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.

That seems reasonable to me.

Why?  You think it's reasonable to not know what you are publishing?  It's not like the guy was a whole publishing house with hundreds of books a month.  Someone throws out a bone and says he might not have written all of the things in his own news letter and so the reasonable conclusion is that not only did he not write any of them, he didn't even know about them!  That is absurd and strains credulity.

[fhdz]

I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.

That seems reasonable to me.

Why?  You think it's reasonable to not know what you are publishing?  It's not like the guy was a whole publishing house with hundreds of books a month.  Someone throws out a bone and says he might not have written all of the things in his own news letter and so the reasonable conclusion is that not only did he not write any of them, he didn't even know about them!  That is absurd and strains credulity.

It seems reasonable to me to *NOT* want a POTUS who is unaware of hateful things being spread in his name.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.

That's hardly the top of the list when it comes to reasons not to vote for Ron Paul.

[Razgovory]

Why is reasonable to think he was unaware?